Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[taks]

Not having to worry about insurance means you have more money for other things. So, you are getting the whole of society to pay for something you would have to shoulder on your own, getting perhaps a second house, a third car, or whatever, with what you're saving in premiums. And it doesn't matter if you make use of it or not - it needs to be there should you ever need it. The State is indirectly subsidizing your luxuries. That may be good from a consumption standpoint, but it's hardly fair.

um, you do realize, of course, that there will be no "savings." maybe individuals don't have "insurance premiums," but the money to pay for this has to come from somewhere. you can't just suddenly *poof* and the magic money fairy pays for these things with her magic wand. maybe some on the lower end of the income scale will come out ahead, this is income redistribution so it is expected, but they aren't the people buying third cars or second houses. the people spending money on "luxuries" are the ones that will have to have their taxes increased to pay for the everyone else, so if anything, they won't be able to afford their "luxuries" as easily as before the UHC taxes.

 

shifting the burden to the government does not remove the burden and, in fact, it will increase the overall burden do to its inherent inefficiency. is anyone actually going to argue that government programs are more efficient? if so, have you not looked at the half of our medical expenses that are already covered by the federal government, particularly medicare/medicaid? c'mon, let's try to be realistic.

 

Further, UHC promotes unhealthy living habits. Or at least, it makes no difference between the person that doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and keeps track of eating habits and the overweight, heavy-drinking, 2-pack-a-day smoker that goes nowhere without his car. Who is going to pay the bill when that person needs medical attention due to his unhealthy lifestyle? And does the person who makes an effort to be healthy get to pay less taxes?

i don't think this has ever been proven, though accountability is certainly lost. when you don't have to pay for your own care, you don't care about get the best deal, i.e., you are less efficient and tend to go in for treatment at every turn (which raises a whole host of other issues).

 

taks

 

edit: where is everyone getting this idea that insurance is that expensive? my policy (for john and i) is not enough to afford a 3rd car, 2nd house, or anything even remotely close. maybe a used car for a few grand, or a big shed in the back yard...

Edited September 28, 2009 by taks

[Theseus]

"Further, UHC promotes unhealthy living habits. Or at least, it makes no difference between the person that doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and keeps track of eating habits and the overweight, heavy-drinking, 2-pack-a-day smoker that goes nowhere without his car. Who is going to pay the bill when that person needs medical attention due to his unhealthy lifestyle? And does the person who makes an effort to be healthy get to pay less taxes?

Again, unfairness and dissolution of accountability."

 

 

A UHC system PROMOTES unhealthy living habits? As the situation stands right now. The UHC system will promote as much of a unhealthy living standard as the current one i believe. People not wanting to go to the hospital to pay high premiums. Please show me where it does in other countries promotes unhealthy living habits. I'd like to point out how a government system may lead to preventative care, which in turn, due to UHC, would make health care costs decrease and at the same time raise our avg life expectancy. In fact the government already has shown a bias against unhealthy living by cigarette taxes, not allowing smoking in bars and other public areas. Not that i'm for these, our against them. Id rather people make conscious decisions. Perhaps as health care is universalized there will be a collective consciousness on how ones actions will cost another. This leading into a debate about such taboo subjects as, getting people off their drugs and off their asses.

 

There is no health awareness in the United States. Every where i drive i see a McDonalds or Burger king. In general most of the food is Filled with salt and sugars, corn syrup, hydrogenated soybean oil or whatever there is. These foods make us depressed, don't digest, and gain weight. Our food is pumped with hormones. The organic section, if one is so lucky to have one in their local market, may just be half an aisle. The information to be health conscious is out there, but it takes discipline to learn and go forward with it.

 

As I said earlier, perhaps healthy people who go to gyms 3-4 times a week, eat organic and live a healthy balanced life should get tax deductions since they perhaps save the government money in the long run. It would also be an incentive for others to go to the gym and find healthier alternatives in eating.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Theseus

[213374U]

um, you do realize, of course, that there will be no "savings." maybe individuals don't have "insurance premiums," but the money to pay for this has to come from somewhere. you can't just suddenly *poof* and the magic money fairy pays for these things with her magic wand. maybe some on the lower end of the income scale will come out ahead, this is income redistribution so it is expected, but they aren't the people buying third cars or second houses.

