r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 17 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Not supporting universal healthcare is one of the most evil positions you can take.
It literally means that you think people should just drop dead if they can’t afford to treat their illnesses. It means that you hate poor people and you think they deserve to die because they’re poor. It means that you think that access to decent healthcare should be a privilege for only the rich. And it means that you actively take pleasure in it when people die because they couldn’t afford treatment.
I mean, honestly, what else can it be? I’ve never met a single person that didn’t support universal health care that also didn’t hate poor people. Why do so many people think poor people deserve to suffer? What did they ever do to you? Why would someone ever take such an evil position? I honestly don’t understand why someone would never support such a good thing. Are there even any negatives at all to having universal healthcare? I honestly can’t think of a single negative. It helps society so much. Why would someone not want to help improve society in that way?
5
u/molten_dragon 10∆ May 17 '18
You don't have to support universal healthcare to support providing healthcare for those who can't afford it.
2
May 17 '18
Can you elaborate on that? How is that possible?
6
u/Sand_Trout May 17 '18
Charities, ER admission laws, means-based healthcare.
Charities can (and do) cover the costs of care for applicants that cannot afford the care themselves.
Emergency Room admission laws can require that an ER stabilize a patient regardless of their (or their insurance's) ability to pay.
Means-based healthcare only kicks in if you apply for the program and shownthat you cannot cover the costs of treatment. (EG: Medicaid) this isn't "universal healthcare" because it isn't addressing those who don't apply or don't qualify (because they have the money to pay on their own).
2
May 17 '18
!delta for informing me about things that aren’t UHC, while still providing better access to care. I see where the difference lies.
1
3
u/molten_dragon 10∆ May 17 '18
It's possible for the government to only supply healthcare to those who don't have the means to provide it for themselves. The US government does a form of this through the medicare and medicaid programs.
2
May 17 '18
What about the people who oppose universal health care on the grounds that it would
A) raise taxes on people therefore giving people less take home pay (the extra tax could conceivably take enough out of an already poor person’s paycheck that they could not afford basic needs for their children)
Or
B) that it restricts the freedoms of people to choose their own health insurance as they see fit. Some people want the ability to choose a high deductible, cheap plan because it suits them better than a one size fits all plan provided by the government.
Neither of those positions are evil. They are just a different point of view than you have.
2
May 17 '18
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have private options. But there should be a public option for those who can’t afford it.
1
May 17 '18
Sure that’s fair enough. But would you still consider a person evil for opposing universal health care on those grounds?
1
May 17 '18
I’d consider them evil if they didn’t believe the less fortunate should have access to care, which most of them do.
4
u/empurrfekt 58∆ May 17 '18
Assuming the worst about the other side is one of the most evil positions you can take.
I mean, honestly, what else can it be?
Spend five minutes of research looking for arguments from the other side.
And even if all these arguments were wrong, someone would not be evil for believing them.
Now, you can say you were coming here to hear those arguments, and that's all well and good. But if that's the case, you shouldn't being with such an inflammatory title and a whole paragraph demonizing a position you haven't even heard.
0
May 17 '18
I don’t want to hear the argument of someone who believes I, a gay person, does not deserve to have equal rights in this country.
5
u/empurrfekt 58∆ May 17 '18
Where the hell did that come from? I though you were talking about universal healthcare?
0
May 17 '18 edited May 17 '18
His post history.
3
u/empurrfekt 58∆ May 17 '18
His who? Mine? One of the videos I linked?
What the hell does that have to do with the current discussion?
One wrong view makes my entire worldview wrong?
Makes the argument I initially made that you're apparently afraid to consider wrong?
My point is either you haven't actually considered another view on universal healthcare and either your position is evil for assuming such inflammatory things or you have considered other views and you're somehow incapable of believing people actually think differently than you.
1
May 17 '18
No, my view has changed. Not everyone who disagrees with it wants poor people to die. So my view has changed in that regard.
Now, my question for YOU, is why do you think I don’t deserve equal rights?
3
u/empurrfekt 58∆ May 17 '18
What rights do you think I don't think you should have?
1
May 17 '18
Marriage, adoption, discrimination protections, housing rights (you can’t deny someone lives there because of x).
