4 ms·

Republican Reagan signed EMTALA which makes it so hospitals can’t refuse service in emergencies due to ability to pay. It stopped people from dying in the stree

Republican Reagan signed EMTALA which makes it so hospitals can’t refuse service in emergencies due to ability to pay. It stopped people from dying in the street. They did not fund this new mandate and so we currently pay for this through higher insurance premiums and county/municipal emergency service budgets. Universal healthcare would be a more efficient way to pay for an already existing benefit. When uninsured chronic conditions have reached the point you are literally in the ER / close to death, you suddenly get tons of subsidized healthcare. Subsidized in a grossly inefficient manner. Universal healthcare would lower costs through prevention. I would have more respect for the right if they just admitted they are ok with people dying in the streets since they just ignore the economic effects of EMTALA.

BobbyJo 5y ago
Reagan is not 'the right'. He's a member of the Republican party who served 50 years ago. And again, universal health care only saves money if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service, something that is very much not a right wing ideology. I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea, I'm just saying there is no basis for universal healthcare that doesn't start with 'we need to help people'. Same with social security. Same with many other left wing policies. A lot of the problems around market inefficiency in healthcare are perfectly solvable without helping the poor.
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  > if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service, EMTALA already does this and I don’t see a push on the right to repeal EMTALA. Universal healthcare is a more efficient model of what is already happening.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    I also don't see a push from republicans to repeal social security. That doesn't mean it isn't a socialist policy.
    - ABeeSea 5y ago
      Are you saying EMTALA (people not left to die on the street) is socialism? I don’t think that meets the definition of socialism.
      - BobbyJo 5y ago
        No, I'm saying something being supported (or at least not repealed) by republicans doesn't make it ideologically right wing. Republicans, like democrats, have a wide variety of beliefs in their platforms, both right and left.
    - DFHippie 5y ago
      Here: https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-2005-social-security-initiative-failed-and-what-it-means-for-the-future/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-2005-social-secur... It wasn't sold as a push to repeal Social Security, because that polls extremely badly, but that's what it was.
    - rmah 5y ago
      Repealing social security has been a wink-wink, nudge-nudge part of the unspoken Republican platform since social security was created.
tacitusarc 5y ago
I live in a predominantly right-leaning area and know a lot of people who are against universal healthcare. I've talked with a lot of them about it, and every single person would be in favor of it if there was a magical guarantee the money would actually be spent properly and not corruptly misallocated. But the track record is so poor, and there is such little transparency, that they have no trust whatsoever. I can hardly fault them. And the left's argument of "give us more money, we promise to get it right this time" is hardly compelling. Obviously, accusing people on the right of being ok with others dying in the street doesn't help matters.
- j_walter 5y ago
  This is exactly right. Pretty much anytime the government takes anything over or has a new program...it's a shit show from the beginning. See "Cover Oregon" for a waste of a few hundred million dollars...see "Pandemic Unemployment Fraud" for what is probably a hundred billion...see "PPP program" for what is continuously being found as having tons of fraud...see "Oregon Unemployment still programmed in COBOL and can't adjust the waiting period" for non-financial incompetence. If any area in government could run efficiently and we saw evidence of that...it would be a lot easier to convince everyone that things like universal healthcare would be a good idea.
  - chrononaut 5y ago
    I am not certain the point you are making. Are you saying you believe that there are no programs in existence, which are government-run, that are not "shit shows" ?
    - oceanplexian 5y ago
      There are some programs out there that are OK, but I think the gist of the problem is you are missing out on free market forces like price discovery, private equity, and are manipulating risk so anything the government touches ends up becoming less efficient and built with different constraints. Of course, there are times when efficiency is not the thing we’re optimizing for. The Space Program is an example of a pretty great government program; there was no profit or benefit to private space travel in the 1950s and 60s so the government had to subsidize it, but now that we are starting to see private business catch up, the best thing to do is get government out of the way. This is not all that different during the Age of Discovery where kings and queens subsidized trans-oceanic travel. IMHO government should only exist to fix free market deficiencies (Monopolies, unfair competition, fledgling industries, lack of players). Not to take over a market and try to dictate it from the top down. Ultimately the goal should be that all people make enough of a wage to afford healthcare and let the market handle it. And still have a safety net for those who fall through the cracks, but the safety net should never be the goal.

