3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.