U.S Healthcare

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



truejedi
My opinion on this: U.S. Healthcare is a joke, more focused on profit than in health.

Healthcare should be a national security interest, equally meted out to private citizens. Definitely socialized. Anyone found to be profiting unduly from healthcare related services would be in a position to be charged with corruption charges. This should be written into a new amendment to the U.S constitution.

ilikecomics
Why is a for profit motive bad ?
Profit is earned if value is provided. The only time this isn't true is when the government involved. Meaning if you want individuals to have access to cheap and effective healthcare the answer would be to have less state intervention.

Another option is that individuals could make better health choices, thus requiring less medical intervention.

cdtm
Would never work.

Yeah, you can impose strict laws against profiteering. But the fact is the best and brightest aren't altruistic, they want something out of their end. If the money isn't there, they'll go onto something else that does make them truckloads of cash.


And we'll be left with those sad sacks that stuck with government jobs for the benefits and pension. Maybe competent enough, but certainly not the top talent.

truejedi
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Why is a for profit motive bad ?
Profit is earned if value is provided. The only time this isn't true is when the government involved. Meaning if you want individuals to have access to cheap and effective healthcare the answer would be to have less state intervention.

Another option is that individuals could make better health choices, thus requiring less medical intervention.

I'll answer your question with a series of questions:

Cancer is a common diagnosis:. Would you say the average person in the united States can afford to pay for cancer treatment without health insurance?

truejedi
Originally posted by cdtm
Would never work.

Yeah, you can impose strict laws against profiteering. But the fact is the best and brightest aren't altruistic, they want something out of their end. If the money isn't there, they'll go onto something else that does make them truckloads of cash.


And we'll be left with those sad sacks that stuck with government jobs for the benefits and pension. Maybe competent enough, but certainly not the top talent.

The best and brightest want profit? Calling bullshit on that one. Greediest and worst maybe.

Blakemore
Once McConnell goes Kentucky will go democratic and the republicans will be in the slums.

SquallX

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by truejedi
My opinion on this: U.S. Healthcare is a joke, more focused on profit than in health.

Healthcare should be a national security interest, equally meted out to private citizens. Definitely socialized. Anyone found to be profiting unduly from healthcare related services would be in a position to be charged with corruption charges. This should be written into a new amendment to the U.S constitution. If there's anything that a country's wealth should be spent on, it's the health of the people. That millions of you guys have to choose between paying rent and paying for health...


That you consistently place #1 for the most money spent on healthcare per capita and as overall percentage of budget, but you also manage to place so far down the list of quality of results (often times dead last for OECD countries)... and ya'll seem to be cool with that.

Or the weird dynamic that you seem rabidly horrified of anything "socialist" even though the government pays for 64% of all healthcare spending in a system where only 21% of hospitals are for-profit and non-government owned. God forbid you rip the bandaid off and join the rest of the developed, industrialized world in enacting Universal Coverage.


Like... the f*ck, guys? Why is "the greatest country on Earth", the one that is so rich and powerful, placing 37th on the list? How are you guys worse at healthcare than 36 other countries, including freakishly dissimilar cultures as Oman and Austria, Cyprus and Costa Rica, or Finland and Japan?

Blakemore
Easy Michael Moore...

truejedi
Here's the truth:

Healthcare cost in the U.S. is prohibitive. No one can afford to pay for it without insurance.

Insurance is before, and after Obamacare, prohibitively expensive. No one can afford to pay for it without having it subsidized through their job.

Rich wins out again, as people cling desperately to low wage jobs out of fear of being diagnosed with something prohibitively expensive between jobs, and losing everything. City streets all over America are full of people who lost their livelihoods, and then lost everything trying to keep their health. Underdeveloped nation indeed.

What good is technology if it's only affordable to a few. America is incapable of caring for all I guess? So much for a world leader...

The same people who mock cities for having homeless problems stand against healthcare for all as a human right. It's beyond immoral.
It's very much a "you poors better stop being so poor" situation.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by truejedi
I'll answer your question with a series of questions:

Cancer is a common diagnosis:. Would you say the average person in the united States can afford to pay for cancer treatment without health insurance?

