10 ms·

Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Morally, caring for the sick seems

Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Morally, caring for the sick seems like the right thing to do, but it's like when I hear Bernie Sanders call for "free college education": he doesn't mean free, he means the wealthy subsidizing it for others. Universal health care implies just distributed costs, but the focus should be on bringing down costs so the payments don't have to be so astronomical. For example: -Nurses could do a lot of things doctors do now, and for a lot less money, but MDs refuse to cede any authority. -Medicare should be allowed to negotiate drug prices. -Hospitals should pre-publish costs upfront before you accept care rather than saddle you with 100K in bills later on. All of these things would help bring down cost but for political reasons we don't do them. Instead it's just about making wealthy people (which, for the record, I am not) pay more to cover for it. Even if caring for the sick is just it shouldn't be accomplished just by a wealth transfer (to be fair, the ACA had some provisions to bring down the cost of care, but not nearly enough).

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
> Nurses could do a lot of things doctors do now, and for a lot less money, but MDs refuse to cede any authority Nurse practitioners are actually increasingly common in the American health care system.
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  Yes, and I'd love to see them do more. Like a lot of preventative care. Or obesity -- so many health problems stem from being obese. Surely nurses could help patients develop strategies to eat better and exercise.
pretzel 8y ago
> Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Is it? I would have thought it is the commonwealth looking after the people that make it! Surely for countries with large sovereign wealth funds (especially those derived from the country's natural wealth), it makes sense to care for the people for which it is meant to provide! The whole redistribution lens is a very specific way of looking at things.
DanBC 8y ago
> Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. You might have a point if the US system didn't cost taxpayers more for worse care. The US government pays more per capita for health care than other systems, but doesn't provide universal coverage. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcompareinternationally/2016-11-01 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... Universal coverage provides more levers to control costs.
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  UHC does provide more levers to control costs, sure. But it's not some huge fix to the underlying problem. One example: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/10/health/uk-nhs-universal-health-coverage-crisis-point-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/10/health/uk-nhs-universal-healt...
pm 8y ago
I've seen people take this view, and their view crumble as soon as they get a life-threatening condition and receive (mostly) free healthcare (in Australia). If I'd been born in the US, I'd be dead by now.
seren 8y ago
In countries with "universal healthcare", there is a big incentive from the organization paying the costs of exams to emphasis preventive care because ultimately, they won't run a deficit every year. And usually, it has a big bargaining power because its decide if if will reimburse the medicine or not. See for example : http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/france_agrees_lowest_sovaldi_pricing_in_eu_618661 http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/france_agrees_lowest_soval... Similarly, there is a big incentive to reduce tobacco, alcohol consumption and obesity, because it has a big cost shared by everyone paying to the common fund. So I would say that universal health care has the same incentive to reduce the overall cost, that a multi payer system.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > In countries with "universal healthcare", there is a big incentive from the organization paying the costs of exams to emphasis preventive care because ultimately, they won't run a deficit every year. Does medicare do that? They stand to profit the most out of preventative care.
- ams6110 8y ago
  There isn't really. In this case, the organization paying the cost has the power to confiscate whatever it needs from the citizens to fund its expenses. They are not operating with the financial motivational pressures of a business or even a non-profit organization. All of government is a big cost shared by everyone paying into the common fund. That doesn't seem to have created any incentive at all to control spending. Quite the opposite in fact.
arcticbull 8y ago
There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here to justify that the US spends 2x the next country per capita on health care expenditure and still doesn't manage to pay for all its citizens. Especially when the federal government has already taken all its worst customers (the old) and thrown them into a socialized pool (medicare) without anyone to balance out the risk. Wasn't there a writeup recently that wealth distribution isn't materially distinguishable from luck? [1] Your argument that the healthy/rich subsidize the poor/sick is tantamount to saying the unlucky should fend for themselves. That's an easy argument to make if you're lucky. Your luck may turn at any moment, and then if it does, you're SOL. Further, if the moral argument falls flat for you, the self-centered argument is that if someone is too poor to get their horrifyingly contagious disease treated until its too late and it spreads to you, you're still sick, and you may still die, cover or no cover. It's why the fire department is socialized -- if the fire spreads to your house, it still burns does it not? Especially as you argue you're not particularly well off necessary, you should be the strongest advocate for yourself, and therefore, for socialized medicine. The world is moving there -- at least towards a two-tier system -- and this argument is on the wrong side of history. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-... [EDIT] I also wanted to throw in there the self-centered argument for socialized higher education. If you believe in the value of a college education, then you believe it will increase the productivity of that individual. A more productive individual makes your country more competitive, boosts GDP, moves the markets higher relative to that of other countries. This in turn benefits the wealthy who likely hold equities. Speculative, of course, but the argument seems consistent to me.