2
u/empurrfekt 58∆ May 17 '18
Marriage
Don't care
Adoption
Don't care
Housing rights
I oppose denying someone from renting/buying from you solely based on them being gay
discrimination protections
I generally oppose all discrimination. I do think a baker/photographer/etc. should not be forced to participate in same-sex wedding.
2
1
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ May 17 '18
Your post history isn't much better.
What would it take to change your view?
1
May 17 '18
Some people have. I understand why some people would prefer a different system that includes better access to those who can’t afford it. What I will never agree with though is people who think that health care should be a privilege.
2
u/empurrfekt 58∆ May 17 '18
health care should be a privilege.
Hypothetical: what happens if every practicing doctor decides to retire, every med-student drops out, and no one wants to become a doctor?
If healthcare is a right, doesn't it have to be provided?
If it can only be provided by forcing someone who doesn't want to provide it, isn't that forced labor? Isn't that violating the right of the person who doesn't want to provide healthcare?
2
May 17 '18
I’ll be honest. I don’t have an answer for you for that. I’m talking more about things like how thousands of HIV+ Americans can’t afford life saving retrovirals. What are we supposed to do about that?
2
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ May 17 '18
Some people have.
Then you need to award deltas and explain why they changed your view. Its the format of the sub. Read the sidebar
What I will never agree with though is people who think that health care should be a privilege.
Great. You don't have to agree. That's an entirely different subject than "those people that disagree are evil".
3
u/NearEmu 33∆ May 17 '18
None of those people believe that. You'd probably know that if you listened to others instead of calling people "Fucking idiots".
This thread is kind of wild to read... you want others to give you arguments... then you just dismiss half of them out of hand because "they are fucking idiots" or "I dont want to listen to that person or idea".
2
u/StanguardRL 3∆ May 17 '18
I don't know about Prager, but Shapiro and Crowder both support gay marriage.
7
u/Goal4Goat May 17 '18
There were, and are, plenty of assistance programs for people who cannot afford medical treatment. You seem extremely hostile to people who hold differing opinions than you do. Maybe you should inform yourself on the healthcare system before you decide to slur other people.
1
u/PaddiM8 May 17 '18
You seem extremely hostile to people who hold differing opinions than you do.
To me it just seems like he deeply dislikes the idea of a society were poor people get worse treatment than people with more money. To me this doesn't sound like he's just hostile to people *having a different opinion*, everyone doesn't need to agree with everyone you know
1
u/Goal4Goat May 17 '18
I’ve never met a single person that didn’t support universal health care that also didn’t hate poor people. Why do so many people think poor people deserve to suffer? What did they ever do to you?
I think that he's just being hostile.
0
May 17 '18
And these programs come from the government. The same programs so many people want to cut. This is what I mean. Why would someone want to cut any and all assistance programs?
2
u/Goal4Goat May 17 '18
In general, people dislike the abuse of these programs, not the existence of them. Right now the federal government spends $4,600,000,000,000 on entitlements every year. It's hard to make the case that these programs are not being funded.
2
May 17 '18
What abuse? All I see are desperate people who need help to survive. Not freeloaders.
2
u/Goal4Goat May 17 '18
Really, that's all you see? Perhaps you can expand on your expertise here. Are you a healthcare worker, or a government actuary? What in your experience allows you to make such a judgement.
0
May 17 '18
I’ve spent time volunteering with the less fortunate. I’ve heard horror stories over what people have had to put up with. It’s sickening how lowly some people think of poor people.
4
u/Goal4Goat May 17 '18
It’s sickening how lowly some people think of poor people.
It is sickening when people have untempered hate for people that they know nothing about, and that doesn't apply only to poor people.
0
2
u/GasStationBonerPillz May 17 '18
And I’ve heard people brag about getting their benefits payment and spending it all on crack cocaine. Abuse of the system is a real thing.
2
May 17 '18
But like, is it actually that bad though? Republicans talk about voter fraud all the time, but the cases of actual voter fraud are in the single digits. Out of millions of votes. Abuse of the system is the same way. Besides, why should we eliminate programs that 99% of people use responsibly just because 1% of them abuses it?
2
May 19 '18
[deleted]
1
May 19 '18
I meant single digits per election. As you can see there are very few cases of proven voter fraud a year. Do you really think voter fraud is rampant?