Well both my grandparents and my mom died of cancer. None of them had any debt because they had insurance via working at general motors.

So the average person can (median income in the u.s. is 62k) if they work and have insurance.

truejedi
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Well both my grandparents and my mom died of cancer. None of them had any debt because they had insurance via working at general motors.

So the average person can (median income in the u.s. is 62k) if they work and have insurance.

Was the insurance linked to their jobs? And if so, would they have continued to have insurance if they had quit the job?

truejedi
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If there's anything that a country's wealth should be spent on, it's the health of the people. That millions of you guys have to choose between paying rent and paying for health...


That you consistently place #1 for the most money spent on healthcare per capita and as overall percentage of budget, but you also manage to place so far down the list of quality of results (often times dead last for OECD countries)... and ya'll seem to be cool with that.

Or the weird dynamic that you seem rabidly horrified of anything "socialist" even though the government pays for 64% of all healthcare spending in a system where only 21% of hospitals are for-profit and non-government owned. God forbid you rip the bandaid off and join the rest of the developed, industrialized world in enacting Universal Coverage.


Like... the f*ck, guys? Why is "the greatest country on Earth", the one that is so rich and powerful, placing 37th on the list? How are you guys worse at healthcare than 36 other countries, including freakishly dissimilar cultures as Oman and Austria, Cyprus and Costa Rica, or Finland and Japan?

I got interested in this question after realizing how far behind the U.S. is the rest of the developed world in healthcare. It isn't even about ethics-- the for profit model has failed.

If for profit models create the best systems, why is the U.S. military socialized instead of privately owned? It has 700 billion in losses every year, and yet persists.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by truejedi
Was the insurance linked to their jobs? And if so, would they have continued to have insurance if they had quit the job?

They never had to pay any exorbitant medical bills, so I assume yes, however I'm not sure and see how that would matter.

Edit: why do you think there isn't universal car insurance ?

truejedi
Originally posted by ilikecomics
They never had to pay any exorbitant medical bills, so I assume yes, however I'm not sure and see how that would matter.

Edit: why do you think there isn't universal car insurance ?

My point is, with health care linked to someone's job, how can they pretend to be free? This is ultimate way for the 1 percent to control the rest: raise the price of healthcare till it is unaffordable by anyone who doesn't have an approved job. (see how much healthcare you get as a private contractor or hourly worker at a fast food restaurant)

Don't have a job? Want to quit your job because you don't have great opportunities there? Want to launch your own business? You now take literally your life into your own hands by quitting. Give up that insurance, and then get sick, and you lose everything.

It is absolutely ridiculous. The for profit method isn't used with water, and it shouldn't be used in a country trying to provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness either.

Blakemore
Car insurance is hardly comparable to health care insurance

truejedi
Yeah, I don't even begin to see a comparison there, didn't even really know how to reply to that.

BackFire
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Why is a for profit motive bad ?
Profit is earned if value is provided. The only time this isn't true is when the government involved. Meaning if you want individuals to have access to cheap and effective healthcare the answer would be to have less state intervention.

Another option is that individuals could make better health choices, thus requiring less medical intervention.

Because the only way health insurance companies actually make money is by denying care whenever they can.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by BackFire
Because the only way health insurance companies actually make money is by denying care whenever they can.

In a private hospital, you think they would only make money by not providing services ? That doesn't make much sense to me.

BackFire
It makes perfect sense. Insurance companies aren't going to make money by paying for services. They pay for only what is required by law, and little/nothing more. They will skimp whenever they can.

Blakemore
Unless it's national insurance hm

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Blakemore
Unless it's national insurance hm

This was my point @ backfire.

Blakemore
So if you fund health care through taxes it's okay? I mean most European countries do it.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Blakemore
So if you fund health care through taxes it's okay? I mean most European countries do it.

Oh no, I took what you said the wrong way.

I think taxation is theft, committed by a violent entity ( I know you disagree here).

