Universal healthcare is indentured servitude and a weapon

a reply to: Aazadan

The ONLY reason they dropped retirees was because of unACA!

originally posted by: carewemust
Democrats ignore how Universal Healthcare COST and IMPLEMENTATION would HURT AMERICANS. They only want control and power over the sheep.

And the sheep, those who back demonrats, are stupid enough to give these wannabe dictators all power...

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Aazadan

The ONLY reason they dropped retirees was because of unACA!

No. They dropped retirees, because older people increase the cost of premiums significantly. The last 25% of your life, carries 90% of your health care costs, or in some cases more. They got your premiums while you were at max profitability, and once they would have to start paying out on part of that, they turned their back. Welcome to capitalism.

The problem is that an insurance model is fundamentally and conceptually incapable of funding routine events. Insurance exists by increasing your average costs to deal with an issue, in order to protect against the catastrophic. It is a good way to protect yourself against rare events. If something happens that affects 1 in 1,000 people, and costs $10 to treat, then the average cost to each person is 1 penny. So if insurance charges each person 2 pennies, then people pay more on average, but the unlucky never wind up with the $10 expense.

This however does not work when problems become common. As I said before, it costs $5 million to treat cancer and 50% of people get cancer. That means, each person needs to come up with $2.5 million over their lifetimes, just to deal with cancer treatments. If you assume a lifespan of 80 years on average, that would mean an annual premium of $31,250 for just that one disease, and that's before any sort of profit margin. How many of us can put away $31,000 every single year just to deal with a single illness? And that is per person, a family of 4 would need to be putting away $124,000 per year, just to cover their share.

Because of this, insurance has gotten into the business of reducing the rate of catastrophic illnesses by helping to provide access to preventative care. It is very much worth it for them to lose $2000 per person per year in doctors visits in order to avoid millions in payouts decades later. This in turn, has subsidized basic access to doctors, and has created a situation in which doctors are only accessible through health insurance, even though the entire concept of health insurance raises the average cost of health care to society.

This is why insurance is a completely unworkable system and why ideas like single payer have so much merit.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: carewemust
Democrats ignore how Universal Healthcare COST and IMPLEMENTATION would HURT AMERICANS. They only want control and power over the sheep.

And the sheep, those who back demonrats, are stupid enough to give these wannabe dictators all power...

Considering how strong the economy has been, I was unpleasantly amazed to see Republicans lose the U.S. House back in November.

It seems that conventional wisdom needs to be modeled differently now. Americans may actually be willing to fork over $3 Trillion a year for Universal Healthcare.

Thank you for your post ! It is spot on

a reply to: Aazadan

Please give past examples of other government programs that actually reduced costs and / or didn’t result in rationing?

Or your referring to something like the efficient US school system?

The US spends more on education than other countries. Why is it falling behind?
Spending per student exceeds the OECD average but the likes of Finland and South Korea get better results. What are they doing right and what can the US learn from them?

www.theguardian.com...

If you think a bunch of corrupt politicians want to take over healthcare to save you money, your are delusional.

How are they doing with the national debt? How is the current political system saving us money concerning the national debt? If they wanted to save the US money, pay down the debt, stop making interest payments to other countries.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If healthcare is a universal right, then how can it be rationed. How is it’s quality and it’s access affected by the number of practicing doctors. By definition, healthcare is not a universal right. It’s dependent on available resources, available technology, and available manpower. Is that false.

Sure. The public bank of North Dakota is a govt bank. And it is more efficient than private banks, and is not rationed. Let’s take public utilities as well. In every single situation when my public utilities have been privatized the cost has gone way up. And my utilities were never rationed prior to them going private. I’ve never had issues with inefficiency or rationing with my libraries or post service.

a reply to: pexx421

You might give the context of you examples

Why Public Banking Works in North Dakota

www.nytimes.com...

Today, the bank receives many calls from people interested in starting a state-owned bank, and our response is consistent. We do not advocate the use of this model elsewhere. It is an issue for each individual state or municipality, and each must determine what is best for its needs.