- edanm 8y ago
  > There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here to justify that the US spends 2x the next country per capita on health care expenditure and still doesn't manage to pay for all its citizens. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The US does spend a lot more, and doesn't cover everyone. If I understood the parent post, (part of what) it's saying that the US needs to focus on lowering costs, because otherwise, the fact that there is so much spending even now, is going to cause trouble. And more trouble than comparable countries, because the price in the US is so much higher. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with this, or what? Do you assume that if the US covered everyone, it would be cheaper? Would be great if you could clarify :)
KnightOfWords 8y ago
Would you make the same argument against universal education? Spending on healthcare is not zero-sum, the linked article argues that there is good evidence that universal healthcare increases GDP, benefitting the entire economy. "Economists at the World Bank used to call spending on health a “social overhead”, but now they believe that it speeds up growth, says Timothy Evans, one of its senior directors."
skywhopper 8y ago
You make lots of bad assumptions. But if you are going to get all nihilist about it, go all in. Your wealth is predicated on the government that ensures it’s value. Nothing you “own”, including money, is “yours” except by virtue of the laws and under threat of force from whatever relevant powers exist in your locality be they corporate, military, or organized crime. You benefit greatly from the “power transfer” that enables you to keep your wealth. So your assertion that “wealth transfer”—if that’s the petty way you need to think about it—is fundamentally immoral is exceedingly hollow when it’s predicated on the same government that transfers power to you on a regular basis.
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  My wealth? Didn't I just say above I'm not wealthy? Just because the state provides benefits (self-defense, rule of law, etc) doesn't preclude you from ownership rights, not really following your argument there. Taxing one group and providing the benefits to another is a wealth transfer, however unappealing the idea sounds to you. How is not favoring selective taxation "nihilist"? If I were a nihilist I'd believe in nothing and favor no taxes at all. You're passionate, I get it, I want sick people taken care of too, but I don't really see how your arguments add up.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    >Just because the state provides benefits (self-defense, rule of law, etc) doesn't preclude you from ownership rights, not really following your argument there. Its a fundamental different view of reality and especially society. We are animals, we have no rights and not duties. We do what we want. Things like ownership are derived not from some concept of rights, but from power. We combine our power through government, and in doing so grant the ability to own things. Theft is wrong, not for a moral reason, but because we decided to punish those who steal. This view doesn't completely reject the notion of rights and duties, because we can still use the concept of such to determine how we run our combinations of power. But it does do away with the assumption they inherently exist. It becomes something of a more philosophical question, much like asking does math exist outside of humanity (or any other intelligence that is able to understand the concept of math).
fsloth 8y ago
I'm from a country that has public health and free college education (Finland). I much prefer paying bit more in taxes than having to have a bad conscience knowing that a lot of the people living in my country would not have the same options as myself. I'm not exceedingly wealthy but I make more than the statistical average employee.
- thanatropism 8y ago
  Do you think this is related to Finland being much, much, much more homogeneous demographically than the US? I was going to say "ethnically homogeneous", but that isn't even the core of the issue. The US has populations with vastly divergent cultural backgrounds and outlooks (there's even a few types of white people); it's harder to argue that Hassidim in NYC should care for Crips in outer LA.
  - fsloth 8y ago
    Uh, I have no idea when the concept of perceived fairness brakes down. But that's not the point in the end. Universal services like school and healthcare make sense because they improve the quality of life for everyone. I suppose the core issue is that there is trust that the public funds are used in proper way. I don't understand the 'US is too large to X' arguments. I thought the states are sufficiently independent to handle most things distinctively from the federal level. But I don't know enough of how US works to discuss this beyond it looks odd. Couldn't e.g Oregon implement something, and if it works, then other states could just copy the model. From the outside the concept of distinct state level governments sound like they could provide great platform for innovation and experimentation. But maybe they are bogged down in federal legislation and partisan politics?