Which is why I prefer the market as a replacement to that, as the market is a matrix of mutually consented upon trades.

If the state didn't have monopoly on healthcare, licensing, and other regulations surrounding it, health insurance would act as any other service. Which is why I compared health and auto insurance earlier, but apparently my point that using the state's violence to enforce positive rights was missed.

Blakemore
Think of it like a safety net. erm

truejedi
So if someone can't pay the arbitrary fee charged them by a hospital, they can just die, right?

ilikecomics
Originally posted by truejedi
So if someone can't pay the arbitrary fee charged them by a hospital, they can just die, right?

Why would the fee be arbitrary ?

It should be proportionate to services rendered.

In a free market there would also be charities to support the poor. The reason there is less charity now is because half our income is taken by the state.

I don't think people should die, I just don't think an institution of violence should pay for it through stealing.

Blakemore
The state doesn't steal, you moron

Tzeentch
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Why would the fee be arbitrary ?

It should be proportionate to services rendered.

In a free market there would also be charities to support the poor. The reason there is less charity now is because half our income is taken by the state.

I don't think people should die, I just don't think an institution of violence should pay for it through stealing. What a joke.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Tzeentch
What a joke.

Do you think philanthropy doesn't exist ?

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Blakemore
The state doesn't steal, you moron

Calling me a name doesn't make it untrue

truejedi
We shouldn't ask pay for the poor, just some charitable people who like to, but we're stuck with a for profit model because the "best and brightest" only want to profit? So why would they be charitable? The entire position sounds incredibly selfish, tbh.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by truejedi
We shouldn't ask pay for the poor, just some charitable people who like to, but we're stuck with a for profit model because the "best and brightest" only want to profit? So why would they be charitable? The entire position sounds incredibly selfish, tbh.


For profit has become a dirty word.
However profit = value provided to consumers.
A doctor provides a service, just like: a lawyer, an engineer, a mechanic etc.
You want all service and goods providers to be following a profit motive, the only alternative is bureaucracy, which is wickedly inefficient, which could mean deadly in the health industry.

Not sure why that sounds selfish.

As far as charity goes I'm using that as a blanket term for standard mutually consented upon wealth exchange and volunteer stuff like soup kitchens, but also NGOs that would seek to help the poor.

You'd be crazy if you think people with medical training, whether licensed by the state or not, wouldn't want to help the poor.

Not to mention, without the state you wouldn't have things like food protectionism i.e. corn syrup, or propaganda like the american classic breakfast of bacon and eggs, etc.
All of these distortions contributing to the obesity epidemic in america, which puts an enormous strain on the healthcare system.

Put another way, the existence of the state incentivizes bad behavior, including obesity, then steals via taxation to redistribute wealth from people who make healthy choices to people who don't.

Adam_PoE
The real issue with health care is not affordability, it is access. The pandemic demonstrated this perfectly. Even if we had free or affordable health care, we do not have enough health care workers or facilities to scale for every American resident. The right to free or affordable care is useless if there are not enough doctors or hospitals to treat you. That is why Medicare for All as a policy was dead on arrival. Without a cost barrier, the current system would become overwhelmed.

Blakemore
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Calling me a name doesn't make it untrue it's not theft, it's insurance and you are a moron!

ilikecomics

Blakemore
Well then, I get tax money hahaha

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The real issue with health care is not affordability, it is access. The pandemic demonstrated this perfectly. Even if we had free or affordable health care, we do not have enough health care workers or facilities to scale for every American resident. The right to free or affordable care is useless if there are not enough doctors or hospitals to treat you. That is why Medicare for All as a policy was dead on arrival. Without a cost barrier, the current system would become overwhelmed.

I'm pro free market and pro private hospitals for this reason.

If hospitals were privitized there would be more of them, and they'd be better stocked and staffed.

Not to mention there's other avenues to travel down besides hospitals for good health outcomes.
There's personal trainers, nutritionalists, lifestyle coaches etc.
Most of america's problem is being fat.