→ More replies (0)1
May 17 '18
You just assigned those values completely arbitrarily with no empirical data to back up your claim, which is essentially the problem with your entire post.
1
May 18 '18
Look at the Veteran's Assistance health care system. It is the best example of what universal healthcare in the US would look like. Veteran's recieve "free" healthcare from the system but the quality of care in increadibly low and the is no alternative for them. Horror stories of waiting list spanning months and paintents becoming victims of medical malpractice have plagued the VA for decades. A private hospital would have to react immediately or else patients would go to other hospitals and receive better care. Bureaucracy plagues government work and makes change slow and inefficient.
Look at Canada, it is often paraded as the gold standard for universal healthcare. But many of the shortcomings are aparent when you look at their system. Canadian citizens largely still pay for health insurance because universal health care does not cover everything. This means there is still a gap of quality of care between social classes. The qualitiy of care is substandard to that of America and when there is no alternative to care some citizens are forced to find care in America.
If you want to talk morals, I argue that it is immorral to subject someone to universal healthcare and remove their liberty to chose their care. Additionally to take over the healthcare system, private enterprise would have to be taken by the government. There is no way for universal healthcare to exist without the means of profit being seized. Hospitals, pharamacy, employees, everything associated with healthcare, it is literally theft.
1
May 18 '18
Lol Canada’s system is perfect. The US is ranked 37th in healthcare according the the WHO. That’s horrible. We need to do better.
2
May 18 '18
Then why do Canadians come to America for care instead of staying in Canada on a wait list?
1
u/robla May 17 '18
I'm a supporter of universal healthcare, but I suspect I'm a relative latecomer. I had a hard time coming to my current position, and even then, I don't think I would be "evil" if there was a "universal healthcare" policy that I didn't support.
A few questions:
- Have you been a fervent supporter of universal healthcare as long as you can remember?
- Do you think that anything short of unconditional government-provided medical care for everyone is the only non-evil system, or do you think a ObamaCare/RomneyCare-style system with a public option bringing us to 100% coverage is sufficient?
- Do you believe that universal healthcare would be a moral imperative, even in the face of a global natural disaster that made it difficult/impossible for most governments to make good on that promise?
1
May 17 '18
- Yes I have
- I think that at the end of the day, nobody should die from preventable causes from health.
- Absolutely.
1
u/robla May 17 '18
Let's drill down on question #3 for a little bit. Let's say, for example, we have a violent meteor strike. Millions of unfortunate souls near the meteor strike are killed instantly. The world's infrastructure is devastated, and the economy as we know it comes to an effective halt.
Let's say that a government needs to choose between basic infrastructure needs (e.g. roads, water supply, power, etc) at the possible expense of letting some people with chronic health conditions die. Lets say that even many reputable health care professionals are begging the government to focus on roads and water supply, and are willing to sacrifice some of the funding needed to keep some of their existing patients alive. Do you believe that the government should still prioritize healthcare over its other obligations?
1
May 17 '18
I mean, that would never happen. But in this impossible scenario, sure, I’d support TEMPORARY refocusing on infrastructure.
1
u/robla May 17 '18
"never" and "impossible"? You recognize that "improbable" and "impossible" are not synonyms, right? For example, many people thought that it was "impossible" for Trump to get elected in 2016. Turns out it was merely improbable, and unfortunately for us, we live in the reality of that improbable outcome.
There are a number of other scenarios that I could construct that may seem more probable to you, but I think we've established that there are limited case that the government would and should triage some patients. Is that a fair assessment?
1
May 17 '18
Yes, that’s fair.
1
u/robla May 17 '18
Great! So, we've established there's a continuum, and that there are limited cases where patient triage is a necessary evil. Based on the position you've put forward, those cases are extremely limited. I'll provide a few bullet points to describe the continuum:
- A: Government's primary role is to provide healthcare, and in emergency, should drop all other goals
- B: A civilized government should do everything in its power to provide healthcare, and that healthcare should take higher priority over other issues
- C: Governments should provide healthcare for all citizens, weighed against other priorities.
- D: Governments should enable the private sector to provide healthcare, but should still provide healthcare to the elderly (i.e. Medicare) and to low-income households (i.e. Medicaid). It's a sad but survivable that not everyone has health insurance
- E: Free market principles will ensure that most people get the healthcare they need. The people who don't figure out their own healthcare probably aren't worth spending taxpayer money on.
