3 ms·

Well it's the implementation that counts. Most people opposed to it presume that it will cost more, deliver worse outcomes, and increase authoritarian control i

Well it's the implementation that counts. Most people opposed to it presume that it will cost more, deliver worse outcomes, and increase authoritarian control in their own lives. To be clear, I'm not in that camp, but there are rational lines of thought to oppose a state-run healthcare system. (And also to be clear, I can't personally see how it could possibly be worse than our current system)

QuercusMax 6y ago
Who said anything about state-run healthcare? (I personally believe we should have state-run healthcare, but universal healthcare != state-run healthcare.)
- function_seven 6y ago
  I guess that goes back to the implementation. How is it possible to mandate universal coverage without some sort of state-provided funding? Nothing in life is universal without government support. And with that funding comes control and regulation. Things that fierce individualists fear the most. Sure, the day-to-day administration of such a system could be in a single agency, or distributed among private providers, or some blend. But the core thing that opponents fight is still there.
  - sfink 6y ago
    It's a fair argument, but not personally convincing because what we already have all that control and regulation. It's just that it's handled by a small number of unelected for-profit insurance companies instead of "the government". Success would be wholly dependent on the implementation in any case. Our current implementation is a local minimum of effectiveness, maximum of overhead. There are better solutions with either public or private bases.
Simulacra 6y ago
I want to see healthcare coverage for all, but not when hospitals, doctors, device makers, drugs companies, everyone's cousin, is going to pad the bill. At least with dental care it's generally a straight forward thing: crown, root canal, fill a cavity, etc. Dental care - IMO - is easier to manage and control costs. Which, if you're going to have universal care, you absolutely must do.

QuercusMax 6y ago

Who said anything about state-run healthcare? (I personally believe we should have state-run healthcare, but universal healthcare != state-run healthcare.)

function_seven 6y ago
I guess that goes back to the implementation. How is it possible to mandate universal coverage without some sort of state-provided funding? Nothing in life is universal without government support. And with that funding comes control and regulation. Things that fierce individualists fear the most. Sure, the day-to-day administration of such a system could be in a single agency, or distributed among private providers, or some blend. But the core thing that opponents fight is still there.
- sfink 6y ago
  It's a fair argument, but not personally convincing because what we already have all that control and regulation. It's just that it's handled by a small number of unelected for-profit insurance companies instead of "the government". Success would be wholly dependent on the implementation in any case. Our current implementation is a local minimum of effectiveness, maximum of overhead. There are better solutions with either public or private bases.

Simulacra 6y ago

I want to see healthcare coverage for all, but not when hospitals, doctors, device makers, drugs companies, everyone's cousin, is going to pad the bill. At least with dental care it's generally a straight forward thing: crown, root canal, fill a cavity, etc. Dental care - IMO - is easier to manage and control costs. Which, if you're going to have universal care, you absolutely must do.