3 ms·

The conclusion of the article is a bit ridiculous. tl;dr healthcare isn't a right because we can only spend a finite amount. Yeah, ok, but that dismisses prio

The conclusion of the article is a bit ridiculous. tl;dr healthcare isn't a right because we can only spend a finite amount. Yeah, ok, but that dismisses priority entirely. Scarcity is still in play, so you treat the immediate needs first. I think we do have capacity in the healthcare system to do it that way. The author of the article basically bucketed a sprained ankle and a stroke in the same category, and concluded, nope, we don't have enough money to treat all that cancer, heart attack, stroke and scrapes and bruises equally, so it can't be a right. I guess, but who's really arguing for the right to get an ace bandage right now? Just because we have to prioritize access doesn't mean healthcare can't be a right. Today we prioritize by medical need and by who can pay. Single payer means everyone can pay, so prioritize by medical need. The right can be subject to objective need.

SilasX 10y ago
I agree the author makes the wrong inferences from the situation, but her points do often go overlooked in the debate: people make a big deal about "omg, someone died because they couldn't afford [more] health care", even though this will always be true, in every system, even the best ones -- you can't save everyone. (Similarly, the rhetoric around "death panels" was toxic made this insight harder to accept.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- SmellTheGlove 10y ago
  Medicine is but one of many areas where you can do everything right, make all of the right decisions, and still end up with the bad outcome. I've never accepted it as a good reason to not try to achieve a goal that I otherwise think to be a good one. The other obvious example is law. Everything can be done correctly and you may be right, but nobody commands the jury. Yet there it is, the 6th Amendment (if you're in the US, that is), with that right to a lawyer in instances where you may be deprived of life or liberty!
- ewzimm 10y ago
  I've had the opposite experience. When talking about the problems of the US health care system compared to national health systems, the number one thing I hear is that ours is much more expensive and achieves worse results. One of the primary motivations behind people who want to nationalize health care is to reduce costs. Everyone is thinking about costs. The comparison to food is misleading. With food, there's an aligned interest. People go to the store and buy your product. If they aren't satisfied, they buy something else. With health care, most people have few choices. They get whatever plan is assigned by their employer or whatever they can afford within their limited market, often one or two possibilities. Then they go to the hospital, often the only one in the area, which in most cases won't tell them how much it will cost to be treated. There's no free market, no choice, no aligned interests. The interests of the insurance companies are aligned against them. People are paid to deny as many claims as possible. It often takes years of legal battles to get anything paid out, even when it's legitimate. Because even preventative care is unpredictably expensive, most people wait to be treated until the problem is most expensive to treat.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    >I've had the opposite experience. When talking about the problems of the US health care system compared to national health systems, the number one thing I hear is that ours is much more expensive and achieves worse results. One of the primary motivations behind people who want to nationalize health care is to reduce costs. Everyone is thinking about costs. Yes, you can reduce costs and get more per dollar invested; it's still a fallacy to believe that one system will eliminate the problem of people dying because someone refuses to throw further resources at them.
    - ewzimm 10y ago
      Basically, the article is a strawman fallacy. It paints national health care supporters as people who think, as you said, that health care as a human right would mean that everybody gets treated no matter how expensive. Nobody thinks that. The goal is to reduce the amount of people who are sick and dying as much as possible. We have data on that in the form of the performance of various systems and their impact on health. The US is still the world's economic superpower, but it's health care system is rated below Dominica and Costa Rica.

SilasX 10y ago

I agree the author makes the wrong inferences from the situation, but her points do often go overlooked in the debate: people make a big deal about "omg, someone died because they couldn't afford [more] health care", even though this will always be true, in every system, even the best ones -- you can't save everyone. (Similarly, the rhetoric around "death panels" was toxic made this insight harder to accept.)

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
SmellTheGlove 10y ago
Medicine is but one of many areas where you can do everything right, make all of the right decisions, and still end up with the bad outcome. I've never accepted it as a good reason to not try to achieve a goal that I otherwise think to be a good one. The other obvious example is law. Everything can be done correctly and you may be right, but nobody commands the jury. Yet there it is, the 6th Amendment (if you're in the US, that is), with that right to a lawyer in instances where you may be deprived of life or liberty!
ewzimm 10y ago
I've had the opposite experience. When talking about the problems of the US health care system compared to national health systems, the number one thing I hear is that ours is much more expensive and achieves worse results. One of the primary motivations behind people who want to nationalize health care is to reduce costs. Everyone is thinking about costs. The comparison to food is misleading. With food, there's an aligned interest. People go to the store and buy your product. If they aren't satisfied, they buy something else. With health care, most people have few choices. They get whatever plan is assigned by their employer or whatever they can afford within their limited market, often one or two possibilities. Then they go to the hospital, often the only one in the area, which in most cases won't tell them how much it will cost to be treated. There's no free market, no choice, no aligned interests. The interests of the insurance companies are aligned against them. People are paid to deny as many claims as possible. It often takes years of legal battles to get anything paid out, even when it's legitimate. Because even preventative care is unpredictably expensive, most people wait to be treated until the problem is most expensive to treat.
- SilasX 10y ago
  >I've had the opposite experience. When talking about the problems of the US health care system compared to national health systems, the number one thing I hear is that ours is much more expensive and achieves worse results. One of the primary motivations behind people who want to nationalize health care is to reduce costs. Everyone is thinking about costs. Yes, you can reduce costs and get more per dollar invested; it's still a fallacy to believe that one system will eliminate the problem of people dying because someone refuses to throw further resources at them.
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    Basically, the article is a strawman fallacy. It paints national health care supporters as people who think, as you said, that health care as a human right would mean that everybody gets treated no matter how expensive. Nobody thinks that. The goal is to reduce the amount of people who are sick and dying as much as possible. We have data on that in the form of the performance of various systems and their impact on health. The US is still the world's economic superpower, but it's health care system is rated below Dominica and Costa Rica.