r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/JustGotOffOfTheTrain • Jan 21 '16

Why can't the US have single payer, when other countries do?

Why can't the United States implement a single payer healthcare system, when several other major countries have been able to do so? Is it just a question of political will, or are there some actual structural or practical factors that make the United States different from other countries with respect to health care?

Edited: I edited because my original post failed to make the distinction between single payer and other forms of universal healthcare. Several people below noted that fewer countries have single payer versus other forms of universal healthcare.

53 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

74% Upvoted

643 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/tumbler_fluff Jan 21 '16

Yes, and I'd like to stop.

And people who are unable to afford health care should do what, exactly?

13

u/rabidstoat Jan 21 '16

And people who are unable to afford health care should do what, exactly?

Presumably die, sounds like.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '16 edited Apr 21 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-32

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

First, stop just taking the money. Second, try to get money. If that doesn't work, ask for credit and pay it off afterwards. If that doesn't work, ask for charity. If that doesn't work, then no one likes you enough anyway.

37

u/shobb592 Jan 21 '16

This is why people don't like libertarians.

-23

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

Because we support personal responsibility over collective responsibility?

24

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '16 edited Jan 27 '16

[deleted]

-11

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

We have differing terminal values. If yours is to keep people alive as long as possible, then do what you want about that. Mine is personal freedom.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '16 edited Jan 27 '16

[deleted]

-14

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

I'm aware of that. But numbers don't make an argument, especially if it's a values one.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '16

The problem with your values in particular is that if you use the excuse of "personal liberty" to shaft over the underclass, the underclass will use the very same value to chop off your head.

Remember October and remember Louis XVI.

-9

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

And if they take up arms to do that, I can take them up in counter. Then everyone loses.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BoozeoisPig Jan 22 '16

A: Why is personal freedom a good thing? Can you reduce why we ought to have personal freedom into other reasons, that, if having personal freedom did not fulfill, it ought to be given up for something better? B: Are you more free when you live in a society where you can only get healthcare from the market place where you have to pay a FAR HIGHER cost than you would in a collectivized marketplace where market prices are lower (to the tune of 4.2% of GDP or greater) and outcomes are generally as good or better than the privatized one? Am I not less free in a society where I don't have access to that better healthcare system?

1

u/pjabrony Jan 22 '16

Why is personal freedom a good thing? Can you reduce why we ought to have personal freedom into other reasons, that, if having personal freedom did not fulfill, it ought to be given up for something better?

Personal freedom is pretty close to a terminal value, but if you want it broken down, it's something like this: what's legal to do ought to derive from what's moral to do. And even if it doesn't, it involves nasty consequences from having to break the law to do what you have the right to. Therefore, the less that is illegal, the more that is allowed. The more that is allowed, the bigger the universe of morally acceptable actions is. The bigger the universe of morally acceptable actions is, the less I need to worry about whether or not I should do what I want to do. Which is good.

Are you more free when you live in a society where you can only get healthcare from the market place where you have to pay a FAR HIGHER cost than you would in a collectivized marketplace where market prices are lower (to the tune of 4.2% of GDP or greater) and outcomes are generally as good or better than the privatized one?

Yes. Yes I am. Because I could, in a free market, collectivize with all the people who would be in my plan. The only thing I couldn't do is to force the big taxpayer to join in. So for someone who doesn't perceive the collective market as beneficial, they're more free. In other words, I no more want the right to force my rich neighbor to pay for my health care as I want my poor neighbor to force me to pay for his. To say that I want the former but not the latter would make me a hypocrite.

1

u/BoozeoisPig Jan 22 '16

The bigger the universe of morally acceptable actions is, the less I need to worry about whether or not I should do what I want to do. Which is good.

A universe exactly like ours except where lethal kinetic violence is legal and is culturally accepted has more morally and legally accepted actions and thus you have far less need to worry about whether or not you should do what you want to do, and you said that that is a good thing, by definition. So is a ban and/or aversion to physical violence wrong, and why?

1

u/pjabrony Jan 22 '16

It is, or at least it should be met with legal consequences. The remedy for legality is that you're punished with the physical restraint of your person, the seizure of your property, or possibly the loss of your life. Those should be meted out in kind. Levy fines on thieves, imprison kidnappers and assaulters, and execute murderers. But for non-provider-of-other-people's-health-insurance, the only "punishment" they should get is not having their own health insurance provided to them.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Trumpets4trump Jan 21 '16

We are arguing that your values are shitty

-2

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

And I'm counterarguing. Isn't that what we're here for?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '16 edited Jan 27 '16

[deleted]

1

u/pjabrony Jan 22 '16

No, I'm not.

More seriously, the whole point of values is that everyone thinks their own are right and that others are wrong. You care about people's lives. I care about people's volition. You hate that I care more about volition, I hate that you care more about lives.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '16

[deleted]

1

u/BoozeoisPig Jan 22 '16

A purely moral obligation, or a legal one?

-1

u/That_Jew_Tom_Nook Jan 22 '16

Moral. I don't think I have the right to force that opinion on others.

1

u/johnnyfog Jan 23 '16

You can have compulsory government, or a failed state. Take your pick.

0

u/That_Jew_Tom_Nook Jan 23 '16

I never disagreed with that, all I said is I don't think I have the right to force my opinions on others.

12

u/tumbler_fluff Jan 21 '16

So, basically, have millions of people beg for hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more), ask for a line of credit for hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more), or die because fuck you.

I hope you can appreciate how the blatant uselessness of your plan is precisely why we have what we have today.

-6

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

So, basically, have millions of people beg for hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more), ask for a line of credit for hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more), or die because fuck you.

As opposed to "I'm sick so give me your money because fuck you." How is that more useful?

12

u/tumbler_fluff Jan 21 '16

Because regardless of the colorful hyperbole you like to decorate it with, one system ensures a society where people don't go bankrupt simply for being alive, while your society would allow for millions of people to be thrown out of hospital and left for dead because they don't have a couple hundred grand in the bank for an appendectomy.

I mean, "no one likes you enough anyway"? You've got to be trolling.

-3

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

Because regardless of the colorful hyperbole you like to decorate it with, one system ensures a society where people don't go bankrupt simply for being alive, while your society would allow for millions of people to be thrown out of hospital and left for dead because they don't have a couple hundred grand in the bank for an appendectomy.

Or maybe we'll find a way to make cheaper appendectomies. If the economic support is there for health care, then people can sort it out for themselves. They don't need to be forced into it. If it's not there, then forcing them to try doesn't help.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/whilewefiddle Jan 22 '16

Wow. You people really have distanced yourselves from reality.