Another problem is that alot of pain is psychosomatic but call it shut like fibromyalgia. To fix this would take a psychotherapist, not a medical doctor.

Unfortunately we live in a world where self ownership isn't emphasized, personal responsibility for one's health is ignored and everything, including obesity, becomes medicalized.
So far people get things like gastric bypass, instead of making better choices, because it ends up being cheaper for the state. This is despite not really knowing if the surgery is 100 percent safe.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Blakemore
Well then, I get tax money hahaha

Yes, you are the receiver of expropriated (stolen) capital from people who earned it.

Reminds me of this upton sinclair quote:

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.'

That's why you won't acknowledge that taxation is theft and would rather hurl epithets.

Blakemore
It's called insurance

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Blakemore
It's called insurance

I'm talking about how nationalized healthcare is paid for, which is taxation - health insurance being distorted is an artifact of that.

This is similar to education. I like education. I don't like public education, that is compulsory and funded with stolen money.

truejedi
Taxation being theft is a borderline naive statement. How to pay for education,s and defense and infrastructure? Is it theft to tax for those reasons?

Lord Lucien
Taxation as theft is such a narrow worldview. I imagine its proponents broadly apply that to income tax, capital gains tax, sales tax, tariffs, etc.


Like... where the f*ck do they think any large grouping of humans gets without pooling collective resources to benefit the group as a whole? National coffers of tax money are the primary way that the collective advances and prospers. If they think that human society prospers with everyone going their own way and constantly competing/fighting with everyone else out of a sense of individualistic pride and chronic independence, then they haven't paying attention to how humans work together.

ilikecomics
Why do people think without the government everyone would just start attacking everyone else ?

Kind of like the naive argument that people don't do immoral things because God exists.

Overall people seek to collaborate, without the unlimited violence of the state this would work much better.

Examples of decentralized things doing better than state ran stuff: nasa vs space ex, the other car companies vs tesla, cab drivers vs ride share apps, hotels vs air bnb.

Hopefully you'll see a trend emerge.

Edit: you pay for things how you do now, by exchanging money for services. In a free market you wouldn't have, need, or want the annoying middle man of the state.

truejedi
People prospering without government structures has never been true ever. Without a government and laws it's survival of the fittest.

Your examples are all bad:. The government built the internet, controls it, protects your interest on it. No air bnb without it. Elon musks main client is the U.S. government. No government, no taxes, without that, no one is paying him to launch things into space. Ride share vs cabbies, driving on government roads. Cannot exist without government.

You are describing anarchy, and it's a hopeless position to defend.

Blakemore
I welcome the sensible opinions expressed in this thread

ilikecomics
Originally posted by truejedi
People prospering without government structures has never been true ever. Without a government and laws it's survival of the fittest.

Your examples are all bad:. The government built the internet, controls it, protects your interest on it. No air bnb without it. Elon musks main client is the U.S. government. No government, no taxes, without that, no one is paying him to launch things into space. Ride share vs cabbies, driving on government roads. Cannot exist without government.

You are describing anarchy, and it's a hopeless position to defend.

The government built the internet in response to war, using private contractors. China owns and runs their internet and it promotes only censorship, why would you want that here ?


Anarchy means without a leader, the same way atheism means without belief in god.

You're making the claim that government is an inherent good and I'm saying it's not.

The u.s. government is one of musks biggest clients because nasa is a failure. This shows that the state relies on private entities to accomplish what it needs done and pays the bill with the future of american citizens.

The fact entrepreneurs, like musk, can navigate governmental regulation and still do better than state funded institutions is a point to my side not yours.

The monopoly the state has on roads through violence also proves my points. In the 1800s before there was a legal monopoly on it private companies could outbid the state at around an 8th of the price. The state monopoly on roads is also an enormous contributor to the number of car accidents per year.

https://youtu.be/PEGBcLZI6mI

Here's a video of michael malice defending anarchy. Has alot of similar questions you do.

Klaw
I think the U.S. should move to M4A like most other first world countries have.