The insight that we provide is this: the Bank of North Dakota is successful because we are partners with North Dakota’s financial institutions, not competitors. This was so important that one of the bank's founding principles was “to be helpful to and to assist in the development of state and national banks and other financial institutions and public corporations within the state and not, in any manner, to destroy or to be harmful to existing financial institutions.” This directive continues to guide every decision made at the bank today.

a reply to: pexx421

Care to provide an actual example when deregulation of a utility made prices increase. If it raised prices, why it raised prices?

Are you confusing actual efficiency with redistribution of wealth to make prices appear artificially stable?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Aazadan

Please give past examples of other government programs that actually reduced costs and / or didn’t result in rationing?

Or your referring to something like the efficient US school system?

The US spends more on education than other countries. Why is it falling behind?
Spending per student exceeds the OECD average but the likes of Finland and South Korea get better results. What are they doing right and what can the US learn from them?

www.theguardian.com...

If you think a bunch of corrupt politicians want to take over healthcare to save you money, your are delusional.

How are they doing with the national debt? How is the current political system saving us money concerning the national debt? If they wanted to save the US money, pay down the debt, stop making interest payments to other countries.

The majority of the countries that outperform the US also use a public education system. In many cases a system that has less private elements.

Just like health care provision where most developed countries use a hybrid private/public system. Most use a much more public orientated system than the US and get far better value.

The idea that private provision is always more efficient or effective is false.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

If healthcare is a universal right, then how can it be rationed. How is it’s quality and it’s access affected by the number of practicing doctors. By definition, healthcare is not a universal right. It’s dependent on available resources, available technology, and available manpower. Is that false.

In case I wasn't sufficiently clear earlier I have no interest what so ever on what specific definition or type of right you wish to categorise it as being.

It simply that something can still be a right even if it requires someone to be paid to provide it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

If healthcare is a universal right, then how can it be rationed. How is it’s quality and it’s access affected by the number of practicing doctors. By definition, healthcare is not a universal right. It’s dependent on available resources, available technology, and available manpower. Is that false.

In case I wasn't sufficiently clear earlier I have no interest what so ever on what specific definition or type of right you wish to categorise it as being.

It simply that something can still be a right even if it requires someone to be paid to provide it.

And by what "right" is the person providing services/care obligated to give you care. Think gay wedding cakes. What happens when would be medical professionals just refuse to stop pursuing the profession and quit? Even under ACA, thousands of doctors just up and decided to retire, rather than continue practicing under the ACA.

www.centerforhealthjournalism.org...
www.forbes.com...

a reply to: ScepticScot

The right to pursue healthcare is very real and should be protected.

The right to be provided healthcare by definition is not a universal right. Being provided healthcare is a functional of available doctors, available nurses, available emergency services, available resources, and available resources.

You can say owing a living breathing flesh and blood wing kittycorn is a universal right. Making something a universal right doesn’t make it accessible and automatically available.

Making healthcare “a universal right” doesn’t prevent rationing, or prevent resource availablity impacting access and patient health.

And what happens when you make something “free” for everyone, demand strains resources and raises costs. Making healthcare universal is ultimately self defeating and will cause limited access by consuming resources.

Universal healthcare is a con pushed by corrupt politicians promising items who’s access will always be limited by doctor availability and resource available. By definition healthcare will never be a universal right.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

If healthcare is a universal right, then how can it be rationed. How is it’s quality and it’s access affected by the number of practicing doctors. By definition, healthcare is not a universal right. It’s dependent on available resources, available technology, and available manpower. Is that false.

In case I wasn't sufficiently clear earlier I have no interest what so ever on what specific definition or type of right you wish to categorise it as being.

It simply that something can still be a right even if it requires someone to be paid to provide it.

And by what "right" is the person providing services/care obligated to give you care. Think gay wedding cakes. What happens when would be medical professionals just refuse to stop pursuing the profession and quit? Even under ACA, thousands of doctors just up and decided to retire, rather than continue practicing under the ACA.

www.centerforhealthjournalism.org...
www.forbes.com...

Most of the developed world manage to get round this by paying them.

