Against Universal healthcare, why ?

[Lay_Lay]

Didn't think of that, but sounds reasonable. Is there an objection?

Why would an Undeserving person receive anything from society? By definition, he is fooling everyone into supporting him, and yet he contributes nothing. The definition of Undeserving implies this.

 

[Masquerouge]

This brings up another point against "universal healthcare".

If the government is your healthcare provider than they can begin telling you what you can and can not put into your body, which they already do but now they have an excuse.

In countries with universal health care, it's actually privately employed doctors who tell you what to put and not put in your body.

The only "push" I've seen from the government is to try to make doctors prescribe more generic drugs instead of the brands, mostly to save money.

And to reply to the topic, the only "valid" reason I've read in all the threads about health care on these forums to be against universal healthcare is the selfish one (why should I pay for other people's health care?).

Economical reasons (it's cheaper) is easily debunked by actually checking worldwide figures, since the US has the most expensive health care in the world.
Health reasons (private is better) are also false, since the quality of care is similar in the US and in countries with universal health care.

 

[Cutlass]

Didn't think of that, but sounds reasonable. Is there an objection?

Why would an Undeserving person receive anything from society? By definition, he is fooling everyone into supporting him, and yet he contributes nothing. The definition of Undeserving implies this.

What is it you are referring to? What "undeserving" person? A modern economy does not provide a job for everyone able and willing to work. There is no significant number of people who just sit home on welfare because they can't be bothered to try to work. Despite the rhetoric, it simply does not happen in any significant numbers. The hardcore unemployed live in the areas where involuntary unemployment is the highest, and do not have the skills or resources to go someplace else. You are talking about such a trivially small number of people that it would cost less to simply include them than it would to identify them.

 

[Lay_Lay]

Any package of universal anything, or safety nets, or welfare, must be carefully considered against the expected volume of cheaters.

I don't doubt that Sweden and Ireland can succeed in this regard, but I know my own country and my own acquaintances, and my own tendencies. You give me something for free, and I will probably work that much less.

My opinion assumes that for everything society provides for free to the public, without having to put forth any effort, overall societal productivity decreases. This is the key point of my argument against universal anything.

I think we have a shtload more cheaters per capita than Sweden.

 

[Sui Generis]

I would rather have a few selfish people get health care for doing nothing then a ton of hard working people get no health insurance or vastly expensive health insurance which cuts severely into income.

For Christ sake, America spends more per capita on health insurance then every single nation in the world... except for the Marshall Islands. And it isn't like America has the best health care system either.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

My opinion assumes that for everything society provides for free to the public, without having to put forth any effort, overall societal productivity decreases. This is the key point of my argument against universal anything.

That's interesting. Do you have any data for that? Change in productivity with change in safety net? Maybe comparing different nations?

Cleo

 

[Cutlass]

Any package of universal anything, or safety nets, or welfare, must be carefully considered against the expected volume of cheaters.

I don't doubt that Sweden and Ireland can succeed in this regard, but I know my own country and my own acquaintances, and my own tendencies. You give me something for free, and I will probably work that much less.

My opinion assumes that for everything society provides for free to the public, without having to put forth any effort, overall societal productivity decreases. This is the key point of my argument against universal anything.

I think we have a shtload more cheaters per capita than Sweden.

That has never been true. Never. There is no evidence that nations in Europe that are more "socialist" than the US have notable less productive people.

Single payer health care would dramatically increase productivity in the US. We are talking about freeing as much as 7% of GDP from pointless bureaucracy and make it available for productive uses.

 

[Lay_Lay]

It is my opinion. The OP asked for it.
Maybe I'm wrong about the stats, but I know a cheater, and I know there are tons of people that would love to loaf around all day and play video games on the govt dole. I'd do it if the price were right. You might too, depends on the price.

I think you guys were saying that basic needs - food, shelter, health care - society need to provide those for me, so I can play Civ all day while you are at work.

 

[Cutlass]

That's interesting. Do you have any data for that? Change in productivity with change in safety net? Maybe comparing different nations?

