Against Universal healthcare, why ?

[Defiant47]

The only reason I see against universal healthcare is that of socialism: why should my hard-earned taxpayer dollars go to other people's healthcare.

Of course, this is disgustingly contemptible. If you're so selfish about your money that you would not be willing to part with it for the health and livelihood of others, then there's nothing to be done about you.

 

[capslock]

Of course, there is nothing disgusting or selfish about voting for candidates that promise you other people's money.

 

[Bill3000]

Of course, there is nothing disgusting or selfish about voting for candidates that promise you other people's money.

It's not even remotely the same. One is a moral imperative. The other is just desiring basic needs.

 

[Mowque]

Of course, there is nothing disgusting or selfish about voting for candidates that promise you other people's money.

If you can't afford healthcare? Man, you must really hate the idea of people getting healthcare/medicine...poor people deserve to be poor?

 

[Defiant47]

Of course, there is nothing disgusting or selfish about voting for candidates that promise you other people's money.

So then other people have a right to let poor people die so that they can keep their money?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

That you purposefully vote against that measure indicates that you do care.

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

1) it's money that would otherwise be going to insurance and healthcare companies to begin with, it's simply a matter of who it's going to, and with what capacity they can help people using that money.

2) it would cost us less money per capita than we pay to private companies to do the job.

3) why is the government being larger inherently a bad thing, as you so imply?

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.

Yes, but it's the rich who will whine about it. Naturally everyone will pay into it, since everyone will reap the benefits.

The only reason I see against universal healthcare is that of socialism: why should my hard-earned taxpayer dollars go to other people's healthcare.

Of course, this is disgustingly contemptible. If you're so selfish about your money that you would not be willing to part with it for the health and livelihood of others, then there's nothing to be done about you.

The natural argument against this is that the money of the rich is not earned by them alone; the environment in which they make their money, and by people working hard for much less money, are what allowed it to happen. We are thus obligated to repay that debt by bettering the community with the wealth it has allowed us to amass, and make better the lives of the people we have to thank for that wealth. When people do not do that willingly, it must be institutionalized, and thus forced.

 

[BasketCase]

I live in the UK, and our universal healthcare is far from ideal.

That's why I have a problem with UHC: because I've SEEN it in action. Not pretty. I'm not rich, but if and when I land in a hospital, I'm gonna pay the extra bucks to get a doctor who actually knows what he's doing.

But there's another reason (and since I love to bust peoples' bubbles--Cheezy, you were flat-out wrong), and here it is: UHC cannot exist in a free nation. It can only exist in dictatorships:

Opposition largely comes from those wealthy enough to comfortably afford insurance/private healthcare

In a free state, the citizens get to choose where they go for health care. If you want to go to a private doc instead of a government-sponsored one, that's your choice, and nobody has the right to stop you.


Now, if you're talkin' about simply making health care available to everybody, that's a different story--but one that will never happen in the U.S. until a lot of work is done to weed out scammers. Right now the nation can't afford to provide health care to everybody, and I found out why when I was in that car accident ten years ago. After I got out of the hospital and did some physical therapy to get the atrophied muscles in my broken leg working again, the therapy center charged completely ridiculous fees because they knew it was my insurance and not me that was paying those fees. I'm talking a hundred and fifty bucks for "tensile extension therapy". Sounds fancy, don't it? What was tensile extension therapy?

FIFTEEN MINUTES OF EXERCISE WITH A GODDAMN RUBBER BAND.

The therapy center was scamming the insurance company up the wazoo.


Until you put a stop to that, UHC in the U.S. will never happen. Ever.

 

[Defiant47]

But still, whatever you say, anti-Universal Healthcare means that you'd rather not have the rich pay to preserve the poor's health and life, so that the rich can still keep a small portion of their money.

 

[capslock]

It's not even remotely the same. One is a moral imperative. The other is just desiring basic needs.

People lived for 10k plus years with no universal healthcare. It is not a "basic" need, nor is it a "right."

And there is no moral imperivative that I have to give myself for others. If I chose too, good on me, but there is nothin wrong with takin care of myself so others don't have to. You have no right to dictate my life.

@cheezy

Yes I do care, I never said I didn't. I vote against it because I don't want it. I don't need any other justification. It has nothing to do with altruism or selfishness. But since you seem to think it does, I'll point out the other side of it. if you don't think people vote for free stuff because they are lazy and selfish, then you are out of touch.

