3 ms·

> Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should he

> Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... You're right, you don't say it would save the government money. You make the argument that it would save everyone money. No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently. Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers. And the consumers simply have no choice.

BobbyJo 5y ago
>No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. >Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. >And the consumers simply have no choice. That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive.
- noodlesUK 5y ago
  > That’s only true in emergency medicine What would you do about emergency medicine in your ideal world though?
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    I, personally, am pro universal healthcare to a degree.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  > That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. People do pay for their own healthcare. That's our current system. Hello? > That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. Everyone has profit motive, but when your prices are arbitrary, that doesn't make you care about costs. > That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive. That's not even CLOSE to factual. Try getting your doctor to tell you how much any complex procedure or care will cost, before the fact, without insurance.
nobodyandproud 5y ago
> For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. It also separates health cost, whose administration is expensive for businesses, from working capabilities of employees. It’s a major problem for small companies. Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. Do you have data showing that the gains in competitiveness offset productivity losses from higher unemployment? >Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care. What is the difference between essential and not essential? I don't think there's a good objective basis for what is and isn't, it just comes down to the costs healthy people are willing to bear, which comes down to feelings again.
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? Both private healthcare AND even medicare do this today, to different degrees. Largely, routine check-ups and preventive care are covered. Emergency visits and triage care used to be covered (and still should be). Everything else is quite subjective, and cost is a factor.
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      > Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other. > The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it. > to different degrees Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.

BobbyJo 5y ago

>No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. >Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. >And the consumers simply have no choice. That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive.

noodlesUK 5y ago
> That’s only true in emergency medicine What would you do about emergency medicine in your ideal world though?
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  I, personally, am pro universal healthcare to a degree.
jfrunyon 5y ago
> That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. People do pay for their own healthcare. That's our current system. Hello? > That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. Everyone has profit motive, but when your prices are arbitrary, that doesn't make you care about costs. > That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive. That's not even CLOSE to factual. Try getting your doctor to tell you how much any complex procedure or care will cost, before the fact, without insurance.

nobodyandproud 5y ago

> For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. It also separates health cost, whose administration is expensive for businesses, from working capabilities of employees. It’s a major problem for small companies. Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.

BobbyJo 5y ago
> Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. Do you have data showing that the gains in competitiveness offset productivity losses from higher unemployment? >Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care. What is the difference between essential and not essential? I don't think there's a good objective basis for what is and isn't, it just comes down to the costs healthy people are willing to bear, which comes down to feelings again.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? Both private healthcare AND even medicare do this today, to different degrees. Largely, routine check-ups and preventive care are covered. Emergency visits and triage care used to be covered (and still should be). Everything else is quite subjective, and cost is a factor.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    > Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other. > The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it. > to different degrees Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.