3 ms·
> I'm pretty sure the death rate will remain 100% You and I know this is a complete red herring. When we talk about preventing deaths, we're talking about dela
by creamyhorror 14y ago
> I'm pretty sure the death rate will remain 100%
You and I know this is a complete red herring. When we talk about preventing deaths, we're talking about delaying deaths and lengthening lives toward their natural lifespans.
> Someone has to make the decision: how much money is it worth to postpone my death for a while? And if I arbitrarily decide that one more breath is worth all the money in the world, that doesn't automatically mean that I now get to spend all the money in the world on it. Even with "universal health care" there are limits.
Absolutely true. That's why every insurance system - public or private - has rationing, whether you call it that or not. I don't get why you bring up this point, when it clearly doesn't detract from the usefulness of public health insurance at all. Having everyone insured just means more people will live longer lives and/or endure less pain.
> Also, all the money that gets paid out by the state has to be paid in first by taxpayers. Moving responsibility to the state doesn't magically make health care cheaper, or free. On average, the taxpayers are still paying for all their health care.
Sure. I didn't say anything about social insurance making it cheaper. But it is a fact that healthcare's a lot cheaper mostly anywhere besides the US of A. I remember seeing comparison tables showing that US health outcomes per dollar are much poorer than elsewhere, so you guys are clearly getting a raw deal.
(edit: Let's not forget that lots of diseases don't get stopped in their early stages because the sufferers don't have insurance, so they end up in heavy debt due to the high cost of a cure or late treatment. Prevention or early treatment would probably save money, and would also give these people significantly longer lives. Surely that's something worth paying for.)
If you're against wealth redistribution (or whatever they like to call it), just come right out and say it. Don't tiptoe around the issue with irrelevant points.
- sp332 14y agoIf you're against wealth redistribution (or whatever they like to call it), just come right out and say it. Yes, that is my point. If you're sick that doesn't give you a unilateral claim to take other people's money. In fact this story is a pretty good example: He got healthcare way beyond what a sane government program would mandate (held his job for a full year, paid for an MRI etc). And it was paid for "socially". But it is a fact that healthcare's a lot cheaper mostly anywhere besides the US of A. Yes, the US healthcare system is screwed up. But I don't understand the knee-jerk "universal healthcare" reactions.