4 ms·

I would argue that healthcare is not a right. But most of the comments here seems to leave only two choices: all or nothing. Just because someone is against s

I would argue that healthcare is not a right. But most of the comments here seems to leave only two choices: all or nothing. Just because someone is against socialized, universal, or free healthcare does not mean that they want people dying in the street. They just see the argument as a lot more complicated. As crazy as it sounds I think we should do away with health insurance in general. I think that would do more for cost control then any scheme the government could come up with. I do believe that making hospitals publish their prices would be a good start. The first thing I think that would do is bring to light the difference in price between paying in cash versus using insurance. From there we could make arguments why the same service has a 10x to 100x difference in price depending on how or who pays for it.

omegaworks 8y ago
How would you then hedge against unexpected high-cost procedures? Your assumption is that ridding the world of insurance would magically, dramatically lower the cost of every drug and procedure on the market. Not everyone gets cancer, the medical insurance profit model is predicated on a bet that most people won't. The more people in the coverage pool, the less likely you will be paying out for every single person. Socialized care is just the expansion of that model to encompass the entire country's citizen population. What would have been privately-captured profit from people that were healthy members of the pool can instead be used to reduce the premiums paid by all members of the pool.
- eaandkw 8y ago
  I am arguing from the point of view that at current prices very few if anyone would be able to afford a high-cost procedure. When that happens prices would come down. This is partly why a bottle of snake venom antidote in Mexico can cost $100 but in the U.S. costs $10,000. Another example is eye surgery. Originally the procedure was expensive but now it is more affordable because it is not covered by insurance. Comparatively, plastic surgery is relatively affordable because it is not normally covered by insurance. Reducing or eliminating health insurance would also eliminate a lot of the medical administrators that provide zero care but due incur a cost due to their salaries. As far as getting rid of the profit motivation but capturing the profits and giving it to those without health insurance I believe that you would also eliminate any reason to innovate and create new drugs. I will admit that if you got rid of health insurance tomorrow that there would be a lot of short term pain. But I also believe that in the long run people would be better off because they would be able to afford there healthcare. Using a different example look at the cost of college. I believe that we could fix that problem one of two ways. The first way would be to get rid of government loans and grants. The other way would be to allow people to file bankrupcy for student loans. The first way would attack the problem by getting rid of easy money. Because easy money makes things expensive. The second way could work by shifting the risks of the loans from the student to the banks. The problem with this solution would probably make it harder to pay for degrees that don't pay well. To summarize my arguments, cheap money makes things expensive and is destroying almost everything is this country. Edit: added the college example.
kendallpark 8y ago
It's not all or nothing though. Many countries have hybridized private/public healthcare. Examples: - Compulsory basic insurance (private or public) (Switzerland) - Private insurance + equalization pool (Netherlands) - Compulsory HSA + government price fixing (Singapore) - Socialized general coverage + private supplementary coverage (France)
- eaandkw 8y ago
  I don't think it would really work. Each of those countries developed their versions of healthcare based on the needs of the country at that time. It isn't like those countries were identical in size, population, gdp, etc. and then choose their healthcare scheme on a whime. The U.S. would have to design a plan that would work for the U.S. We are so polarized as a society right now we couldn't plan our way out of a paper bag if we needed to without getting into a fight. I will admit that I have not read up on those countries healthcare plan but I think it is a lot more complicated than saying lets copy X countries plan. If you made a big change there would be a lot of second and third order effects that we would have to deal with and we may not like those out comes.
  - neonhomer 8y ago
    Maybe it would make more sense for each state to come up with a plan for healthcare as each one would have different needs.
    - eaandkw 8y ago
      I think it would be better but it still doesn't address the problem of easy money making everything expensive. The other problem I think could come from making each state a "walled garden" so to speak that prevents non-residents from using those services. At least with the states deciding you can vote with your feet. I could see California residents arguing why they should pay for the medical expenses of tourist.
    - drewmol 8y ago
      Having some domain specific knowledge of the financial flow through the industry, I tend to favor a more federated administration model like you suggest. Skeptical of federal level ability and historical competency, I favor outsourcing the initial transition wrt implementation and administration to Switzerland, Netherlands, Singapore, France, etc.
pessimizer 8y ago
> I would argue that healthcare is not a right. I would argue that rights are things that we declare by agreement as a group, not physical objects or measurable qualities. Of course healthcare is not currently a right; we haven't made it one. The question is: "Should healthcare be a right?"
- eaandkw 8y ago
  Now here would be good forum post. But is pretty philosophical. What is the source of rights. If we agree that rights come from the state then we can't really complain when other countries do horrific things to their citizens. We also can't complain if our elected leaders decide that free speech, privacy, or any other pet social issue is removed. I think that we had it mostly right at the founding of this country. Too much could be written about this argument but to me a right can't be provided by someone else's labor. Now that I think about it, a right is also something that can't be taken away. No one should be able to prevent your free speech (1st Amendment), defend yourself (2nd Amendment), or violate your privacy (4th Amendment) without due process. In this case no one is preventing someone from being able to care for themselves. We are just arguing over who pays for it. It is probably a bad example but everyone has the right to use the roads for transportation. We just don't have the right to the car, insurance, and gas. Edit: Added more comments
  - AlexB138 8y ago
    What you're getting at is the difference between Negative Rights and Positive Rights. Negative Rights guarantee inaction, e.g. the government can't suppress your speech or take away your ability to defend yourself. Positive Rights guarantee action, e.g. the government will force someone to provide you healthcare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights You're also touching on the difference between Natural and Legal Rights.
    - rad88 8y ago
      Rights are expectations that you have from a just society. There's no real division into positive and negative rights. Due process, for instance, could be phrased either way but it is the same right nonetheless. One phrasing would emphasize freedom from extralegal persecution, the other would emphasize that all sorts of people (e.g. lawyers, juries, judges) are compelled to provide you certain services. You can't have rights without guaranteeing action. My right not to be tortured requires all sorts of individual and societal interventions in order to fulfill. There's no classification of rights into positive/negative and certainly no difference in validity between the two.

