3 ms·

> 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 governm

> 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'.
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      > More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other. Nonsense. You’re thinking about competition for jobs. But I’m talking about competition to hire. >I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it. You’re asserting that it does. I’m arguing that an argument for it doesn’t require it. That’s one for practitioners and a wider audience to flush out. > Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'. And as before, I’m pointing out that aside from some clear cut cases, it’s not required to be “objective”. There’s no objective reason why we enjoy various freedoms in the US, other than emotional reasons and desires.
jfrunyon 5y ago
> It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". > 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. Yeah, that's true in most if not all countries with universal healthcare. Of course, as someone else alluded to, it's a difficult distinction to make. I don't care about the mole on my face but a mole might legitimately effect someone else's mental health.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  > I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". I’m surprised you interpreted what I wrote this way. What I mean is that some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any coverage whatsoever. If you or your family member have a chronic but treatable condition such as diabetes, this a life and death decision. It makes zero sense to give employers such leverage. Likewise, employers are less likely to cover individuals that will raise insurance costs.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    I'm in that situation myself, between an insulin-dependent diabetic and an epileptic toddler on my insurance. But overall the percentage of people, in my experience, who care about what the benefits will be like at a new job is tiny. Never been asked by someone we're interviewing, never been able to get any real info out of an interviewer or recruiter, etc. At the most they care about the coverage gap (how long until benefits start). And also, how does that differ from "some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any money whatsoever"? Personally I think we could solve both of those problems (and plenty more) with "make employment terms public" (i.e. disclose compensation ranges, benefits & premiums, vacation, and so on).

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'.
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    > More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other. Nonsense. You’re thinking about competition for jobs. But I’m talking about competition to hire. >I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it. You’re asserting that it does. I’m arguing that an argument for it doesn’t require it. That’s one for practitioners and a wider audience to flush out. > Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'. And as before, I’m pointing out that aside from some clear cut cases, it’s not required to be “objective”. There’s no objective reason why we enjoy various freedoms in the US, other than emotional reasons and desires.

jfrunyon 5y ago

> It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". > 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. Yeah, that's true in most if not all countries with universal healthcare. Of course, as someone else alluded to, it's a difficult distinction to make. I don't care about the mole on my face but a mole might legitimately effect someone else's mental health.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
> I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". I’m surprised you interpreted what I wrote this way. What I mean is that some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any coverage whatsoever. If you or your family member have a chronic but treatable condition such as diabetes, this a life and death decision. It makes zero sense to give employers such leverage. Likewise, employers are less likely to cover individuals that will raise insurance costs.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  I'm in that situation myself, between an insulin-dependent diabetic and an epileptic toddler on my insurance. But overall the percentage of people, in my experience, who care about what the benefits will be like at a new job is tiny. Never been asked by someone we're interviewing, never been able to get any real info out of an interviewer or recruiter, etc. At the most they care about the coverage gap (how long until benefits start). And also, how does that differ from "some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any money whatsoever"? Personally I think we could solve both of those problems (and plenty more) with "make employment terms public" (i.e. disclose compensation ranges, benefits & premiums, vacation, and so on).