What is the current Republican position on this?

[Minoosh]

What ended? Private charity?

It, like the price, didn't just abruptly end. I see it as being on the same continuum as the rising price.

The 50's, sure. But the 1940's, 1880's, and 1960's as well.

One problem is that medical science/technology can do so much more for people than it could in other eras. A very premature baby, for example, can be saved, and that will run up bills much higher than in the past, when the general outcome was a relatively quick death. Many, many conditions that would previously have brought a swift death are now treatable thanks to medical advances.

Don't rely too much on the assumption that taxes are higher now. To improve your argument, look at the data on this.

 

[Drachasor]

I'm not part of the camp that defines whatever someone wants as a "public good" or "right". Health care, food, entertainment, housing, vacations are not rights that others should pay for because you want them and therefore define them as a "right".

It's a public good, because if you keep everyone (or 95%+) healthy, you get a much bigger benefit than if you just keep a few people healthy. Just like everyone having access to roads benefits everyone (or 95%+) a lot more than just a few people having road access. Education is also like this.

The issue of fairness is another concern that's also very legitimate. Would you argue that the government shouldn't help people/cities recover from disasters? Disease is similarly unfair. As is money for education, etc, etc.

So, I guess the question is, do you think all those things should not be provided by the government, do you just hate health care, or do you have some argument for why health care is different?

 

[Drachasor]

Remember the hospitals and doctors who were burdened with indigent care? They no longer are. This means they are not having to charge so much. Drug costs are a problem that would be a constant. Likely, however, you could make some dent in that cost if you would review the way drugs are approved.

Drugs can be cheaper in a lot of ways. Universal health care makes them much cheaper since the whole government essentially negotiates on behalf of the entire populace for lower drug prices. That's a huge factor.

It certainly doesn't help that companies make modifications to drugs to keep patents, but those modified drugs aren't any more effective than past drugs. Personally, I think drug research is largely done best in the public sector. The profit motive for a company that researches drugs is very different from the best long-term best interests of society in terms of minimizing costs. The private industry, imho, would be most effective at making drugs.

 

[mhaze]

Why of course, expensive procedures that save lives such as quad bypass, should be performed on an equal opportunity basis, equally provided to bums living under the overpass, and to professionals with masters and PhD degrees.

It's just fair.

And we all want to be fair.

And we don't want to be haters.

And if we don't say that health care should be provided by the government, then people are going to call us haters.

"Winning through intimidation" is certainly an interesting strategy in an internet forum.

 

[WildCat]

Why of course, expensive procedures that save lives such as quad bypass, should be performed on an equal opportunity basis, equally provided to bums living under the overpass, and to professionals with masters and PhD degrees.

It's just fair.

And we all want to be fair.

And we don't want to be haters.

And if we don't say that health care should be provided by the government, then people are going to call us haters.

"Winning through intimidation" is certainly an interesting strategy in an internet forum.

I cannot begin to understand the callousness and utter lack of humanity in this post.

frankly, this attitude is just pure evil.

 

[Travis]

Why of course, expensive procedures that save lives such as quad bypass, should be performed on an equal opportunity basis, equally provided to bums living under the overpass, and to professionals with masters and PhD degrees.

It's just fair.

And we all want to be fair.

And we don't want to be haters.

And if we don't say that health care should be provided by the government, then people are going to call us haters.

"Winning through intimidation" is certainly an interesting strategy in an internet forum.

I see............

So what exactly is the mhaze order of medical necessity via socioeconomic standing? Do we save doctors before firefighters? What about chemists? Should a truck driver be saved instead of a taxi driver?

 

[Drachasor]

I see............

So what exactly is the mhaze order of medical necessity via socioeconomic standing? Do we save doctors before firefighters? What about chemists? Should a truck driver be saved instead of a taxi driver?

The real point is his whole argument is a Strawman. It isn't like a hospital has 10 packs of quad bypasses each year to hand out. Society can easily afford to give them to everyone who needs one. When there is a conflict, there are guidelines on how to do triage -- but this is something that comes up in emergency situations and usually doesn't lead to one person dying and another one living.