omegaworks 8y ago

How would you then hedge against unexpected high-cost procedures? Your assumption is that ridding the world of insurance would magically, dramatically lower the cost of every drug and procedure on the market. Not everyone gets cancer, the medical insurance profit model is predicated on a bet that most people won't. The more people in the coverage pool, the less likely you will be paying out for every single person. Socialized care is just the expansion of that model to encompass the entire country's citizen population. What would have been privately-captured profit from people that were healthy members of the pool can instead be used to reduce the premiums paid by all members of the pool.

eaandkw 8y ago
I am arguing from the point of view that at current prices very few if anyone would be able to afford a high-cost procedure. When that happens prices would come down. This is partly why a bottle of snake venom antidote in Mexico can cost $100 but in the U.S. costs $10,000. Another example is eye surgery. Originally the procedure was expensive but now it is more affordable because it is not covered by insurance. Comparatively, plastic surgery is relatively affordable because it is not normally covered by insurance. Reducing or eliminating health insurance would also eliminate a lot of the medical administrators that provide zero care but due incur a cost due to their salaries. As far as getting rid of the profit motivation but capturing the profits and giving it to those without health insurance I believe that you would also eliminate any reason to innovate and create new drugs. I will admit that if you got rid of health insurance tomorrow that there would be a lot of short term pain. But I also believe that in the long run people would be better off because they would be able to afford there healthcare. Using a different example look at the cost of college. I believe that we could fix that problem one of two ways. The first way would be to get rid of government loans and grants. The other way would be to allow people to file bankrupcy for student loans. The first way would attack the problem by getting rid of easy money. Because easy money makes things expensive. The second way could work by shifting the risks of the loans from the student to the banks. The problem with this solution would probably make it harder to pay for degrees that don't pay well. To summarize my arguments, cheap money makes things expensive and is destroying almost everything is this country. Edit: added the college example.

kendallpark 8y ago

It's not all or nothing though. Many countries have hybridized private/public healthcare. Examples: - Compulsory basic insurance (private or public) (Switzerland) - Private insurance + equalization pool (Netherlands) - Compulsory HSA + government price fixing (Singapore) - Socialized general coverage + private supplementary coverage (France)

eaandkw 8y ago
I don't think it would really work. Each of those countries developed their versions of healthcare based on the needs of the country at that time. It isn't like those countries were identical in size, population, gdp, etc. and then choose their healthcare scheme on a whime. The U.S. would have to design a plan that would work for the U.S. We are so polarized as a society right now we couldn't plan our way out of a paper bag if we needed to without getting into a fight. I will admit that I have not read up on those countries healthcare plan but I think it is a lot more complicated than saying lets copy X countries plan. If you made a big change there would be a lot of second and third order effects that we would have to deal with and we may not like those out comes.
- neonhomer 8y ago
  Maybe it would make more sense for each state to come up with a plan for healthcare as each one would have different needs.
  - eaandkw 8y ago
    I think it would be better but it still doesn't address the problem of easy money making everything expensive. The other problem I think could come from making each state a "walled garden" so to speak that prevents non-residents from using those services. At least with the states deciding you can vote with your feet. I could see California residents arguing why they should pay for the medical expenses of tourist.
  - drewmol 8y ago
    Having some domain specific knowledge of the financial flow through the industry, I tend to favor a more federated administration model like you suggest. Skeptical of federal level ability and historical competency, I favor outsourcing the initial transition wrt implementation and administration to Switzerland, Netherlands, Singapore, France, etc.

pessimizer 8y ago

> I would argue that healthcare is not a right. I would argue that rights are things that we declare by agreement as a group, not physical objects or measurable qualities. Of course healthcare is not currently a right; we haven't made it one. The question is: "Should healthcare be a right?"

eaandkw 8y ago
Now here would be good forum post. But is pretty philosophical. What is the source of rights. If we agree that rights come from the state then we can't really complain when other countries do horrific things to their citizens. We also can't complain if our elected leaders decide that free speech, privacy, or any other pet social issue is removed. I think that we had it mostly right at the founding of this country. Too much could be written about this argument but to me a right can't be provided by someone else's labor. Now that I think about it, a right is also something that can't be taken away. No one should be able to prevent your free speech (1st Amendment), defend yourself (2nd Amendment), or violate your privacy (4th Amendment) without due process. In this case no one is preventing someone from being able to care for themselves. We are just arguing over who pays for it. It is probably a bad example but everyone has the right to use the roads for transportation. We just don't have the right to the car, insurance, and gas. Edit: Added more comments
- AlexB138 8y ago
  What you're getting at is the difference between Negative Rights and Positive Rights. Negative Rights guarantee inaction, e.g. the government can't suppress your speech or take away your ability to defend yourself. Positive Rights guarantee action, e.g. the government will force someone to provide you healthcare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights You're also touching on the difference between Natural and Legal Rights.
  - rad88 8y ago
    Rights are expectations that you have from a just society. There's no real division into positive and negative rights. Due process, for instance, could be phrased either way but it is the same right nonetheless. One phrasing would emphasize freedom from extralegal persecution, the other would emphasize that all sorts of people (e.g. lawyers, juries, judges) are compelled to provide you certain services. You can't have rights without guaranteeing action. My right not to be tortured requires all sorts of individual and societal interventions in order to fulfill. There's no classification of rights into positive/negative and certainly no difference in validity between the two.