4 ms·

> "The problem with Universal Healthcare is you're taking a limited resource (doctors, medicines, equipment, etc...) and trying to treat it like an unlimited re

> "The problem with Universal Healthcare is you're taking a limited resource (doctors, medicines, equipment, etc...) and trying to treat it like an unlimited resource" No, that is a lie. What Universal Healthcare is about is about a better distribution mechanism. The market is a mechanism for efficiently distributing a limited resource based on people's ability to pay. Universal healthcare aims to distribute a limited resource based on need not ability to pay. Proponents like this because it is fairer and doesn't leave people suffering. Capiche?

TomOfTTB 16y ago
I'm sorry but your argument boils down to you not wanting to see the other side of the debate. What you're saying doesn't change the fact that the resource is limited. The question is can the limited resource be stretched to accommodated everyone and if so can government create a more efficient distribution method to harness that resource. Because if either of those things aren't true than your "need-based" distribution is going to leave as many if not more people without treatment (it will just be richer people) That's the debate: Is it possible to give high quality health care to everyone? You stating that there are enough resources as a certainty is just arrogance on your part.
- nlogn 16y ago
  I don't see anywhere in his comment where he claims that there are enough resources to give high quality health care to everyone. He states that the distribution should shift from a "who can pay" based mechanism to a "who needs it the most" based mechanism. Yes, as you mentioned, you would certainly see more wealthier individuals that would be denied care. You would also see more poor people getting care they desperately need. >That's the debate: Is it possible to give high quality health care to everyone? I don't think this is really the debate. I think the debate is whether or not health care should be portioned out based on how much money someone is willing to/able to spend or based on how badly somebody needs the treatment. Personally, I think that's the only moral way it can be done.
modeless 16y ago
Universal healthcare aims to distribute a limited resource based on need not ability to pay. Proponents like this because it is fairer and doesn't leave people suffering. And opponents dislike this because it's impossible. If such a magical distribution method existed then we should obviously be using it for everything, not just healthcare, and that's called socialism.
- swombat 16y ago
  Works pretty darn well here in the UK. Impossible my arse.
  - modeless 16y ago
    I'm not saying the UK's system is impossible. I'm saying it is staggeringly, almost criminally inefficient. I'm also not saying the current US system is better; we have our own set of regulations that have made our healthcare system as inefficient as any in the world.
    - swombat 16y ago
      Actually, my main problem with the UK system would be that they're too focused on efficiency at the expense of quality. That is, anywhere other than in their provisioning of IT systems, where they're focused on neither. I consider efficiency to be secondary to the saving of human lives or the general improvement of people's living conditions by curing them of curable ailments.
    - EdiX 16y ago
      Coming from a country with a "socialist" healthcare I was very surprised by how much money I'm paying in the US for health insurance, it's more than what I was paying in taxes and when I actually want to use my health insurance I still have to pay considerable additional money to actually get the serivice. And it's also extremely inefficient, there is no reason to measure my weight, temperature, blood pressure and breathing if what I have is clearly tendonitis. Long story short: I think your health care market got you the worst possible solution to health care in the world.
ramanujan 16y ago
But who determines need? There's the rub. I would much rather write a check to a charity like the Red Cross than the massive bureaucracy that is DHHS, because (a) there is just a lot less overhead and because (b) the Red Cross' definition of "need" is a lot less likely to shift in the political winds. For example, in a couple of years DHHS may be back to persecuting stem cell researchers.
- Retric 16y ago
 Red Cross is a high overhead orginisation: An American Red Cross statement was issued saying that 91 cents of every dollar donated specifically for the Hurricane Katrina disaster will go directly to disaster relief. This overhead of only 9% is quite low for such a large organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross Social Security is impressive because "the dministrative costs of the U.S. Social Security system are very low--less than one percent of revenues." She claims this compares favorably with the overhead costs of the partly privatized Chilean system, which she says are "in the neighborhood of 15 percent of revenues." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19085869.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19085869.html
 - ramanujan 16y ago
 :) 1. DHHS != Social Security 2. The core point is choice. I prefer donating to a neighborhood charity that I can confirm is spending money responsibly. If you believe the government generally provides healthcare with lower overhead and more efficiency than a private nonprofit, one might politely point out that same government has spent several hundreds of billions has been spent blowing people up in Iraq. I don't think even the Red Cross spends its 9% on that...
- dedward 16y ago
 Well, in most cases where there is socialized medicine, doctors decide on need, and groups of doctors decide on standards. politicians play no role.