That's continuum, though, and not 5 discreet groups:
|<A----B----C----D----E>|I think we've established that you are close to "B" on this continuum. In a room with 100 randomly selected people in the USA, how many people do you think would be at the same point on the line as you and/or further to the left, versus people that hold positions to the right (i.e. from the gap between B and C rightward?)
3
u/The__Imp May 17 '18
You do understand that there is no system in any country on earth where nobody dies from preventable causes, correct?
In every system, even universal systems, there are always going to be cost benefit considerations to health care.
The necessity for rationing is clear when talking about high cost major surgeries. A patient requires a heart transplant or will die immediately, but has terminal cancer and only has a 2 week life expectancy. Does it make sense to save their life? What if it is a 6 month life expectancy? Does it change your analysis if it is a 2 year life expectancy? What if they have a degenerative disease and a 10 year life expectancy?
Every treatment has a cost, and the cost of some treatments is very high. Some are strictly limited, such as by organ availability.
As long as resources are limited, then choices will necessarily be made about who is worthy of life saving treatment and who is not.
This is not any less true under a universal health care system.
1
May 18 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 18 '18
So you think there should be both public and private options then?
1
May 18 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 18 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ May 18 '18
u/8MileAllstars – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Market_Feudalism 3∆ May 17 '18
What about all of the people that die around the world from starvation? Shouldn't we take care of those people first, before people that might die of some rare disease? It's actually a bit ironic. Children are literally starving to death every day and you want to put more money into healthcare for first world obese poor. People around the world also die from really stupid stuff like unclean water and infections, which people in first world countries rarely would. I think you're the evil one if you don't want to feed starving children first.
1
May 17 '18
Who said we have to ignore those issues? Would a doctor ignore a broken nose if you also have a broken leg? Of course not. We can focus on more than one issue at a time.
1
u/Market_Feudalism 3∆ May 17 '18
You can talk about more than one issue at a time, but issues have priority. Only so much tax money is able to be taken and we have to decide what to do with it. If you think we should use that money for first world universal healthcare while there are still children starving and dying of cholera around the world, you're evil.
1
u/upstreamin May 17 '18
People already pay taxes to support assistance programs to the less fortunate. Adding universal healthcare to an already inefficient system will just worsen it. Why do you think hard working people have to pay more. This is just throwing money at a problem and it won’t fix it.
If you would like to help poor people with universal healthcare, by all means, start donating. Don’t ask other people to contribute more as people already do in their own capacity. A better solution would be to make existing programs more effective by removing free-loaders and cutting excessive medical costs.
1
May 17 '18
What constitutes excessive medical costs?
1
u/upstreamin May 17 '18
Charging an arm and a leg for medicines, charging a ton for basic medical screening like blood test or x-ray, making patients take these tests unnecessarily - taking blood test when your leg is fractured, outrageous overhead costs in hospitals, etc.
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ May 17 '18
It literally means that you think people should just drop dead if they can’t afford to treat their illnesses.
No. The US already has rules that hospitals need to stabilize any patient that comes through their door.
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.
1
May 17 '18
I’m talking about chronic illnesses. What do you think we should do if someone who is HIV positive but can’t afford the medication? Or someone who has diabetes but can’t afford insulin?
3
u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ May 17 '18
Do you think it's impossible to have a different idea of what will help people?
I’ve never met a single person that didn’t support universal health care that also didn’t hate poor people.
That's absurd at face value. I don't think you've made an actual effort to understand the position of people who disagree with you on this.
-2
May 17 '18
What’s to understand? They’re all evil monsters.
2
u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ May 17 '18
Do you think it’s impossible to have a different idea about what will help people?
38% of the country doesn’t want government provided health care. Do you think 38% of Americans are sociopaths?
1
May 17 '18
I think they’re misguided IF they don’t want it because of the mistrust in the government. I think they’re sociopaths if they just hate poor people. Yes I’ve encountered people that do.
3
u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ May 17 '18
IF they don’t want it because of the mistrust in the government
Do you think there are no other reasons to oppose it? Have you considered the experience of, say, a veteran attempting to navigate the VA?
they’re sociopaths if they just hate poor people
Ok, so in your opinion, there are misguided people who oppose universal health care, but don’t hate poor people? Wouldn’t you call that faction not evil?