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  Yes, the problem is American universities, like hospitals, are severely overpriced. There are many reasons for this, but it's easier for Finland to pay collectively for higher education when the tuition is reasonable. Just like my healthcare argument -- if we could bring down the cost of higher education then subsidizing it for everyone would be less controversial.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
shin_lao 8y ago
As a healthy wealthy individual, more than happy to pay for sick people that cannot afford healthcare to become healthy. It is in my direct interest to have as little sick people as possible in the country where I live.
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  Sure. But what if the costs keep skyrocketing? Say you pay 50% in taxes now -- you cool with 70%? 80%? Presumably there's a limit to what you're willing to pay. I am in favor of higher taxes but it's impractical to assume just paying for universal health care at all costs is a viable strategy.
  - shin_lao 8y ago
    In the US we pay more for less. Our system is nonsensical. Whether it's tax or premiums, doesn't matter, the overall cost is crazy, the system is unfair, and the final quality is low. Just look at life expectancy.
- grahamburger 8y ago
  Then do it. Literally no one is stopping you. If every rich person who expressed this sentiment would kick in some real money it might make a difference.
Vi0 8y ago
Insurance is inherently about distributed costs. That's the whole point. People who don't suffer whatever event they're insured for end up paying for those who do.
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  Exactly. It's also not a tax mandated by the state, which is the key difference between insurance and universal health care. If America wants to introduce UHC, great, but let's be honest about what it is, and let's understand it's going to be prohibitively expensive unless we bring costs down first.
coryfklein 8y ago
> Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the wealthy and healthy (who have health insurance) are already paying for the poor and sick, aren't they? Hospitals can't deny care to the poor and sick, so they inflate the costs of the wealthy insured to compensate for the poor's ER visits. Universal health care would mean moving more ER visits to a primary care physician in a clinic, effectively _reducing_ the overall burden that the healthy and wealthy pay.
firstplacelast 8y ago
>Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Have you ever worked in the US healthcare system? I worked for a medical diagnostics lab and spent a couple weeks in our billing department shadowing them at one point, we were writing off a minimum of 100k/day (and that is a very conservative estimate based on the 1 billing person I shadowed) in services for indigent patients. So the US healthcare model as it stands is a euphemism for the wealthy and healthy subsidizing the poor and sick in an insanely inefficient way.
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  > So the US healthcare model as it stands is a euphemism for the wealthy and healthy subsidizing the poor and sick in an insanely inefficient way. Don't really understand this line. The US model itself is a euphemism? What? I have no doubt that indigent patients get a break from a lot of facilities, but my question would be: why are those services so expensive in the first place? Why is it totally impossible for a person making a reasonable income to pay for a service like healthcare by themselves? You seem to be assuming the costs for your lab are totally normal and legit and wow, isn't it amazing the breaks we give people, but maybe your lab could be charging a lot less than it is for its services? I don't know obviously, you work there, I don't, I'm just pointing out the underlying issue.
gremlinsinc 8y ago
By your comment then we should get rid of social security and Medicare as well, would you agree?
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  Uh, what? Where in my comment did I write the government should provide no financial benefits for its citizens? No idea where you're coming from with that. The question is: should the government pay for everyone's healthcare? Universal health care sounds amazing except no one has a plan to pay for it, at least in the U.S. where our system is outrageously expensive. If your plan is just to tax a small group of earners to pay these astronomical fees, good luck with that. More realistically we have to bring the costs of healthcare down, but that seems to get little to no attention.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > More realistically we have to bring the costs of healthcare down Given that places where government pays for everyone's healthcare, in the developed world, get compsrsvle outcomes at much lower per capita and per GDP cost than the US system, I don't see that an idea opposed to universal healthcare so much as a motivation for it.
    - ordinaryperson 8y ago
      You're assuming they have much lower costs because of socialized medicine -- that's not necessarily the case. But my broader point is just that universal health care is not an honest description of what it is, and our costs are so great we're unlikely to ever implement such a wealth transfer. It's a lot less pie-in-the-sky IMHO to focus on bringing costs down. UHC could help in some ways but it's a broad assumption to make that if say Medicare paid for everything prices would just automatically start to drop.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