TomOfTTB 16y ago

I'm sorry but your argument boils down to you not wanting to see the other side of the debate. What you're saying doesn't change the fact that the resource is limited. The question is can the limited resource be stretched to accommodated everyone and if so can government create a more efficient distribution method to harness that resource. Because if either of those things aren't true than your "need-based" distribution is going to leave as many if not more people without treatment (it will just be richer people) That's the debate: Is it possible to give high quality health care to everyone? You stating that there are enough resources as a certainty is just arrogance on your part.

nlogn 16y ago
I don't see anywhere in his comment where he claims that there are enough resources to give high quality health care to everyone. He states that the distribution should shift from a "who can pay" based mechanism to a "who needs it the most" based mechanism. Yes, as you mentioned, you would certainly see more wealthier individuals that would be denied care. You would also see more poor people getting care they desperately need. >That's the debate: Is it possible to give high quality health care to everyone? I don't think this is really the debate. I think the debate is whether or not health care should be portioned out based on how much money someone is willing to/able to spend or based on how badly somebody needs the treatment. Personally, I think that's the only moral way it can be done.

modeless 16y ago

Universal healthcare aims to distribute a limited resource based on need not ability to pay. Proponents like this because it is fairer and doesn't leave people suffering. And opponents dislike this because it's impossible. If such a magical distribution method existed then we should obviously be using it for everything, not just healthcare, and that's called socialism.

swombat 16y ago
Works pretty darn well here in the UK. Impossible my arse.
- modeless 16y ago
  I'm not saying the UK's system is impossible. I'm saying it is staggeringly, almost criminally inefficient. I'm also not saying the current US system is better; we have our own set of regulations that have made our healthcare system as inefficient as any in the world.
  - swombat 16y ago
    Actually, my main problem with the UK system would be that they're too focused on efficiency at the expense of quality. That is, anywhere other than in their provisioning of IT systems, where they're focused on neither. I consider efficiency to be secondary to the saving of human lives or the general improvement of people's living conditions by curing them of curable ailments.
  - EdiX 16y ago
    Coming from a country with a "socialist" healthcare I was very surprised by how much money I'm paying in the US for health insurance, it's more than what I was paying in taxes and when I actually want to use my health insurance I still have to pay considerable additional money to actually get the serivice. And it's also extremely inefficient, there is no reason to measure my weight, temperature, blood pressure and breathing if what I have is clearly tendonitis. Long story short: I think your health care market got you the worst possible solution to health care in the world.

ramanujan 16y ago

But who determines need? There's the rub. I would much rather write a check to a charity like the Red Cross than the massive bureaucracy that is DHHS, because (a) there is just a lot less overhead and because (b) the Red Cross' definition of "need" is a lot less likely to shift in the political winds. For example, in a couple of years DHHS may be back to persecuting stem cell researchers.

Retric 16y ago
Red Cross is a high overhead orginisation: An American Red Cross statement was issued saying that 91 cents of every dollar donated specifically for the Hurricane Katrina disaster will go directly to disaster relief. This overhead of only 9% is quite low for such a large organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross Social Security is impressive because "the dministrative costs of the U.S. Social Security system are very low--less than one percent of revenues." She claims this compares favorably with the overhead costs of the partly privatized Chilean system, which she says are "in the neighborhood of 15 percent of revenues." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19085869.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19085869.html
- ramanujan 16y ago
 :) 1. DHHS != Social Security 2. The core point is choice. I prefer donating to a neighborhood charity that I can confirm is spending money responsibly. If you believe the government generally provides healthcare with lower overhead and more efficiency than a private nonprofit, one might politely point out that same government has spent several hundreds of billions has been spent blowing people up in Iraq. I don't think even the Red Cross spends its 9% on that...
dedward 16y ago
Well, in most cases where there is socialized medicine, doctors decide on need, and groups of doctors decide on standards. politicians play no role.