Cleo

“Why the Welfare State Looks Like a Free Lunch”

 

[Cutlass]

It is my opinion. The OP asked for it.
Maybe I'm wrong about the stats, but I know a cheater, and I know there are tons of people that would love to loaf around all day and play video games on the govt dole. I'd do it if the price were right. You might too, depends on the price.

While you may have a point, the "price is right" is a hell of a lot higher than a person can get on welfare in the US.

 

[Murky]

Universal Health Care is not a "free lunch." It is a system that is paid for by the people for the people.

 

[Cutlass]

Universal Health Care is not a "free lunch." It is a system that is paid for by the people for the people.

It would seem "free" though, because it would be so much cheaper than what we have now.

 

[Lay_Lay]

It's a free lunch to a guy who chooses not to work. You are willing to provide basic human needs - food, shelter, health care - to someone who is Undeserving. Thus, it will (I think, in the USA) create even more people who would choose to live that life, people who would otherwise have been producitve (out of necessity.)

Short run, good. Long run, bad.

 

[Cutlass]

It's a free lunch to a guy who chooses not to work. You are willing to provide basic human needs - food, shelter, health care - to someone who is Undeserving. Thus, it will (I think, in the USA) create even more people who would choose to live that life, people who would otherwise have been producitve (out of necessity.)

Short run, good. Long run, bad.

You are missing the point. 1) Welfare is not that easy to get 2) welfare gives so little money that people are better off working, except when they cannot get health care through work 3) welfare does not provide a disincentive to work 4) welfare does not reduce the growth of the economy in the long run.

 

[Lay_Lay]

I get your points. I'm with that. But I think you'd like to make food, shelter, and health care more accessible and universal.

With health care, you say universal. Food and shelter should be also then imo.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a free lunch to a guy who chooses not to work. You are willing to provide basic human needs - food, shelter, health care - to someone who is Undeserving. Thus, it will (I think, in the USA) create even more people who would choose to live that life, people who would otherwise have been producitve (out of necessity.)

Short run, good. Long run, bad.

Your reasoning looks good, doesn't it? It's a sprinkle of common sense, it's a sprinkle of factoring in 'human nature'. It factors in fairness, too. All told, it's a viable theory.

I'm not knocking the theory, it was well constructed. But reality doesn't support it. Other nations have very successful universal health care. So successful, in fact, that it outperforms the American health care system by any practical metric. And it's not like the US would have to choose the worst of them to emulate, they could pick 'n choose the best stuff. My point is, when a good theory is debunked with good data, it's time to update the theory. Lots of the factors you included are obviously true, but since the hard data from non-American nations debunks the theory, it must be missing some factor.

 

[Cutlass]

I get your points. I'm with that. But I think you'd like to make food, shelter, and health care more accessible and universal.

With health care, you say universal. Food and shelter should be also then imo.

So what's the problem with that? People can have a single room and something to eat and nothing to do, or they can get a job and a better apartment and some furniture and tv and pc. People will know that they are still better off working. The number of people who will scam it is so tiny that it just isn't worth worrying about. Because no matter what else happens, people will always be better off working than on welfare.

 

[luiz]

There are very good arguments against universal healthcare, of economic nature. To say that private healthcare is bad because it supposedely is so in the US is as fallacious as saying that universal healthcare is bad because it doesn't work in Brazil. Those systems may not represent an ideal implementation, you know.

Furthermore, the american "bang for buck" in healthcare is not as bad as it is considered by most. In some regards it is definatly the best healthcare system of the world; in others it is admitedly deficient. I'll expand later.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

It is my opinion. The OP asked for it.
Maybe I'm wrong about the stats, but I know a cheater, and I know there are tons of people that would love to loaf around all day and play video games on the govt dole. I'd do it if the price were right. You might too, depends on the price.

I think you guys were saying that basic needs - food, shelter, health care - society need to provide those for me, so I can play Civ all day while you are at work.

As El_Mac said, it appears that when these plans are implemented, the effects you expect do not come about. Does it make you want to question any of the assumptions underlying your opinion?

Cleo

 

[Labtec600]

I dont understand this "you can keep your private doctor" stuff. If I have raised taxes on me to fund the government program, why am I dishing out more money for my own private doctor?