> Nurses could do a lot of things doctors do now, and for a lot less money, but MDs refuse to cede any authority Nurse practitioners are actually increasingly common in the American health care system.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
Yes, and I'd love to see them do more. Like a lot of preventative care. Or obesity -- so many health problems stem from being obese. Surely nurses could help patients develop strategies to eat better and exercise.

pretzel 8y ago

> Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Is it? I would have thought it is the commonwealth looking after the people that make it! Surely for countries with large sovereign wealth funds (especially those derived from the country's natural wealth), it makes sense to care for the people for which it is meant to provide! The whole redistribution lens is a very specific way of looking at things.

DanBC 8y ago

> Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. You might have a point if the US system didn't cost taxpayers more for worse care. The US government pays more per capita for health care than other systems, but doesn't provide universal coverage. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcompareinternationally/2016-11-01 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... Universal coverage provides more levers to control costs.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
UHC does provide more levers to control costs, sure. But it's not some huge fix to the underlying problem. One example: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/10/health/uk-nhs-universal-health-coverage-crisis-point-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/10/health/uk-nhs-universal-healt...

pm 8y ago

I've seen people take this view, and their view crumble as soon as they get a life-threatening condition and receive (mostly) free healthcare (in Australia). If I'd been born in the US, I'd be dead by now.

seren 8y ago

In countries with "universal healthcare", there is a big incentive from the organization paying the costs of exams to emphasis preventive care because ultimately, they won't run a deficit every year. And usually, it has a big bargaining power because its decide if if will reimburse the medicine or not. See for example : http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/france_agrees_lowest_sovaldi_pricing_in_eu_618661 http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/france_agrees_lowest_soval... Similarly, there is a big incentive to reduce tobacco, alcohol consumption and obesity, because it has a big cost shared by everyone paying to the common fund. So I would say that universal health care has the same incentive to reduce the overall cost, that a multi payer system.

conanbatt 8y ago
> In countries with "universal healthcare", there is a big incentive from the organization paying the costs of exams to emphasis preventive care because ultimately, they won't run a deficit every year. Does medicare do that? They stand to profit the most out of preventative care.
ams6110 8y ago
There isn't really. In this case, the organization paying the cost has the power to confiscate whatever it needs from the citizens to fund its expenses. They are not operating with the financial motivational pressures of a business or even a non-profit organization. All of government is a big cost shared by everyone paying into the common fund. That doesn't seem to have created any incentive at all to control spending. Quite the opposite in fact.

arcticbull 8y ago

There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here to justify that the US spends 2x the next country per capita on health care expenditure and still doesn't manage to pay for all its citizens. Especially when the federal government has already taken all its worst customers (the old) and thrown them into a socialized pool (medicare) without anyone to balance out the risk. Wasn't there a writeup recently that wealth distribution isn't materially distinguishable from luck? [1] Your argument that the healthy/rich subsidize the poor/sick is tantamount to saying the unlucky should fend for themselves. That's an easy argument to make if you're lucky. Your luck may turn at any moment, and then if it does, you're SOL. Further, if the moral argument falls flat for you, the self-centered argument is that if someone is too poor to get their horrifyingly contagious disease treated until its too late and it spreads to you, you're still sick, and you may still die, cover or no cover. It's why the fire department is socialized -- if the fire spreads to your house, it still burns does it not? Especially as you argue you're not particularly well off necessary, you should be the strongest advocate for yourself, and therefore, for socialized medicine. The world is moving there -- at least towards a two-tier system -- and this argument is on the wrong side of history. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-... [EDIT] I also wanted to throw in there the self-centered argument for socialized higher education. If you believe in the value of a college education, then you believe it will increase the productivity of that individual. A more productive individual makes your country more competitive, boosts GDP, moves the markets higher relative to that of other countries. This in turn benefits the wealthy who likely hold equities. Speculative, of course, but the argument seems consistent to me.