There won't be savings, you say? But isn't the whole point to make it "affordable" for everyone? If you are raising taxes to a point where there's no difference between paying premiums or paying taxes... uh...

[taks]

Asol arguments are, dare I say naive.

at least he's not arguing theories that were disproved 100 years ago.

 

According to him we shouldn't have a FDA or an EPA either.

apples and oranges since neither the FDA nor the EPA redistribute income in any manner. both have, however, unconstitutional powers that need to be reigned in.

 

I could go on and on.

i'm sure you could. it is easy to repeat the same old talking points ad infinitum.

 

We've already went over why the government should or shouldn't step in.

and one of these days, i'm hoping, you'll come up with an intelligent reason that is not a parrot of the same old disproved talking points.

 

In a large sense it depends on ones view of liberty.

there's a reason words have definitions, it is so intelligent people can communicate with one another using the same language. the definition of liberty is very clear. you, on the other hand, need to redefine liberty since it clearly does not work with your ideological beliefs.

 

If you want your own liberty protected so you don't have to help pay.

who is being naive? you clearly do not understand basic economic theory.

 

anyway, either you have liberty or you don't. it is a simple concept: liberty means you do not have a right to infringe on another's liberty. it is not actionable, i.e., it does not demand that another will provide for your liberty, only that you cannot infringe upon his. as soon as you argue that one should be forced to provide for another, you immediately violate this very simple concept. it is no longer liberty, but privilege.

 

nice how you twist it that way, but you have to because there is no rational basis to your argument.

 

The other side of the argument for UHC is if you want to protect others liberty by aiding in a public option. Its a micro VS macro view.

no, it's what works vs. what doesn't view, individual rights vs. privileges. you can rephrase it how you like, but that's what the argument boils down to. at least xard had the balls to finally admit it, in spite of his silly ranting. why don't you show some balls and at least use the proper language to frame your argument.

 

 

taks

[213374U]

A UHC system PROMOTES unhealthy living habits? As the situation stands right now. The UHC system will promote as much of a unhealthy living standard as the current one i believe. People not wanting to go to the hospital to pay high premiums. I want to see evidence of this, please show me where it does in other countries promotes unhealthy living habits.

Sigh.

 

Did you really read what I posted or you just hit "reply" at "promotes unhealthy living habits"? I did explain HOW this happens. People in risk groups pay higher premiums. People in risk groups pay the SAME taxes as everyone else. Thus, people have one less reason to worry about their health. That doesn't mean the current system is flawless or guarantees healthy living. But that has nothing to do with what I said. Let's stick to what I say, not what you wish or imagine I say, m'kay?

 

 

I'd like to point out how a government system may lead to preventative care which in turn, due to UHC, would make health care costs decrease and at the same time raise our avg life expectancy.

Point out whatever you like, but you aren't presenting any evidence yourself, either.

 

A government-managed UHC works like every government-related thing. Badly, slowly and inefficiently. And they do work on a budget there, too.

 

 

In fact the government already has shown a bias against unhealthy living by cigarette taxes, not allowing smoking in bars and other public areas.

That's a luxury tax. It has nothing to do with health concerns. No smoking in bars and elsewhere is neither here nor there. It's just a fad.

 

 

Perhaps as health care is universalized there will be a collective consciousness on how ones actions will cost another. This leading into a debate about such taboo subjects as getting people off their drugs and off their asses.

Hahaha. This is pretty rich coming from the guy that calls others naive.

 

Thanks for the laugh chum.

[taks]

There won't be savings, you say?

um, no.

 

But isn't the whole point to make it "affordable" for everyone?

just because that's the point doesn't mean that's what will happen. do you really think medicare and medicaid were expected to be as big as they are now? go back and read the history on those two government aid programs and tell me exactly how much savings they provided.

