5 ms·

One thing people miss about government provided healthcare is that it's easy to be made mandatory. If government provides your health care it's only natural if

One thing people miss about government provided healthcare is that it's easy to be made mandatory. If government provides your health care it's only natural if it directs you to a healthier life to save people's money. I, for one, don't want "doctor's orders" to become actual orders enforced by police.

nothrabannosir 9y ago
Yes, these kind of theoretical arguments are so important and constructive when scores of people are actually in serious trouble today, in the real world. "The police enforcing doctor's orders." Give me a break. I'm all for healthy debate but come on. This is the most inane argument I've ever heard about universal health care, and I've heard quite a few. Sorry for not being more constructive, I just can't see this line of reasoning go anywhere useful.
- pandaman 9y ago
  Theoretical? I've been living in the USSR. It's been very practical there.
  - colde 9y ago
    And perhaps that viewpoint has skewed your outlook somewhat. I haven't seen anything close to that nightmare scenario in Denmark, and indeed the rest of Scandinavia. What comes closest is taxing unhealthy food, which i tend to agree with.
  - gattilorenz 9y ago
    Maybe the fact that it was a dictatorship, not public healthcare, has something to do with that?
    - pandaman 9y ago
      I assure you, there was public healthcare in the USSR and I don't see how it's being a dictatorship has anything to do with the healthcare enforcement? You think people won't vote a representative who will want to establish mandatory rehab for drug users in the USA, for example?
      - AsyncAwait 9y ago
        Ugh, that doesn't normally happen in Western Europe, but if your argument is that you'd rather see thousands of people not receiving healthcare than an odd incident where someone was forced, then I am not sure you have your priorities straight.
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        > You think people won't vote a representative who will want to establish mandatory rehab for drug users in the USA, for example? I don't think people think of that as healthcare but as a sentence for doing something criminal. Just like we lock insane murderers up and force them to undergo psychologicalt treatment (instead of sending them to prison which is often legally dubious if someone is clinically insane) that kind of rehab is basically treatment forced on someone for committing a crime, not some part of a public/universal healthcare program. Separate topic.
        pandaman 9y ago
        Drug use is not a crime in general (there could be some circumstances making it one, I am not a lawyer, but let's take some legal drugs, like alcohol). Rehab is a health institution, people go there voluntarily and on their own dime all the time. In the USSR people suffering from alcoholism (a health condition, addiction to alcohol) were sent to rehab involuntarily. Do you think this is possible only under a dictature and the people of the US won't ever support such a measure? Before you reply, I'd like you to consider that people of the US had banned alcohol in the Constitution at one point, not so far in the past.
        kgene 9y ago
        I lived in the USSR too and I'd seen plenty of drunks on the streets, and people dying from alcoholism but I don't personally recall mass forced rehab incarcerations. This argument against government-funded healthcare focuses on anecdata at best. And not very reliable.
        alkonaut 9y ago