Like I said, some people do need help, and how I choose to help is my business, not yours, not the gov's.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

You can tell America is a rich country when regular political discourse involves rich people calling poor people selfish.

 

[Kennigit]

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.

Our government already $2868 per capita, or 45.1% of expenditure on healthcare, whereas universal healthcare states such as france spend $3050 through the government to account for 79.9% of total expenditure, so our government (meaning the U.S.) already spends the money that other countries do. There need not be new feeding taxes into the government, and our expenditure on universal healthcare is 15.2% of our GDP while France has 11.2%. A universal healthcare system, which provides better results, is actually cheaper.

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha#

I have a powerpoint of some stats (including some relevant countries in that link, but you can fish through), but a .ppt isn't on the list for available file uploads when I look at it.

 

[Dachs]

I've gotten government healthcare all my life; it hasn't been all that terrible, though waiting times are kind of nasty. On the basis of this anecdotal evidence, I say: universal health care can't be all bad. Like a man who hates dogs and babies, as the old Leo Rosten quote goes.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's why I have a problem with UHC: because I've SEEN it in action. Not pretty. I'm not rich, but if and when I land in a hospital, I'm gonna pay the extra bucks to get a doctor who actually knows what he's doing.

But there's another reason (and since I love to bust peoples' bubbles--Cheezy, you were flat-out wrong), and here it is: UHC cannot exist in a free nation. It can only exist in dictatorships:


In a free state, the citizens get to choose where they go for health care. If you want to go to a private doc instead of a government-sponsored one, that's your choice, and nobody has the right to stop you.


Now, if you're talkin' about simply making health care available to everybody, that's a different story--but one that will never happen in the U.S. until a lot of work is done to weed out scammers. Right now the nation can't afford to provide health care to everybody, and I found out why when I was in that car accident ten years ago. After I got out of the hospital and did some physical therapy to get the atrophied muscles in my broken leg working again, the therapy center charged completely ridiculous fees because they knew it was my insurance and not me that was paying those fees. I'm talking a hundred and fifty bucks for "tensile extension therapy". Sounds fancy, don't it? What was tensile extension therapy?

FIFTEEN MINUTES OF EXERCISE WITH A GODDAMN RUBBER BAND.

The therapy center was scamming the insurance company up the wazoo.


Until you put a stop to that, UHC in the U.S. will never happen. Ever.

You might want to tell Scotland, Sweden, Iceland, and France that, among other nations. They'll be quite disappointed to learn that they don't inhabit democracies any more.

 

[BasketCase]

So, when somebody in Scotland, Sweden, Iceland, or France, goes to a doctor who does not participate in the nationalized health care system.....what happens?

 

[Bill3000]

People lived for 10k plus years with no universal healthcare. It is not a "basic" need, nor is it a "right."

Of freaking course health-care is a basic need. Like food, water, or shelter. Otherwise those people will die. I wasn't even calling it a right.

And there is no moral imperivative that I have to give myself for others.

Um. Yes there is. For example, you have a moral obligation to save a person from drowning in a situation where the person is good, and saving them comes at almost no cost or danger to you.

The same thing applies to charity. You have a moral obligation to be charitable to people less fortunate than you. The fact that there are people who refuse to realize this in the US is precisely the reason why welfare et al exists in the first place - because voluntary charity is not enough.

If I chose too, good on me, but there is nothin wrong with takin care of myself so others don't have to.

Of course there's nothing wrong with taking care of yourself. That's what you ought to do. But that has nothing to do with your moral obligation of charity.

You have no right to dictate my life.

You're not either a libertarian or liberal, so you have no right to use that rhetoric. Because you're perfectly fine in dictating the lives of others.

Oh, and speaking of which, you claim to be Catholic, correct? If so, then the Church absolutely has the right to dictate morality to you. And the Church mandates many economically leftist things that you would be shocked by, such as a living wage, rights of unions, environmentalism, and universal healthcare. Oh, and your moral obligation of charity and making sure that the state makes sure that the poor have enough to live on. Don't be halfassed and be merely a social conservative. You need to be a christian democrat at the least in order to be a Catholic.

 

[CCA]

That's why I have a problem with UHC: because I've SEEN it in action. Not pretty. I'm not rich, but if and when I land in a hospital, I'm gonna pay the extra bucks to get a doctor who actually knows what he's doing.

