Against Universal healthcare, why ?

[otago]

To those Americans who are against universal health care a question, why are you against it ?

To those who answer, have you lived in a country with universal health care ?
Do you believe your employer should be obligated to cover you and your family for health care needs ?
If yes, why, what labour does your employer get from your children ?, or is socialism OK if a employer pays ?

Is bankruptcy for so many a benefit of your current system ?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I had thought of starting a thread like this. The only justification you'll get is that it's wrong to steal rich people's rightfully earned money and use it to pay for some poor people's medical bills. After all, they're poor, and all the poor do is abuse the system anyway. Throw in some other Social Darwinist stuff, and you have the general argument against it. It's piss-poor, but that's what they'll say.

 

[Nylan]

Actually, the main argument I've heard is inefficiency. Whether or not it has any merit...

 

[Mowque]

Actually, the main argument I've heard is inefficiency. Whether or not it has any merit...

Same here, that is the one i hear most often. That if we go 'government' owned, quality will go down.

 

[Fifty]

1) universal healthcare is communism/socialism/liberal/[insert your favorite political term of abuse]
2) its inefficient! my wife will have to wait 15mins in line to get her botox.
3) the only people who dont have healthcare are lazy and deserve to die

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actually, the main argument I've heard is inefficiency. Whether or not it has any merit...

I've heard this too, but I don't see why, assuming present health care companies are nationalized, there would be comparatively more people involved in the process; if anything, the ability to remove parallel positions would decrease the number of people working for the system.

 

[Traitorfish]

I live in the UK, and our universal healthcare is far from ideal. However, this is not the fault of the concept, but rather the implementation, and, despite it's flaws, it's still a decent system.

Opposition largely comes from those wealthy enough to comfortably afford insurance/private healthcare, or from die-hard capitalists who would break their own legs if they thought that it would undermine the left.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Same here, that is the one i hear most often. That if we go 'government' owned, quality will go down.

The efficiency crap is rhetoric laden BS. Medicare in particular is incredibly efficient, spending a tiny percentage of its funding on administrative vs. HMO's and insurance companies that spend boatloads. There may be some fields where government genuinely is inefficient compared to private industry, but I'm not gonna accept it on faith simply because the Right keeps on saying it all the time.

Further, just about every other modern nation spends LESS than we do per capita on health care and somehow manage to provide universal healthcare to their entire population. Several nations, Britain amongst them, spend ONE HALF of what we spend per capita...they've got universal too. Us? Tens of millions uninsured, tens of millions more underinsured.

Inefficient is ignoring a nagging concern because you don't have healthcare or don't want to pay the co-pay for a dr's visit and not getting it checked out til it becomes inoperable cancer. Inefficient is productive and gainfully employed citizens defaulting on their cars, loans, and mortgages because medical bills pile up over an unexpected illness or injury. Inefficient is 5 million in damages instead of 1 million because you have to pay for life time medical care to the maimed plaintiff. Inefficient is medical problems getting worse due to the stress over the damned medical bills. Inefficient is choosing between food, cloths, car/house payments or medical bills. Inefficient is taking on a crap paying second job simply because it provides medical benefits and working yourself into an early grave with the 16 hour days.

Inefficient is paying twice as much per person for healthcare that doesn't cover 30+ million people.

 

[Bill3000]

...didn't we have the exact same thread with the exact same title made by the exact same person?

 

[mangxema]

Eh... I just don't see a nationwide system working here... state-wide, maybe, but not national.

 

[capslock]

Because I'm fine with the current system and have no need/want for "free" healthcare from the gov?

Forget the big picture, based on my own personal situation, I don't want/need it and will vote against it when I can.


edit: ironically, I currently receive free healthcare from the gov, lol

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Because I'm fine with the current system and have no need/want for "free" healthcare from the gov?

Forget the big picture, based on my own personal situation, I don't want/need it and will vote against it when I can.

Your homework for the night:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

 

[Bill3000]

Because I'm fine with the current system and have no need/want for "free" healthcare from the gov?

...

edit: ironically, I currently receive free healthcare from the gov, lol

...
...

that's ironic?

 

[capslock]

Because the only real altruism is gov sponsored altruism, right?

There couldn't possibly be other ways to help the poor....


And its not selfish to vote for candidates that promise me free stuff, is it?

 

[Mowque]

Because the only real altruism is gov sponsored altruism, right?

There couldn't possibly be other ways to help the poor....

well, you think they'll pass a new law banning other forms of charities?

 

[Bill3000]

Because the only real altruism is gov sponsored altruism, right?

There couldn't possibly be other ways to help the poor....

It's the most effective way to bring healthcare to poor people, yes. Voluntary charity does not cut it. Voluntary charity doesn't even cut a cure for malaria, much less individual care for every poor person.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I don't believe in positive rights.


I think that the current system is unconstitutional, and that more government involvement towards universal health care would be even more unconstitutional. (I'm not particularly opposed to a constitutional amendment to change that though.)



I prefer the lower upkeep Protect the Meek civic to Public Healers (in FfH)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Because the only real altruism is gov sponsored altruism, right?

There couldn't possibly be other ways to help the poor....

No, it's simply the most effective one.

 

[capslock]

No, it's simply the most effective one.

So why insult me by telling me to look up altruism?

I didn't call you a selfish mother __ for wanting free stuff from the gov. I didn't suggest you look up self reliance in the dictionary.

My reason is perfectly acceptable reason. I don't want free stuff from you, I'll take care of myself. i'll expect you to do the same. HOw I choose to help those who can't is my business.

 

[Labtec600]

I had thought of starting a thread like this. The only justification you'll get is that it's wrong to steal rich people's rightfully earned money and use it to pay for some poor people's medical bills. After all, they're poor, and all the poor do is abuse the system anyway. Throw in some other Social Darwinist stuff, and you have the general argument against it. It's piss-poor, but that's what they'll say.

How about government is already big enough and feeding billions or trillions more to it will only make it larger?

It also wont be only "rich" peoples money either. If you're going to supply healthcare to everyone in the country, you will have to tax more than just the rich and corporations.