Their system (U.S.) clearly isn't working.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Klaw
I think the U.S. should move to M4A like most other first world countries have.

Their system (U.S.) clearly isn't working. hi Eon.

Newjak
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Why do people think without the government everyone would just start attacking everyone else ?

Kind of like the naive argument that people don't do immoral things because God exists.

Overall people seek to collaborate, without the unlimited violence of the state this would work much better.

Examples of decentralized things doing better than state ran stuff: nasa vs space ex, the other car companies vs tesla, cab drivers vs ride share apps, hotels vs air bnb.

Hopefully you'll see a trend emerge.

Edit: you pay for things how you do now, by exchanging money for services. In a free market you wouldn't have, need, or want the annoying middle man of the state. This might be one of the most naive things I've ever heard.

First off Nasa is one of the most successful human organizations ever made. A loft the stuff space x did was built off of the very solid foundation and work Nasa did. Also not sure how you're going to say hotels and car companies, which mostly are not state owned, are examples of what you're talking about.

The most important thing I think you talk about is how you try dismiss government while also talking about human collaboration. You do realize government was created by humans to handle large scale collaboration to meet common goals right?

If you got rid of our government and just said do whatever another group of humans would come together to create another shared social contract that is just another form of government.

Newjak
Originally posted by ilikecomics
The government built the internet in response to war, using private contractors. China owns and runs their internet and it promotes only censorship, why would you want that here ?


Anarchy means without a leader, the same way atheism means without belief in god.

You're making the claim that government is an inherent good and I'm saying it's not.

The u.s. government is one of musks biggest clients because nasa is a failure. This shows that the state relies on private entities to accomplish what it needs done and pays the bill with the future of american citizens.

The fact entrepreneurs, like musk, can navigate governmental regulation and still do better than state funded institutions is a point to my side not yours.

The monopoly the state has on roads through violence also proves my points. In the 1800s before there was a legal monopoly on it private companies could outbid the state at around an 8th of the price. The state monopoly on roads is also an enormous contributor to the number of car accidents per year.

https://youtu.be/PEGBcLZI6mI

Here's a video of michael malice defending anarchy. Has alot of similar questions you do. I think this is such a narrow view and ignores a great amount of historical context.

First off privatization of certain fields were disastrous and you're not mentioning those at all. Like when the police or fire departments were private entities and the amount of headaches that caused in many major cities when they were.

You're not talking about how private prisons are much less humane and cost more money that state ran prisons.

You're not talking about any of this because you're trying to push a narrative.

The truth is government is just a tool and always has been. It's a social contract that allows groups to govern themselves in a shared experience. It is not inherently good nor evil. It depends on how it's being used. That doesn't mean it doesn't updates but once again it's not some weird private entity. It is literally a collaborative social contract that is often needed to create governing rules for people to follow.

Also Nasa is not nor as it ever been a failure. They literally just landed on Mars.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Klaw
I think the U.S. should move to M4A like most other first world countries have.

Their system (U.S.) clearly isn't working.


cool thumb up.

so, when do you go full retard and tell everyone to kill themselves again? how's life? how's your silly hair weave? have a nice day, not-eon.

Lord Lucien
aNghg1Y-WIc


David Cross summing up U.S. healthcare

Newjak
So here is my latest brush with the U.S. healthcare system.

Almost choked on some food and felt like something was stuck in the back of my throat but I could breath. I didn't want to risk accidently choking on something in my sleep so I went to go get my throat checked.

It was night so the Urgent Cares were closed so I went to the E.R.

All that happened was my vitals were checked, a doctor looked down my throat for like a minute, said he saw nothing, left, and nurse came back to give me some liquid to help my throat not being scratching.

That ran me 1400 dollars with insurance only covering 400, leaving me with a 1000 dollar bill. That's like a third of most people's monthly income. It's so stupid.

Klaw
Yeah, that's ridiculous.

Here in Ontario, it would've been free.

Newjak
Originally posted by Klaw
Yeah, that's ridiculous.

Here in Ontario, it would've been free. It should be here too

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.