edanm 8y ago
> There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here to justify that the US spends 2x the next country per capita on health care expenditure and still doesn't manage to pay for all its citizens. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The US does spend a lot more, and doesn't cover everyone. If I understood the parent post, (part of what) it's saying that the US needs to focus on lowering costs, because otherwise, the fact that there is so much spending even now, is going to cause trouble. And more trouble than comparable countries, because the price in the US is so much higher. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with this, or what? Do you assume that if the US covered everyone, it would be cheaper? Would be great if you could clarify :)

KnightOfWords 8y ago

Would you make the same argument against universal education? Spending on healthcare is not zero-sum, the linked article argues that there is good evidence that universal healthcare increases GDP, benefitting the entire economy. "Economists at the World Bank used to call spending on health a “social overhead”, but now they believe that it speeds up growth, says Timothy Evans, one of its senior directors."

skywhopper 8y ago

You make lots of bad assumptions. But if you are going to get all nihilist about it, go all in. Your wealth is predicated on the government that ensures it’s value. Nothing you “own”, including money, is “yours” except by virtue of the laws and under threat of force from whatever relevant powers exist in your locality be they corporate, military, or organized crime. You benefit greatly from the “power transfer” that enables you to keep your wealth. So your assertion that “wealth transfer”—if that’s the petty way you need to think about it—is fundamentally immoral is exceedingly hollow when it’s predicated on the same government that transfers power to you on a regular basis.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
My wealth? Didn't I just say above I'm not wealthy? Just because the state provides benefits (self-defense, rule of law, etc) doesn't preclude you from ownership rights, not really following your argument there. Taxing one group and providing the benefits to another is a wealth transfer, however unappealing the idea sounds to you. How is not favoring selective taxation "nihilist"? If I were a nihilist I'd believe in nothing and favor no taxes at all. You're passionate, I get it, I want sick people taken care of too, but I don't really see how your arguments add up.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >Just because the state provides benefits (self-defense, rule of law, etc) doesn't preclude you from ownership rights, not really following your argument there. Its a fundamental different view of reality and especially society. We are animals, we have no rights and not duties. We do what we want. Things like ownership are derived not from some concept of rights, but from power. We combine our power through government, and in doing so grant the ability to own things. Theft is wrong, not for a moral reason, but because we decided to punish those who steal. This view doesn't completely reject the notion of rights and duties, because we can still use the concept of such to determine how we run our combinations of power. But it does do away with the assumption they inherently exist. It becomes something of a more philosophical question, much like asking does math exist outside of humanity (or any other intelligence that is able to understand the concept of math).

fsloth 8y ago

I'm from a country that has public health and free college education (Finland). I much prefer paying bit more in taxes than having to have a bad conscience knowing that a lot of the people living in my country would not have the same options as myself. I'm not exceedingly wealthy but I make more than the statistical average employee.

thanatropism 8y ago
Do you think this is related to Finland being much, much, much more homogeneous demographically than the US? I was going to say "ethnically homogeneous", but that isn't even the core of the issue. The US has populations with vastly divergent cultural backgrounds and outlooks (there's even a few types of white people); it's harder to argue that Hassidim in NYC should care for Crips in outer LA.
- fsloth 8y ago
  Uh, I have no idea when the concept of perceived fairness brakes down. But that's not the point in the end. Universal services like school and healthcare make sense because they improve the quality of life for everyone. I suppose the core issue is that there is trust that the public funds are used in proper way. I don't understand the 'US is too large to X' arguments. I thought the states are sufficiently independent to handle most things distinctively from the federal level. But I don't know enough of how US works to discuss this beyond it looks odd. Couldn't e.g Oregon implement something, and if it works, then other states could just copy the model. From the outside the concept of distinct state level governments sound like they could provide great platform for innovation and experimentation. But maybe they are bogged down in federal legislation and partisan politics?
ordinaryperson 8y ago
Yes, the problem is American universities, like hospitals, are severely overpriced. There are many reasons for this, but it's easier for Finland to pay collectively for higher education when the tuition is reasonable. Just like my healthcare argument -- if we could bring down the cost of higher education then subsidizing it for everyone would be less controversial.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