 

[PGH]

Also I think it's real important to remember that the "Let 'em die" crowd is probably in good health. Let them find themselves with any sort of disease and you'd better believe that even some posters here would suddenly start seeing the good side of dirty, wicked "socialized medicine".

Let 'em die is fine. So long as it's 'em. Let it become "me" or "my loved ones" and all of a sudden healthcare people can actually afford doesn't sound like such a bad idea anymore.

 

[Neally]

ETA: Taxes; I would do this as a flat rate that is added to the income tax and is set separately from the income tax rate.

I'd much prefer it to be a tax on goods, like food. Everyone then shares the cost unless they grow all their own food.

Yeah, but wanting to live is not like wanting a chocolate sundae.

Sorry, but it is. You want someone else to pay for something you want.

The issue of fairness is another concern that's also very legitimate. Would you argue that the government shouldn't help people/cities recover from disasters?

Yes. For the most part living in a well known disaster prone area is a choice people make. You choose to live in a flood zone, don't expect everyone else to keep bailing you out when it floods.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes. For the most part living in a well known disaster prone area is a choice people make. You choose to live in a flood zone, don't expect everyone else to keep bailing you out when it floods.

I sincerely hope no tragedy ever befalls you that is beyond your means from which to fully recover. No one should have to live through such pain and misery, even those who have no compassion for the pain and misery of others.

 

[rustypouch]

I still just don't understand how fiscal conservatives can be against UHC.

I'm Canadian, and I pay less healthcare related taxes than Americans, with no appreciable difference in outcomes. Plus I don't have to pay for insurance, or worry if something isn't covered, or face financial ruin if I get sick or in an accident.

Are there seriously people out there who would rather pay much more, and deal with all the hassle involved, just to spite other people or not pay for those who are 'undeserving.'

And as Travis touched on, healthcare doesn't follow free market rules like other industries. The supply/demand relationship just isn't the same.

 

[seayakin]

Why of course, expensive procedures that save lives such as quad bypass, should be performed on an equal opportunity basis, equally provided to bums living under the overpass, and to professionals with masters and PhD degrees.

It's just fair.

And we all want to be fair.

And we don't want to be haters.

And if we don't say that health care should be provided by the government, then people are going to call us haters.

"Winning through intimidation" is certainly an interesting strategy in an internet forum.

This is beyond callousness and smacks of social darwinism and I am flabbergasted by such opinions.

Now, back to the topic. If you don't want government taking specific action to ensure universal coverage in some form it seems to me the following are the basic arguments against it:

• The government should not force people to care for others (This is honest enough but anyone holding this positin should realize that there are a significant number of people who would receive only the most superficial care. As others point out, to truly remove the obligation, you would have to also remove the requirement that hospitals take all comers in the Emergency Room (and probably provide them with some protection from lawsuits)
  
• Private sector services can nearly ensure universal coverage for those who want it so government support is not needed. (I find it highly improbable that this is possible since it really has never happened.)

My question in line with the original OP, if you don't support some sort of government intervention to ensure universal coverage. Are you willing to let a significant percentage of the population go without health care and experience the suffering accordingly?

 

[bikerdruid]

Would that be universal healthcare for Americans?

universal healthcare cannot be left to private, for profit insurance companies.
the american experience proves that.
abysmally far right republican whackos would sooner watch their neighbour die, than have a penny of theirs going towards saving him.

 

[BenBurch]

I'd much prefer it to be a tax on goods, like food. Everyone then shares the cost unless they grow all their own food.
...

Food is a bad choice because it is a survival issue for the poor.

Income tax has been debated since the 1880s in the USA and we always come back to it as the least unfair form of raising revenues and the one that damages those least able to pay the least.

ETA: But if we want to raise a tariff on imported goods, that would be fine with me as it would mean we have left NAFTA and WTO, and would foster domestic manufacturing.

ETA2: If we would legalize marijuana, and slap a tax on it about double the current tax on tobacco, that would also be fine with me. It would raise a LOT of money. And cut law enforcement costs by an amazing amount.