        > In the USSR people suffering from alcoholism (a health condition, addiction to alcohol) were sent to rehab involuntarily. Yes and dissenters were sent to labor camps involuntarily... I don't know why we are talking about a communist dictatorship here when we are discussing what would/can take place in a liberal democracy. The difference between a liberal democracy and a state that isn't, is that all measures that limit personal freedoms (such as mandatory basic education or whatever it might be) is subject to a democratic process. > I'd like you to consider that people of the US had banned alcohol in the Constitution at one point, not so far in the past. I don't consider it impossible that alcohol would be considered illegal in 50 or 100 years in the US. But I do find it very unlikely that some kind of forced treatment would be imposed on someone for an addiction that is not illegal in, in any country that is supposedly a liberal democracy. In fact - I'd probably hesitate to even consider that state a liberal democracy then, and the whole issue disappears (because as I explained above - we are only talking about liberal democracies here, and a US where people are sent to forced rehab without doing something illegal would not be a liberal democracy anymore) So to be very clear: please don't go to the slipperly slope argument to suggest that public and universal healthcare in a democracy somehow ends up in involuntary treatment of law abiding citizens (Again vaccination possibly excepted).
  - crummy 9y ago
    Do the police enforce doctor's orders in the USSR?
alkonaut 9y ago
> If government provides your health care it's only natural if it directs you to a healthier life to save people's money. Yes. And conversely, if you provide MY healthcare (by your taxes) I'm very much concerned about YOUR ability to work and pay taxes, which is effectively the same thing. This is exactly why we have seatbelt laws. Your seatbelt just makes you less of a dead person so you can pay for your healthcare (and mine). And when/if you have an accident it makes you a person with two broken wrists that costs my taxes less than if you were a person with critical injuries - so I'd rather pay for your damages if you wear a seatbelt. See this is also an important point: a high-tax society also requires a sense that tax money is well spent. This means that it can't feel like the money is spent "on someone else", you can't have a feeling among the population that tax money is often wasted, or that it's spent on wars (for example). If money was spent on healthcare for people who didn't want to use seatbelts - I'd be less willing to pay taxes. So my high taxes require these kinds of laws. Still, people are free to eat pizza and beer 24/7 and I still pay for their healthcare - because the alternative would be a too big government involvement in peoples lives. All they can do is tax beer higher, not much more. Now, of course all of these limitations of your freedoms has to be weighed against the value they provide. The cost of people driving around without seatbelts is huge to socitey. The cost for an individual to wear as seatbelt is tiny. So it's a no brainer even in the most liberal societies.
- pandaman 9y ago
  Kinda like that. Except, while you can still refuse to wear seatbelt (pay fine or don't ride in cars or trucks at all) you won't be able to refuse mandatory health care. US already has a history of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Compulsory_sterilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    > you won't be able to refuse mandatory health care. You mean you won't be able to refuse paying for it (that might be the case) or not able to refuse actually receiving the care (no one will force you) The only exception is vaccination possibly, which should be legally required.
vidarh 9y ago
Are there any examples of countries where anything remotely like that exists, despite socialised care?

