3 ms·
> One of the most important things, which I doubt is in dispute, is access to healthcare. One dispute seems to be over the meaning of the word "access". Some
by gknoy 10y ago
> One of the most important things, which I doubt is in dispute, is access to healthcare.
One dispute seems to be over the meaning of the word "access". Some people, like my Libertarian friend, feel that "access" is satisfied if you have the freedom to choose your provider (or none at all) -- but god help you if you don't have any money, because no one should be taxed to pay for others' health care. For many, taxation is viewed as state-enforced theft. (I'm not sure how to argue against that viewpoint.)
Others (like Senator Sanders) believe that "access" means "you can get it" -- and include the ability to afford it in that metric. This is why some people in our country argue that we Should Be making sure that people _get_ their medical costs subsidized by taxes. While it's a tax on all of us, the costs end up being lower, and you don't end up people forgoing routine preventative care because they feel they can't afford it, simply because the chance of them having something catastrophically bad is low.
Many that oppose this point to anecdotes of people who needed Serious Help and could not get to it in time, or flew to the US to get it, rather than in their home country.
The last time I participated in a discussion about this, the best system seemed to be Australian. I'm likely oversimplifying, but basically everyone paid into a national system that covered basic things and normal socialized care, and you also had the freedom to have additional insurance that would cover the things that the national system might not be inclined to give you for various reasons. I liked this idea because it meant that poor people and children all had basic care, and anyone who cared about their freedom to choose their doctors / treatments could do so (at a price). The net price still sounded like it was less than what I pay for my family here in the US for medical care.
- branchless 10y agoFirst up: I'm using the non-muddled version of access. Libetarians might say you can access it but they would also want full death tax, free access to land and a money system based on fair issuance of debt, meaning that people had a fighting chance of affording said care. The US is a crazy cult for "capitalism" and "free" markets. The problem I have is the absolutism about it. Markets can solve everything. This is the USA position. They force other countries to change to it via the IMF, not content with messing up their own country. Yet even on a very simple system to model, sports, they have a socialist model. You finish bottom you get the first draft pick. Because when reasoning about a small group of teams it's patently obvious that if you give all the TV rights to the top team, all the draft picks to the top team, you end up with a total mess.
- Frondo 10y agoYou can tell them that taxation isn't theft because taxation is legal and democratically decided, and theft is not legal. They will probably argue back, "in both cases you're taking something by force," but there are lots of pairs of things that share some traits but not others. Sharing a trait does not make the two things the same thing (i.e. prison vs kidnapping, again, one is legal and one is not).
- falsedan 10y ago> the best system seemed to be Australian Insurance-wise, sure. The single-payer guaranteed basic medical care + private top-ups for faster access/non-medicare-covered procedures offers a lot of flexibility! But I think single-payer only is better (singe the single payer has a gigantic position to use when negotiating prices with pharma companies, medical associations, & hospital administrations). The French system is single-payer guaranteed (up to a percentage) + optional insurance to cover the remainder. > An important element of the French insurance system is solidarity: the more ill a person becomes, the less they pay. nice