 

If you are raising taxes to a point where there's no difference between paying premiums or paying taxes... uh...

where do you get there won't be a difference? ultimately, taxes will be much higher. that was my whole point about "efficiency."

 

are you actually arguing government programs will be more efficient? wow, i'm just amazed.

 

taks

[taks]

Every where i drive i see a McDonalds or Burger king.

so.

 

In general most of the food is Filled with salt and sugars, corn syrup, hydrogenated soybean oil or whatever there is.

so.

 

These foods make us depressed

proof, please.

 

don't digest

again, some proof.

 

and gain weight.

sigh... is it the food, or is it the quantity of food? please be very specific and try to demonstrate an understanding of science when you reply.

 

Our food is pumped with hormones.

so what? that means we can grow signficiantly more food in a smaller space, i.e., we are more efficient growing food now than we were in the past. this is a good thing since it also brings costs down, making foods more affordable.

 

The organic section, if one is so lucky to have one in their local market, may just be half an aisle. The information to be health conscious is out there, but it takes discipline to learn and go forward with it.

 

As I said earlier, perhaps healthy people who go to gyms 3-4 times a week, eat organic and live a healthy balanced life should get tax deductions since they perhaps save the government money in the long run. It would also be an incentive for others to go to the gym and find healthier alternatives in eating.

i don't know where you get your information but organic foods don't have any provable health benefit. certainly if it was provable we'd have heard about it repeatedly.

 

taks

[213374U]

where do you get there won't be a difference? ultimately, taxes will be much higher. that was my whole point about "efficiency."

What the hell?

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. Diagonal reading is bad for you.

 

I was asking what's the point if you need to raise taxes to the point where there's no difference between paying a premium (current system) and the increased taxes needed to set up UHC (proposed system). What savings are you talking about? Of course I'm not arguing that government programs are more efficient. As a matter of fact, I said exactly the opposite in, uh, the post right above yours.

 

 

???

Edited September 28, 2009 by 213374U

[Gorgon]

Logistically there are advantages to servicing everyone. You can make the most of every MRI scanner at your disposal, you can structure facilities to match population centers and move staff around to match needs. It's about seeing the 'big picture', the same reason government takes the lead in public works that are only going to pay off in the long term. Would the Hoover Dam ever have been built if left entirely to market forces.

[alanschu]

As a general question, since I can see how this is an issue for other social services like welfare, how do people "take advantage" of a universal health care system?

Not directly, perhaps, assuming you don't get crap like sex change surgery and assisted reproduction therapy, which you do where I live. You don't get help for your cavities, though, or glasses if you need them.

 

Not having to worry about insurance means you have more money for other things. So, you are getting the whole of society to pay for something you would have to shoulder on your own, getting perhaps a second house, a third car, or whatever, with what you're saving in premiums. And it doesn't matter if you make use of it or not - it needs to be there should you ever need it. The State is indirectly subsidizing your luxuries. That may be good from a consumption standpoint, but it's hardly fair.

 

Well, depending on who you ask, the money I'd be saving on premiums simply goes to taxes

 

I have no issues with something not being "fair" if I think, on the whole, it helps more than it hurts. Few things are life in fair. This doesn't go away in a capitalist society either. Those with money afford themselves extra opportunities to see and do things, but is it fair that that person gets to enjoy all the luxuries in life, because his parents were hard workers that built an big empire?

 

 

Further, UHC promotes unhealthy living habits. Or at least, it makes no difference between the person that doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and keeps track of eating habits and the overweight, heavy-drinking, 2-pack-a-day smoker that goes nowhere without his car. Who is going to pay the bill when that person needs medical attention due to his unhealthy lifestyle? And does the person who makes an effort to be healthy get to pay less taxes?

 

Does it? I think that this is more just people being people. Despite having non-state funded system in the United States, that country still seems to have the highest rates of obesity, in addition to enough of a population base that smokes that tobacco companies are a very powerful lobby group.

 

 

Because of the costs of health care, I know it's slowly becoming a topic of discussion about how the health care system should deal with smoking related illnesses.