shin_lao 8y ago

As a healthy wealthy individual, more than happy to pay for sick people that cannot afford healthcare to become healthy. It is in my direct interest to have as little sick people as possible in the country where I live.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
Sure. But what if the costs keep skyrocketing? Say you pay 50% in taxes now -- you cool with 70%? 80%? Presumably there's a limit to what you're willing to pay. I am in favor of higher taxes but it's impractical to assume just paying for universal health care at all costs is a viable strategy.
- shin_lao 8y ago
  In the US we pay more for less. Our system is nonsensical. Whether it's tax or premiums, doesn't matter, the overall cost is crazy, the system is unfair, and the final quality is low. Just look at life expectancy.
grahamburger 8y ago
Then do it. Literally no one is stopping you. If every rich person who expressed this sentiment would kick in some real money it might make a difference.

Vi0 8y ago

Insurance is inherently about distributed costs. That's the whole point. People who don't suffer whatever event they're insured for end up paying for those who do.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
Exactly. It's also not a tax mandated by the state, which is the key difference between insurance and universal health care. If America wants to introduce UHC, great, but let's be honest about what it is, and let's understand it's going to be prohibitively expensive unless we bring costs down first.

coryfklein 8y ago

> Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the wealthy and healthy (who have health insurance) are already paying for the poor and sick, aren't they? Hospitals can't deny care to the poor and sick, so they inflate the costs of the wealthy insured to compensate for the poor's ER visits. Universal health care would mean moving more ER visits to a primary care physician in a clinic, effectively _reducing_ the overall burden that the healthy and wealthy pay.

firstplacelast 8y ago

>Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Have you ever worked in the US healthcare system? I worked for a medical diagnostics lab and spent a couple weeks in our billing department shadowing them at one point, we were writing off a minimum of 100k/day (and that is a very conservative estimate based on the 1 billing person I shadowed) in services for indigent patients. So the US healthcare model as it stands is a euphemism for the wealthy and healthy subsidizing the poor and sick in an insanely inefficient way.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
> So the US healthcare model as it stands is a euphemism for the wealthy and healthy subsidizing the poor and sick in an insanely inefficient way. Don't really understand this line. The US model itself is a euphemism? What? I have no doubt that indigent patients get a break from a lot of facilities, but my question would be: why are those services so expensive in the first place? Why is it totally impossible for a person making a reasonable income to pay for a service like healthcare by themselves? You seem to be assuming the costs for your lab are totally normal and legit and wow, isn't it amazing the breaks we give people, but maybe your lab could be charging a lot less than it is for its services? I don't know obviously, you work there, I don't, I'm just pointing out the underlying issue.

gremlinsinc 8y ago

By your comment then we should get rid of social security and Medicare as well, would you agree?

ordinaryperson 8y ago
Uh, what? Where in my comment did I write the government should provide no financial benefits for its citizens? No idea where you're coming from with that. The question is: should the government pay for everyone's healthcare? Universal health care sounds amazing except no one has a plan to pay for it, at least in the U.S. where our system is outrageously expensive. If your plan is just to tax a small group of earners to pay these astronomical fees, good luck with that. More realistically we have to bring the costs of healthcare down, but that seems to get little to no attention.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > More realistically we have to bring the costs of healthcare down Given that places where government pays for everyone's healthcare, in the developed world, get compsrsvle outcomes at much lower per capita and per GDP cost than the US system, I don't see that an idea opposed to universal healthcare so much as a motivation for it.
  - ordinaryperson 8y ago
    You're assuming they have much lower costs because of socialized medicine -- that's not necessarily the case. But my broader point is just that universal health care is not an honest description of what it is, and our costs are so great we're unlikely to ever implement such a wealth transfer. It's a lot less pie-in-the-sky IMHO to focus on bringing costs down. UHC could help in some ways but it's a broad assumption to make that if say Medicare paid for everything prices would just automatically start to drop.