nothrabannosir 9y ago

Yes, these kind of theoretical arguments are so important and constructive when scores of people are actually in serious trouble today, in the real world. "The police enforcing doctor's orders." Give me a break. I'm all for healthy debate but come on. This is the most inane argument I've ever heard about universal health care, and I've heard quite a few. Sorry for not being more constructive, I just can't see this line of reasoning go anywhere useful.

pandaman 9y ago
Theoretical? I've been living in the USSR. It's been very practical there.
- colde 9y ago
  And perhaps that viewpoint has skewed your outlook somewhat. I haven't seen anything close to that nightmare scenario in Denmark, and indeed the rest of Scandinavia. What comes closest is taxing unhealthy food, which i tend to agree with.
- gattilorenz 9y ago
  Maybe the fact that it was a dictatorship, not public healthcare, has something to do with that?
  - pandaman 9y ago
    I assure you, there was public healthcare in the USSR and I don't see how it's being a dictatorship has anything to do with the healthcare enforcement? You think people won't vote a representative who will want to establish mandatory rehab for drug users in the USA, for example?
    - AsyncAwait 9y ago
      Ugh, that doesn't normally happen in Western Europe, but if your argument is that you'd rather see thousands of people not receiving healthcare than an odd incident where someone was forced, then I am not sure you have your priorities straight.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      > You think people won't vote a representative who will want to establish mandatory rehab for drug users in the USA, for example? I don't think people think of that as healthcare but as a sentence for doing something criminal. Just like we lock insane murderers up and force them to undergo psychologicalt treatment (instead of sending them to prison which is often legally dubious if someone is clinically insane) that kind of rehab is basically treatment forced on someone for committing a crime, not some part of a public/universal healthcare program. Separate topic.
      - pandaman 9y ago
        Drug use is not a crime in general (there could be some circumstances making it one, I am not a lawyer, but let's take some legal drugs, like alcohol). Rehab is a health institution, people go there voluntarily and on their own dime all the time. In the USSR people suffering from alcoholism (a health condition, addiction to alcohol) were sent to rehab involuntarily. Do you think this is possible only under a dictature and the people of the US won't ever support such a measure? Before you reply, I'd like you to consider that people of the US had banned alcohol in the Constitution at one point, not so far in the past.
        kgene 9y ago
        I lived in the USSR too and I'd seen plenty of drunks on the streets, and people dying from alcoholism but I don't personally recall mass forced rehab incarcerations. This argument against government-funded healthcare focuses on anecdata at best. And not very reliable.
        alkonaut 9y ago
        > In the USSR people suffering from alcoholism (a health condition, addiction to alcohol) were sent to rehab involuntarily. Yes and dissenters were sent to labor camps involuntarily... I don't know why we are talking about a communist dictatorship here when we are discussing what would/can take place in a liberal democracy. The difference between a liberal democracy and a state that isn't, is that all measures that limit personal freedoms (such as mandatory basic education or whatever it might be) is subject to a democratic process. > I'd like you to consider that people of the US had banned alcohol in the Constitution at one point, not so far in the past. I don't consider it impossible that alcohol would be considered illegal in 50 or 100 years in the US. But I do find it very unlikely that some kind of forced treatment would be imposed on someone for an addiction that is not illegal in, in any country that is supposedly a liberal democracy. In fact - I'd probably hesitate to even consider that state a liberal democracy then, and the whole issue disappears (because as I explained above - we are only talking about liberal democracies here, and a US where people are sent to forced rehab without doing something illegal would not be a liberal democracy anymore) So to be very clear: please don't go to the slipperly slope argument to suggest that public and universal healthcare in a democracy somehow ends up in involuntary treatment of law abiding citizens (Again vaccination possibly excepted).
- crummy 9y ago
  Do the police enforce doctor's orders in the USSR?

alkonaut 9y ago

> If government provides your health care it's only natural if it directs you to a healthier life to save people's money. Yes. And conversely, if you provide MY healthcare (by your taxes) I'm very much concerned about YOUR ability to work and pay taxes, which is effectively the same thing. This is exactly why we have seatbelt laws. Your seatbelt just makes you less of a dead person so you can pay for your healthcare (and mine). And when/if you have an accident it makes you a person with two broken wrists that costs my taxes less than if you were a person with critical injuries - so I'd rather pay for your damages if you wear a seatbelt. See this is also an important point: a high-tax society also requires a sense that tax money is well spent. This means that it can't feel like the money is spent "on someone else", you can't have a feeling among the population that tax money is often wasted, or that it's spent on wars (for example). If money was spent on healthcare for people who didn't want to use seatbelts - I'd be less willing to pay taxes. So my high taxes require these kinds of laws. Still, people are free to eat pizza and beer 24/7 and I still pay for their healthcare - because the alternative would be a too big government involvement in peoples lives. All they can do is tax beer higher, not much more. Now, of course all of these limitations of your freedoms has to be weighed against the value they provide. The cost of people driving around without seatbelts is huge to socitey. The cost for an individual to wear as seatbelt is tiny. So it's a no brainer even in the most liberal societies.

pandaman 9y ago
Kinda like that. Except, while you can still refuse to wear seatbelt (pay fine or don't ride in cars or trucks at all) you won't be able to refuse mandatory health care. US already has a history of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Compulsory_sterilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
- alkonaut 9y ago
  > you won't be able to refuse mandatory health care. You mean you won't be able to refuse paying for it (that might be the case) or not able to refuse actually receiving the care (no one will force you) The only exception is vaccination possibly, which should be legally required.

vidarh 9y ago

Are there any examples of countries where anything remotely like that exists, despite socialised care?