 

I certainly won't state that all the UHC systems are the cats meow and any country using a free market style of health care is lollerskates because of how stupid it is hehe. I do think that there is always progress to be made, whether it be a free market system or a universal system.

 

 

That's a luxury tax. It has nothing to do with health concerns. No smoking in bars and elsewhere is neither here nor there. It's just a fad.

 

I agree that it's a luxury tax on cigarettes, but mostly because I don't have any access to the books. I don't know if the tax money from smoking taxes gets applies to the health care system (would be good if it did). Though I disagree that no smoking in bars is "neither here nor there." I don't think it's just a fad, but rather a reflection of the change in the culture of smoking and its social acceptability.

Edited September 28, 2009 by alanschu

[alanschu]

I was asking what's the point if you need to raise taxes to the point where there's no difference between paying a premium (current system) and the increased taxes needed to set up UHC (proposed system). What savings are you talking about? Of course I'm not arguing that government programs are more efficient. As a matter of fact, I said exactly the opposite in, uh, the post right above yours.

 

 

Optimally, assuming both systems run at equivalent efficiency, there'd be no specific advantage on a per client basis. The issue comes with the wealth redistribution. People that don't make as much money (those that would be less able to afford insurance) wouldn't pay as much into the system as a more affluent person.

 

Poorer people would have less expenses and benefit more, while richer people would pay more into the health care system.

 

 

There could be efficiencies with certain aspects to having universal coverage (whether or not it makes up for the other aspects is another issue), but I am hungry right now and off to the grocery store to pick up some food.

Edited September 28, 2009 by alanschu

[Gorgon]

Also, one would need to demonstrate a causal link between UHC and not taking care of yourself because the govt will fix you up for free. Otherwise it's just so much talk.

[taks]

What the hell?

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. Diagonal reading is bad for you.

 

I was asking what's the point if you need to raise taxes to the point where there's no difference between paying a premium (current system) and the increased taxes needed to set up UHC (proposed system).

to which i answered "taxes will be higher," i.e., the amount of money spent on taxes will necessarily be higher than the amount of money spent on premiums (unless, of course, we have significantly less actual coverage, but that's all part of the rationing problem).

 

What savings are you talking about? Of course I'm not arguing that government programs are more efficient. As a matter of fact, I said exactly the opposite in, uh, the post right above yours.

uh, no, you said:

 

Not having to worry about insurance means you have more money for other things.

to me, that sounds like you are arguing that there will be some sort of savings... unless you meant something different than you said.

 

my comments have directly followed everything you've said, exactly. maybe you missed a few of them?

 

taks

[Theseus]

Every where i drive i see a McDonalds or Burger king.

so.

 

In general most of the food is Filled with salt and sugars, corn syrup, hydrogenated soybean oil or whatever there is.

so.

 

These foods make us depressed

proof, please.

 

don't digest

again, some proof.

 

and gain weight.

sigh... is it the food, or is it the quantity of food? please be very specific and try to demonstrate an understanding of science when you reply.

 

Our food is pumped with hormones.

so what? that means we can grow signficiantly more food in a smaller space, i.e., we are more efficient growing food now than we were in the past. this is a good thing since it also brings costs down, making foods more affordable.

 

The organic section, if one is so lucky to have one in their local market, may just be half an aisle. The information to be health conscious is out there, but it takes discipline to learn and go forward with it.

 

As I said earlier, perhaps healthy people who go to gyms 3-4 times a week, eat organic and live a healthy balanced life should get tax deductions since they perhaps save the government money in the long run. It would also be an incentive for others to go to the gym and find healthier alternatives in eating.

i don't know where you get your information but organic foods don't have any provable health benefit. certainly if it was provable we'd have heard about it repeatedly.

 

taks

Organic foods that use no chemical fertilzers or pesticides reduce the amount our DNA mutates because these mutations can cause cancers and other side effects.

Foods that are high in starches and sugars give us a rush for one minute then a lasting depression because of how fast they break down turn to sugar energy and then to fat if not used.

Red Meat takes a very long time to Digest.