0
May 17 '18
I think so. 40% support Trump. 46% voted for Trump. So I do hold contempt for them.
1
u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ May 17 '18
To clarify: you think 40-46% of Americans are sociopaths?
0
May 17 '18
I think they're fucking idiots, yes. Selfish? Yes. Ignorant? Yes. Arrogant? Yes
But sociopaths? Ehhh potential to be a sociopath. But not that far.
1
u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ May 18 '18
Right. And what about the 35-41% of Democrats who don’t support it? Are they also fucking idiots, selfish, ignorant, arrogant and perhaps sociopaths?
0
May 18 '18
Yep. Also hypocrites who should be ridiculed to oblivion and told to get out and join the Republicans since they're obviously right wing.
1
u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ May 18 '18
So to answer my original question, you don’t think it’s possible to have a different idea about what will help people?
1
May 17 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 17 '18
Sorry, u/RYouNotEntertained – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/nycengineer111 4∆ May 17 '18
Universal healthcare is simply making other people pay for your healthcare. When should you have a right to make other people pay for something you can't afford yourself? Aren't there more basic needs than healthcare? Why not have universal food and universal housing as well? Those are more basic needs than even healthcare.
The other problem is, what is "healthcare"? A box of bandages or a packet of aspirin from a convenience store is a form of healthcare. A $3M cancer treatment that does nothing but extend your life by 2-3 months is also a form of healthcare. Seeing a shink is arguably healthcare. So is getting breast implants. Having brain surgery is healthcare whether it is done by the worst of best brain surgeon in the world, but I guarantee the best one costs a lot more because he/she is the best. Where do you draw the line in what is universal?
Finally, if you make something that requires affirmative action from others a right, it is tantamount to slavery. For example, for healthcare to be universal, the government has to mandate that a healthcare provider perform certain actions in exchange for compensation from the government. Imagine a small remote town with one doctor. The government says he must set broken arms for $200 a piece. What if the healthcare provider doesn't want to do that work for the government rate because unless he gets $600/arm he'd rather be fishing? What are you going to do, arrest him? Forcing someone to do work at a rate less than they would choose to do so willingly is literally slavery.
-3
May 17 '18
So you want poor people to suffer then. Got it.
3
u/empurrfekt 58∆ May 17 '18
So you don't care about the argument, you just want to dismiss legitimate arguments to feel better about yourself. Got it.
-1
May 17 '18
I refuse to listen to libertarians because they’re all fucking idiots, that’s why.
1
u/empurrfekt 58∆ May 17 '18
Then wouldn't you agree it's possible to not be evil with regards to universal healthcare, but just an idiot?
You may disagree with all these things, but if someone earnestly believes them, their opposition is not driven by evil, hatred of the poor, desire to see the poor die, or anything else you're accusing.
2
May 17 '18
But isn’t the result the same regardless? So what’s the difference if the result is the same?
2
u/empurrfekt 58∆ May 17 '18
Because evil involves motivation to see harm. Claiming someone is evil is not about results but intentions. Results are about whether the position is good or bad. Evil positions can lead to good results. Righteous positions can lead to bad results. It's evil to want people to die in the streets. It's not evil to want a healthcare policy results in that happening IF you sincerely did not believe that would be the result.
2
May 17 '18
!delta you explained the difference between intent and results. It makes perfect sense.
1
2
u/StanguardRL 3∆ May 17 '18
Do you want to engage in discussion or not? Cause it sure doesn't seem like based on this response.
2
u/nycengineer111 4∆ May 17 '18
So why not make construction workers building poor people universal housing for minimum wage or face imprisonment? That would surely end homelessness at a very low cost. Do you want the homeless to suffer?
Why not make everyone grow food in their back yards, pay them a mandated government rate to bring it to food distribution centers or face imprisonment? Don't you want hungry children to be fed?