BobbyJo 5y ago

Reagan is not 'the right'. He's a member of the Republican party who served 50 years ago. And again, universal health care only saves money if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service, something that is very much not a right wing ideology. I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea, I'm just saying there is no basis for universal healthcare that doesn't start with 'we need to help people'. Same with social security. Same with many other left wing policies. A lot of the problems around market inefficiency in healthcare are perfectly solvable without helping the poor.

ABeeSea 5y ago
> if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service, EMTALA already does this and I don’t see a push on the right to repeal EMTALA. Universal healthcare is a more efficient model of what is already happening.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  I also don't see a push from republicans to repeal social security. That doesn't mean it isn't a socialist policy.
  - ABeeSea 5y ago
    Are you saying EMTALA (people not left to die on the street) is socialism? I don’t think that meets the definition of socialism.
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      No, I'm saying something being supported (or at least not repealed) by republicans doesn't make it ideologically right wing. Republicans, like democrats, have a wide variety of beliefs in their platforms, both right and left.
  - DFHippie 5y ago
    Here: https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-2005-social-security-initiative-failed-and-what-it-means-for-the-future/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-2005-social-secur... It wasn't sold as a push to repeal Social Security, because that polls extremely badly, but that's what it was.
  - rmah 5y ago
    Repealing social security has been a wink-wink, nudge-nudge part of the unspoken Republican platform since social security was created.

tacitusarc 5y ago

I live in a predominantly right-leaning area and know a lot of people who are against universal healthcare. I've talked with a lot of them about it, and every single person would be in favor of it if there was a magical guarantee the money would actually be spent properly and not corruptly misallocated. But the track record is so poor, and there is such little transparency, that they have no trust whatsoever. I can hardly fault them. And the left's argument of "give us more money, we promise to get it right this time" is hardly compelling. Obviously, accusing people on the right of being ok with others dying in the street doesn't help matters.

j_walter 5y ago
This is exactly right. Pretty much anytime the government takes anything over or has a new program...it's a shit show from the beginning. See "Cover Oregon" for a waste of a few hundred million dollars...see "Pandemic Unemployment Fraud" for what is probably a hundred billion...see "PPP program" for what is continuously being found as having tons of fraud...see "Oregon Unemployment still programmed in COBOL and can't adjust the waiting period" for non-financial incompetence. If any area in government could run efficiently and we saw evidence of that...it would be a lot easier to convince everyone that things like universal healthcare would be a good idea.
- chrononaut 5y ago
  I am not certain the point you are making. Are you saying you believe that there are no programs in existence, which are government-run, that are not "shit shows" ?
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    There are some programs out there that are OK, but I think the gist of the problem is you are missing out on free market forces like price discovery, private equity, and are manipulating risk so anything the government touches ends up becoming less efficient and built with different constraints. Of course, there are times when efficiency is not the thing we’re optimizing for. The Space Program is an example of a pretty great government program; there was no profit or benefit to private space travel in the 1950s and 60s so the government had to subsidize it, but now that we are starting to see private business catch up, the best thing to do is get government out of the way. This is not all that different during the Age of Discovery where kings and queens subsidized trans-oceanic travel. IMHO government should only exist to fix free market deficiencies (Monopolies, unfair competition, fledgling industries, lack of players). Not to take over a market and try to dictate it from the top down. Ultimately the goal should be that all people make enough of a wage to afford healthcare and let the market handle it. And still have a safety net for those who fall through the cracks, but the safety net should never be the goal.