 

[Bri]

Sorry, but it is. You want someone else to pay for something you want.

So should we allow people to die of starvation if they can't afford food through no fault of their own?

-Bri

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Why of course, expensive procedures that save lives such as quad bypass, should be performed on an equal opportunity basis, equally provided to bums living under the overpass, and to professionals with masters and PhD degrees.

It's just fair.

And we all want to be fair.

And we don't want to be haters.

And if we don't say that health care should be provided by the government, then people are going to call us haters.

"Winning through intimidation" is certainly an interesting strategy in an internet forum.

I have seen people with masters and phDs who could not afford their healthcare. I'm a financial counselor at a cancer hospital. Do you know how much something like a stem cell transplant can cost, or Ipilumimab treatment? It is common for cancer care to run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, even into the millions. If your insurance denies treatment your doctor thinks is medically necessary (which happens more than people realize), are you saying only a homeless bum couldn't come up with the 1.5 million out of pocket?

I have also seen formerly upper middle class people, even business owners, who have gone bankrupt due to the out of pocket costs for their treatment or a treatment of a family member. Or maybe they get laid off and lose their health insurance, and can't afford the $1500 out of pocket COBRA payments, or can't get approved for new coverage once COBRA runs out.

Plenty of hard working, even financially well off people are whittled down to nothing when they get really sick.

 

[PGH]

I'd much prefer it to be a tax on goods, like food. Everyone then shares the cost unless they grow all their own food.

Sorry, but it is. You want someone else to pay for something you want.

Yes. For the most part living in a well known disaster prone area is a choice people make. You choose to live in a flood zone, don't expect everyone else to keep bailing you out when it floods.

Not want. Need. People need healthcare. Without it they die. So it's not a want.

And way to slip in an attack on people hit by disasters as well. It being their choice and all. So since people choose to live in disaster areas, please tell me where I can live safe from blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, avalanches, floods, drought, heatwaves, hail, tsunamis and plagues of locusts. Seeing as it's a choice to live in these places...

Or maybe you can stop blaming sick people for getting sick and disaster victims for living on the planet and stop patting yourself on the back because you've been nothing but LUCKY that none of these terrible tragedies has befallen you. Because the day they do you'll be looking for one thing. The kind of help you seek to deny other people.

 

[Neally]

So should we allow people to die of starvation if they can't afford food through no fault of their own?

-Bri

Feel free to give to those in need according you your own conscience, don't force others to do so though.

And way to slip in an attack on people hit by disasters as well. It being their choice and all. So since people choose to live in disaster areas, please tell me where I can live safe from blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, avalanches, floods, drought, heatwaves, hail, tsunamis and plagues of locusts. Seeing as it's a choice to live in these places...

There is risks everywhere of course. Don't expect everyone else to make your life risk free.

Or maybe you can stop blaming sick people for getting sick and disaster victims for living on the planet and stop patting yourself on the back because you've been nothing but LUCKY that none of these terrible tragedies has befallen you. Because the day they do you'll be looking for one thing. The kind of help you seek to deny other people.

Maybe your need is for some remedial reading and comprehension instruction. I'm not against denying help to others. I'm against forcing people to help others.

 

[PGH]

Feel free to give to those in need according you your own conscience, don't force others to do so though.

There is risks everywhere of course. Don't expect everyone else to make your life risk free.

Maybe your need is for some remedial reading and comprehension instruction. I'm not against denying help to others. I'm against forcing people to help others.

Who needs remedial reading?

 

[Drachasor]

Yes. For the most part living in a well known disaster prone area is a choice people make. You choose to live in a flood zone, don't expect everyone else to keep bailing you out when it floods.

So the government should have done NOTHING during and after Hurricane Katrina?

Similarly, how do you feel about roads, the army, and other things that we spend money on and benefit all citizens? Like Healthcare, a widespread roads, overall protection, etc, provide a disproportionately greater benefit when all citizens receive them than when just a subset that can personally pay for their own get them.