Seriously man , different food digests differently. Whole grains are complex carbs that break down slowly and give energy for longer periods where simple starchy carbs break down rapidly and give energy and readily available energy faster.

Sugar is a cause for diabetes, if we ONLY drink high fructose corn syrup then we have a greater chance of getting diabetes then from the alternative type of sugars like that which comes from fruits. And too much salt can effect ones blood pressure.

Studies are being made that are linking hormone induced meats with children that are hitting puberty sooner.

Im all for moderation, but the pop culture of US food doesn't have much choice for healthy options, nor do many people have a good awareness.

 

there's a reason words have definitions, it is so intelligent people can communicate with one another using the same language. the definition of liberty is very clear. you, on the other hand, need to redefine liberty since it clearly does not work with your ideological beliefs.

Liberty is a synonym for freedom. It doesn't narrowly mean INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

What im considering is other peoples welfare, so they have liberty. Freedom from being restrained from a system that makes fatal decisions and denies coverage and yet still costs more then a public option would in the long run. Its also considered liberty to have the right to choose a UHC system.

If you want to have a debate just on Liberty though I will go at full length and we can have conversations on Plato, Hobbes,Llocke, Humes whoever you want.

Also please tell of your economic philosophy that I am unaware of, unless I am aware of it and disagree that it will effect the way you think it will effect the society.

 

Tak by the way I love you too man. I hope we can grab a cup of tea together someday so i can hear you call me rude names act superior to me. Im sure you would never act like this to another persons face.

 

Tak I think you may have a blood pressure problem due to high salt intake lol

Edited September 28, 2009 by Theseus

[alanschu]

Organic foods that use no chemical fertilzers or pesticides reduce the amount our DNA mutates because these mutations can cause cancers and other side effects.

 

I call BS on a whole lot of the organic food bull****. In fact, Penn & Teller's Bull**** had a funny episode on it.

 

While doctors and medicine like to talk about how our health has improved so much since they've become more prevalent, the strongest correlation with our recent improvements in health has come with the improvements in farming in the past century. The Green Revolution started a looooooooong time ago, and people have seen an increase in their nutrition and health since then.

 

Foods that are high in starches and sugars give us a rush for one minute then a lasting depression because of how fast they break down turn to sugar energy and then to fat if not used.

 

I'm unfamiliar with this. The only real link I have seen between food and depression was with respect to Omega 3s, and at best the research has been inconclusive, but at worst...well, there's not much link.

[Gorgon]

Hormones mess with your own hormone balance, leftovers from livestock immune booster shots raise your resistance to antibiotics, that's why there are maximum allowable levels of either. That's not ecology mumbo jumbo, that's established fact.

[Humodour]

"Foods that are high in starches and sugars give us a rush for one minute then a lasting depression because of how fast they break down turn to sugar energy and then to fat if not used. "

 

Nah. It's got nothing to do with depression in the DSM-V sense. And you're still sort of wrong in terms of hyper- and hypolgyceamia, although in large quantities they do often give a bit of a roller-coaster ride physically and mentally.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_glucose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

 

Edit: certainly excess consumption of sugars should be avoided as they have a number of deleterious impacts in large quantities (like everything), such as diabetes.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Krezack

[alanschu]

Hormones mess with your own hormone balance, leftovers from livestock immune booster shots raise your resistance to antibiotics, that's why there are maximum allowable levels of either. That's not ecology mumbo jumbo, that's established fact.

 

Do you by any chance know where I can get some info on this?

[213374U]

Also, one would need to demonstrate a causal link between UHC and not taking care of yourself because the govt will fix you up for free. Otherwise it's just so much talk.

Okay, fine. Let's assume it does not ACTIVELY promote unhealthy living habits. I'm taking that back. Do you people also need "evidence" that it is inherently unfair as it doesn't have those that WILL cause greater expenses to the system pay more? This in effect means that responsible people are paying the consequences of the excesses of those that just don't care.

 

Oh, wait. I didn't show "evidence" that obesity leads to cardiovascular disease and smoking leads to cancer, right? Silly me.