But there's another reason (and since I love to bust peoples' bubbles--Cheezy, you were flat-out wrong), and here it is: UHC cannot exist in a free nation. It can only exist in dictatorships:


In a free state, the citizens get to choose where they go for health care. If you want to go to a private doc instead of a government-sponsored one, that's your choice, and nobody has the right to stop you.


Now, if you're talkin' about simply making health care available to everybody, that's a different story--but one that will never happen in the U.S. until a lot of work is done to weed out scammers. Right now the nation can't afford to provide health care to everybody, and I found out why when I was in that car accident ten years ago. After I got out of the hospital and did some physical therapy to get the atrophied muscles in my broken leg working again, the therapy center charged completely ridiculous fees because they knew it was my insurance and not me that was paying those fees. I'm talking a hundred and fifty bucks for "tensile extension therapy". Sounds fancy, don't it? What was tensile extension therapy?

FIFTEEN MINUTES OF EXERCISE WITH A GODDAMN RUBBER BAND.

The therapy center was scamming the insurance company up the wazoo.


Until you put a stop to that, UHC in the U.S. will never happen. Ever.

Wait?

New Zealand is not a free country?

Run that by me again.

 

[Onionsoilder]

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

Actually, the U.S. healthcare system is the least efficient healthcare system in all 1st and 2nd world countries. For every dollar spent on healthcare in the U.S., around 25 cents goes to administration costs. The average cost of administration in other countries is around 5 cents.

Going by forign models, Great Britian's is my favorite, however I think Japan's healthcare system would fit the U.S. best. In Japan, every single citizen, even the unemployed ones, have health insurance. Despite the fact that employers are required to give you insurance, if you lose your job there, you do not lose your insurance. IF you do nto have an employer, the government provides the insurance.

Also, there is none of this "prefered practitioner" crap in Japan, if a doctor, any doctor in the entire country bills you for medical expenses, the insurance companies have to pay it. It's required by law.

 

[BasketCase]

Wait?

New Zealand is not a free country?

Run that by me again.

Then, CCA, I'll ask you the same question I asked Cheezy: if somebody in New Zealand needs medical care and goes outside the government-sponsored UHC program to get it....what happens?

Tell ya what, I'm not gonna wait for either of you two lazy slowpokes to answer that. I'll take a potshot and assume that in Scotland, Sweden, Iceland, France, and New Zealand, nothing happens to you when you go to an independent doctor. If that's true, then none of these countries actually have universal health care.

The same thing applies to charity. You have a moral obligation to be charitable to people less fortunate than you.

How many homeless people are you sheltering in your house/apartment right now, Bill?

Probably none.

Yeah, yeah, you've probably got a bunch of excuses lined up. Maybe you're still in high school and it's not your house. Doesn't matter--hide some homeless people in your basement and don't let your parents find out, these people don't have a freaking roof over their heads, for God's sake!! I think that's more important than your parents' stupid rules. Or maybe you have your own house and a job, and you donate money to the local homeless shelter. Also doesn't matter. You've got plenty of space in your house that you're not using, and in addition to your donations, you could still shelter a few more needy people.

But you choose not to.

It's the old "Schindler's List" conundrum. No matter how much charity you give, you can always give more--until you give up everything and become a charity case yourself. There is no moral obligation to be charitable to those less fortunate--it's nice if you do, but you're not a bad person if you don't.

 

[capslock]

Of freaking course health-care is a basic need. Like food, water, or shelter. Otherwise those people will die. I wasn't even calling it a right.


Um. Yes there is. For example, you have a moral obligation to save a person from drowning in a situation where the person is good, and saving them comes at almost no cost or danger to you.

The same thing applies to charity. You have a moral obligation to be charitable to people less fortunate than you. The fact that there are people who refuse to realize this in the US is precisely the reason why welfare et al exists in the first place - because voluntary charity is not enough.

I dont need healthcare. I have it just in case. I won't drop dead tommorow if my health care plan runs out.

Thanks to basketcase for handling the moral obligation part.

And providing universal healthcare does come at a cost to me. It costs me my current healthcare plan which I am fairly happy with and worked hard to obtain. It costs me money from people taking advantage of a gov program with endless money because people like you feel like its a basic need. It costs me time having to wait for doctors and treatment should I (or a family member) get sick.

 

[Godwynn]

It costs me time having to wait for doctors and treatment should I (or a family member) get sick.

You are against people getting some form of health care/insurance because you don't want to miss a Carolina Panthers game?