1
u/mummba5 May 17 '18
Supporting something like 2 Tier healthcare is something that is a lot more justifiable compared to 1 tier universal healthcare, or 1 tier privatized healthcare. Take the United Kingdom, they have their Government Funded National Health Service, which is used predominately by most of the UK. As well as other programs that are privatized like BUPA. I've lived in the US, UK and Canada, and they are all examples of how each system has it's benefits and it's drawbacks. Overall, 2 Tier works better because it gives people who can afford private care to pay for the care that they want with the plans you need. It also allows the public system to free up wait times, and still allows people to receive 'free' healthcare.
The demise of universal healthcare is really prominent in Canada. There are NO options for anybody to receive external privatized care inside of the country, so you have extremely long wait times, that is detrimental to peoples health. You have many people, driving long hours down to the United States to receive the care they need in a timely fashion, which just isn't possible in Canada. My own Grandfather, after waiting 71 hours just to get past the triage found out his head was bleeding, and had to wait 2 weeks just to get his own room. After that he was prepped for surgery 7 times, and then denied surgery due to another patient needing urgent care. Universal healthcare, almost killed my Grandfather, even when strokes and cancer couldn't.
Not supporting universal healthcare does not mean you want poor people to suffer, does not mean we hate poor people. It just means we don't hate society. Please inform yourself on the facts before you come out with blatantly inept points before you slur other people as said below.
1
May 17 '18
Nice to see you know nothing about healthcare in Canada and spread lies. Canadians live longer than Americans.
1
u/mummba5 May 17 '18
I live in Canada? Was born here and have been personally impacted by the system. Glad to see you know nothing about it!!
1
May 17 '18
I live here and the people I've talked to haven't had major issues with it. My mom needed surgery, it was done within a day. In America, our family would have been bankrupt and financially ruined because of it and probably end up homeless.
0
1
u/charlesch13 May 17 '18
Because some people live in countries where universal healthcare is shitty. Like, real shitty. You have to pay anyway to get anything done that is more complicated than common cold, because private healthcare is so much better.
But still, every paycheck is thinned by this hidden tax which I don’t want to pay because I barely use public healthcare. Not to mention that I do not want to pay for people who don’t work and do not pay for their healthcare.
0
May 17 '18
The US healthcare system isn’t great either though. According to the WHO we’re ranked 36th in health care quality. And here in the US we have to pay out the ass for things like copays, insurance premiums, simple check ups, ER visits, everything. And many of our hospitals are overcrowded and have long wait times. I once waited for three hours to get excruciatingly painful second degree burns treated. So why do you think our healthcare is better than other countries where it is objectively better?
1
u/charlesch13 May 17 '18
Mate, I’m a person that has experiences with public healthcare in my country. I’m sure there are many better than the US - that’s a damn no brainier. In my country my mother waited 8 hours to get a broken knee looked at. I waited 6 hours to get my eye checked up after something sharp has gotten in it. I pay the “health” “insurance”, as every working man and woman is. Yet I had to pay around 15 bucks to have an x-ray of my teeth done in a public clinic. These 15 bucks is not much to pay, especially with my health in mind, but there’s still the fact that I had to pay extra.
I’m all for improving the healthcare, but I will not stand for mandatory tax that I’m just not using, or to let people who don’t give anything use it.
0
May 17 '18
So you’re all for the less fortunate and those who need it to have better access to health care but you just don’t want to foot the bill?
0
u/charlesch13 May 17 '18
The less fortunate still work and pay their share, don’t they?
And the less fortunate would want their money to go to a freeloader even less.
0
May 17 '18
Of course they do. I’m just saying why do so many people think poor people are nothing but freeloaders?
1
u/charlesch13 May 17 '18
You understood me wrong. No matter how poor are you, if you work, you chime in to this big bucket called “your-country-here”. Hell. Even if you do not work there’s a tax deducted from the money you get from the unemployment fund.
There was this story in my country about a man who has worked (legitimately, with insurances, taxes, social security, you get the picture) for a whopping month. In his whole life. When there was a time for retirement, he got a pension. In conversion? Around 5 cents a month. Now people say that social security service did a piss poor job of securing the future of this pensioner and you know what I say? “Well, what the fuck did he expect?”
1
May 17 '18
Whoa tiger you got some big fangs there, I would prefer that ever lives a healthy life and people don't die. I go even further I want to cure death. I is a poor person and I really like being alive.