Just the same way we pay police, fire fighters, civil servants Etc..

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

The right to pursue healthcare is very real and should be protected.

The right to be provided healthcare by definition is not a universal right. Being provided healthcare is a functional of available doctors, available nurses, available emergency services, available resources, and available resources.

You can say owing a living breathing flesh and blood wing kittycorn is a universal right. Making something a universal right doesn’t make it accessible and automatically available.

Making healthcare “a universal right” doesn’t prevent rationing, or prevent resource availablity impacting access and patient health.

And what happens when you make something “free” for everyone, demand strains resources and raises costs. Making healthcare universal is ultimately self defeating and will cause limited access by consuming resources.

Universal healthcare is a con pushed by corrupt politicians promising items who’s access will always be limited by doctor availability and resource available. By definition healthcare will never be a universal right.

Universal healthcare is the norm across the developed world and has been for decades.

Access to healthcare can be a right of society decides It is and is willing to provide the resources to provide it.

Working for less than a living wage is indentured servitude.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

If healthcare is a universal right, then how can it be rationed. How is it’s quality and it’s access affected by the number of practicing doctors. By definition, healthcare is not a universal right. It’s dependent on available resources, available technology, and available manpower. Is that false.

In case I wasn't sufficiently clear earlier I have no interest what so ever on what specific definition or type of right you wish to categorise it as being.

It simply that something can still be a right even if it requires someone to be paid to provide it.

And by what "right" is the person providing services/care obligated to give you care. Think gay wedding cakes. What happens when would be medical professionals just refuse to stop pursuing the profession and quit? Even under ACA, thousands of doctors just up and decided to retire, rather than continue practicing under the ACA.

www.centerforhealthjournalism.org...
www.forbes.com...

Most of the developed world manage to get round this by paying them.

Just the same way we pay police, fire fighters, civil servants Etc..

Then why were doctors quitting and retiring in record numbers when the ACA came down the pike? It would only get worse when their pay is the "govt mandated" rate.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

The right to pursue healthcare is very real and should be protected.

The right to be provided healthcare by definition is not a universal right. Being provided healthcare is a functional of available doctors, available nurses, available emergency services, available resources, and available resources.

You can say owing a living breathing flesh and blood wing kittycorn is a universal right. Making something a universal right doesn’t make it accessible and automatically available.

Making healthcare “a universal right” doesn’t prevent rationing, or prevent resource availablity impacting access and patient health.

And what happens when you make something “free” for everyone, demand strains resources and raises costs. Making healthcare universal is ultimately self defeating and will cause limited access by consuming resources.

Universal healthcare is a con pushed by corrupt politicians promising items who’s access will always be limited by doctor availability and resource available. By definition healthcare will never be a universal right.

Universal healthcare is the norm across the developed world and has been for decades.

Access to healthcare can be a right of society decides It is and is willing to provide the resources to provide it.

Society doesn't decide what is a fundamental right.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

If healthcare is a universal right, then how can it be rationed. How is it’s quality and it’s access affected by the number of practicing doctors. By definition, healthcare is not a universal right. It’s dependent on available resources, available technology, and available manpower. Is that false.

In case I wasn't sufficiently clear earlier I have no interest what so ever on what specific definition or type of right you wish to categorise it as being.

It simply that something can still be a right even if it requires someone to be paid to provide it.

And by what "right" is the person providing services/care obligated to give you care. Think gay wedding cakes. What happens when would be medical professionals just refuse to stop pursuing the profession and quit? Even under ACA, thousands of doctors just up and decided to retire, rather than continue practicing under the ACA.

www.centerforhealthjournalism.org...
www.forbes.com...

Most of the developed world manage to get round this by paying them.

Just the same way we pay police, fire fighters, civil servants Etc..

Then why were doctors quitting and retiring in record numbers when the ACA came down the pike? It would only get worse when their pay is the "govt mandated" rate.

Did they?

www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org... AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fdandiamond%2F2015%2F06%2F02%2Fw hy-doctors-really-quit%2F

Besides which the rest of the world seems to manage fine. Doctors remain a very well paid profession.