 

 

to which i answered "taxes will be higher," i.e., the amount of money spent on taxes will necessarily be higher than the amount of money spent on premiums (unless, of course, we have significantly less actual coverage, but that's all part of the rationing problem).

Nah. UHC saves money by being understaffed, underequipped and overcrowded. It wouldn't be as expensive as current premiums are, even more so considering the current lack of real competition in that sector.

 

 

uh, no, you said:

Uh, yes. I said:

A government-managed UHC works like every government-related thing. Badly, slowly and inefficiently. And they do work on a budget there, too.

 

 

to me, that sounds like you are arguing that there will be some sort of savings... unless you meant something different than you said.

No, I was simply arguing from the premises given. That UHC will be cheaper for the vast majority than insurance premiums. If many people already can't afford it, and taxes to cover for it were expected to be higher than premiums are now, for everyone, there wouldn't really be an argument - hence my question "what's the point?" I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything but your word to support that, and the fact that anything government-run is more inefficient.

[Wrath of Dagon]

UHC saves money by being understaffed, underequipped and overcrowded. It wouldn't be as expensive as current premiums are, even more so considering the current lack of real competition in that sector.

 

A government-managed UHC works like every government-related thing. Badly, slowly and inefficiently. And they do work on a budget there, too.

 

FTW, but it would be more expensive in the US, because we always want everything for nothing.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[alanschu]

This in effect means that responsible people are paying the consequences of the excesses of those that just don't care.

 

I can agree with this sentiment and it's definitely a hit against UHC. Smoking seems to be the big focus at the moment with respect to this. Isn't this a problem with any insurance in general though? Sure they can charge higher premiums to people that are of a particular risk, but the idea behind insurance is that claims are paid to those that need it with the money from those that don't. Insurance companies bank on people not needing their services.

 

 

Who pays the cost for emergency treatment for those that don't have insurance in free market systems?

[213374U]

I can agree with this sentiment and it's definitely a hit against UHC. Smoking seems to be the big focus at the moment with respect to this. Isn't this a problem with any insurance in general though? Sure they can charge higher premiums to people that are of a particular risk, but the idea behind insurance is that claims are paid to those that need it with the money from those that don't. Insurance companies bank on people not needing their services.

That makes sense. These things do look a bit too much like Ponzi schemes for my taste, tbh. The thing is you can always cancel your insurance if you feel you're being ripped off. You can't very well stop paying taxes if you feel your money isn't being used for what it's supposed to, can you?

 

 

Who pays the cost for emergency treatment for those that don't have insurance in free market systems?

Themselves?

[alanschu]

The thing is you can always cancel your insurance if you feel you're being ripped off.

 

That is true.

 

You can't very well stop paying taxes if you feel your money isn't being used for what it's supposed to, can you?

 

That is also true. Though I guess the idea is that the potential gains outweigh the potential setbacks. If someone doesn't believe this there's not much more that can be said as to whether or not they would support it. Seems pretty elementary that they wouldn't.

 

 

Themselves?

 

What happens in the event that they can't afford the treatment, or the patient is in a state where they are unable to pay (like death, coma, etc.)?

 

Furthermore, what happens in the event that the situation involves an unconscious individual, and as a result, the patient is unable to refuse treatment, and is thereby charged for services they would have otherwise refused based on cost?

 

 

The tricky thing with health care is that the the services can often come after the fact.

Edited September 28, 2009 by alanschu

[Walsingham]

This in effect means that responsible people are paying the consequences of the excesses of those that just don't care.

 

I can agree with this sentiment and it's definitely a hit against UHC. Smoking seems to be the big focus at the moment with respect to this. Isn't this a problem with any insurance in general though? Sure they can charge higher premiums to people that are of a particular risk, but the idea behind insurance is that claims are paid to those that need it with the money from those that don't. Insurance companies bank on people not needing their services.

 

 

Who pays the cost for emergency treatment for those that don't have insurance in free market systems?

 

Flip that round, and the question surely becomes "In a state without UHC what right does the state have to tell you you can't smoke?" I know I'm being tangential but it's a point.

[alanschu]

Also true.