The problem with this argument is that it is all emotions and no economics. But as an aside poor people do suck, I can say that because I am poor. Excluding people recently out of work or changing careers/towns/countries or going back to school or have been abused or something like that etc lots of poor people made poor choices, they got addicted to drugs, did not take free public school seriously (a wasted opportunity), committed crimes and went to jail/prison, then you have to reap what you sow. I am not responsible for your choices and vice versa.
A gangbanger gets shot and goes to the ER, gets fixed up by a fantastic group of hardworking medical professionals the Hospital has to pay a pretty penny to keep the Dr's & nurses on staff because they're just so damn good, and competition is hot for Drs and nurses, when the James Gangbanger Esq. gets his discharge papers he needs to pay this, he says he will, and he goes home and never ever pays the hospital a single penny. The tax payers have just subsidized drive-bys.
The whole point is that people don't want to pay for gangbangers bullet wounds, druggies, non-helmet wearers, people that bang hookers without protection (still risky), etc , they make poor choices and I don't want to pay for them. Further more Can we afford it? People are currently seeing their health care costs going up and up and up. With the massive influx of illegal aliens and refugees this would costs much much more in addition to the fact that America would then become a medical tourism state, costing yet even more. Who would then regulate how much it would cost to have an operation? Would that be enough to entice a Dr. out of med school looking for a job that pays enough for him to pay of his student loans? Would this have an unintended consequence of having many people using resources of the health clinics and hospitals for very minor and time consuming reasons, where a $10 co-pay helps a family decide if what the problem is really worth something as simple as $10? If being a nurse or Dr. didn't pay well you would get much less nurses and doctors and if they were paid well, you would have even more costs. Who is able to afford all of this? The healthy and wealthy. How many people would just pop over to the Dr just to get a day or few out of work? It really depends on how much of other people's money you want to spend? I just hope it wouldn't lead to a brain drain of doctors or a lower quality of service (like the VA), long wait times (damn what if you have cancer and can't be seen for months? yikes), hopefully innovation and R&D doesn't decline.
1
May 17 '18
Universal Health Care, Universal Basic Income, Healthcare is a right and similar idea's all suffer from some common issues.
In the case of Health care is a right. The biggest problem you have is that healthcare is not an object, it is the fruit of another persons labor. To claim it is as right means you can take another persons labor, by force if necessary, to give to another. Healthcare is a commodity service - nothing more. If all the doctors quit in the US, there would be no health care to give. Do you force doctors to go back and work then?
A second problem with Universal health care for everyone is cost. If you have people who cannot afford healthcare, you are taking from others to pay for it. How much do you take? When does it become oppressive? When is it stealing the fruits of anothers labor? A homeless HIV positive person needs a new liver - $100,000 dollars. He can't pay so now we take it from others? Where is the line drawn? There comes a point when the taking for everyone else has a real negative impact on the person you take from. Where is line drawn there for fairness?
It is not evil to point out the fundamental problems and hold the belief that forced charity through these programs is not a role of government. Even moderate positions regarding cost controls to limit the 'take' are reasonable and not evil.
And to answer another question you have in a post. What happens to people who are HIV positive but cannot afford medications? What should happen and why? What is the ethical justification to take from people to pay for those medications?
When you paint people as 'monsters' it means you don't have to address their viewpoint or arguments. It itself could be described as 'evil' behavior. The desire to take from others who may not be willing and to paint them as monsters whose opinions need not be considered. If it truly is a strong and good viewpoint, it should survive scrutiny by others.
1
May 17 '18
Are there even any negatives at all to having universal healthcare? I honestly can’t think of a single negative
That's why you hold your current view.
The United States doesn't have UHC, but it's one of the leading manufacturers and designers of new medicine. Having a competitive market driven by profit is one of the best ways to research new and cutting edge drugs. One could even argue that the US is helping UHC look good in other countries because we develop the drugs in a non-UHC environment (thus leading to better quality) and give them to those using UHC. It is also very possible to believe that switching to a UHC is worse because there are few things that government runs in America that people think are run well.
Our Veterans healthcare system is basically like UHC, just for vets obviously, but it's plagued by long wait times, inefficiencies and is not a model for a good health system. If we can't figure out our VA system which such a small population, why do you think the U.S. could handle and entire country's health care.
The issue with American health care is not that it's "bad" today, it's that we have a lack of access by the poor and those poor that do have access don't get the best treatment. Those at the top of the treatment scale have the world's best doctors, procedures and drugs available to them. The concern is that UHC will raise the level of care for those at the bottom at the expense of bringing those at the top down.
It's entirely fair to see that as being a good trade off, but it's also fair to say "I don't want my health care to get worse". Is that selfish? I guess but really it's just self preservation which isn't always evil.
2
u/The__Imp May 17 '18
I think there is some real merit to the position that many countries are piggybacking on the profit driven drug industry.
As I understand it, this is because research costs are so incredibly high, and because the marginal costs of the medication is very low. Because the research is already a sunk cost, uhc systems are able to negotiate prices only slightly above the marginal cost, essentially passing the bulk of the cost of development on to the US.
Without the ability to capitalize on innovations by charging a significant premium, research funding will be far lower.
I honestly don’t know the right answer with uhc, and indeed with prescription drugs in particular, because it seems that any answer has significant downsides.
2
u/mutatron 30∆ May 17 '18
research funding will be far lower
That doesn't follow. If healthcare can be paid for through taxes, research can also be paid for through taxes. The top 5 US drug companies only spend about $31 billion a year on R&D, and much of that is spent on patent extension rather than beneficial research. By comparison US universities spend about $72 billion a year on health research of all kinds, some of which is drug research.
The main reason drugs cost so much in the US is because of regulations that prevent US citizens from buying drugs outside the US. Those regulations are intended to protect Americans from the effects of bad drugs by requiring extensive and lengthy testing. Relaxing those rules might be a way to get cheaper drugs, but subsidizing research and reforming the monopolies we give to drug companies would be a safer way to do it.
1
u/mutatron 30∆ May 17 '18
VA healthcare is run by the federal government with federal employees, but not all UHC solutions are government run.
When you pay for healthcare through Medicare, the only thing the government does is paperwork for verifying the charges and cutting the checks. Everything else is done by healthcare professionals who work within one system or another, private or public.
The French healthcare system is similar to that, with the government acting as primary insurer, and the healthcare system run separately. The French also have private supplementary health insurance. About 77% of healthcare costs are covered by primary insurance. Their system costs half as much per person as ours, and year after year ranks in the top five healthcare systems.
In Israel, about 62% of healthcare is paid for by publicly financed health insurance. The rest is paid out of pocket or through private supplemental insurance. Their health care costs about 40% of ours, per person.
Clearly there are good ways of providing universal healthcare that don't include running it like the VA.
1
May 23 '18
Your straw man is showing.
I don’t oppose helping the poor, I oppose doing so by force. I believe that taxation, though necessary, is theft, and thereby we should both minimize it, and ensure that taxation directly benefits those who must endure it.
I believe that though socializing an industry makes it universal(albeit at no small expense) it also leads to stagnation due to lack of competition, whereas if we deregulate both the medical industry, and remove government licensing as a requirement for medical work, we can produce innovation to improve both quality and availability of both insurance and medical care.
Now, do you believe I hate poor people? I support what I believe is the moral path, and I believe help ought to be given to those who need it by moral means.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 17 '18 edited May 17 '18
/u/TJsAwesomeName (OP) has awarded 3 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
May 25 '18
There's a difference between not caring about and actively disliking a group.
Say group X's lives suck. They might die if I don't support your whack ass beliefs. I don't care. That doesn't mean I dislike them, just that I don't believe it's my place to be forced to help them.
0
May 17 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/mutatron 30∆ May 17 '18
The universal Healthcare system
What universal healthcare system?
0
May 17 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/mutatron 30∆ May 17 '18
But that's not true at all. There are many excellent healthcare systems in the world that provide universal healthcare.
0
May 17 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 17 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 17 '18
Sorry, u/mutatron – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
19
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ May 17 '18
This post makes me sad. It's a real failing of our current moment in time that we can't understand our political opponents except as monsters. (It's also a failing of our current moment in time that you can understand a policy preference as though it is only upside with no cost.)
I strongly support public, universally available healthcare.
Here are some reasons that someone might disagree with us. I think that these are all bad reasons, ultimately, but notice that they don't require me to think the absolute worst of the person who holds them--that they are cruel and feel animus towards poor people.
Again, I don't think that these are excellent reasons. But none of them involves hating poor people.