Why Have Health Insurance?

I agree with you on both aspects. The health care and banking systems should be institutionalize in the United States. Apparently, banks and investment firms have been running a casino operation of sorts, and health care costs are out of control. But this thread is about health care so I will stick to that.

Health care is really about keeping a healthy work force. The whole system operates better when people have adequate health care provided. The system now breeds anxiety among the population. The question now is asked, will my heath insurance cover this illness or that procedure?

Typically paying up front costs less. By institutionalizing health care costs would decrease if and only if the insurance companies and other middle men are cut out. Too many people continue to receive free passes leeching off of others hard earned money.

The problem here when comparing police forces to social health care is that you are conflating one almost pure public good, defense (to say nothing of offense, but that's another story) with one private good, health care. The police force must be run by a government because it is a public good. Private citizens won't independently fund armed forces unless they stand to gain in the process (by conquering someone with their soldiers) - therefore police and to a certain extent the military are public goods and we would not want them funded privately except under strict control.

Private citizens will, however, pay for their own health care without the state telling them to do so. Health care is not a public good and the logic that applies to public goods is defunct here. Mandatory public health care is essentially a large transfer of funds from the healthy to the sick. This is not a comment on whether or not we should have public health care.

Nationalized banking has been tried in the past, almost always with disasterous results, the best recent Western example being the French during Mitterand's first term as president. This kind of talk comes up every time capitalist financial systems hit a rough patch.

A very poor idea. This system works in sweeden because it is a small country, I worry about the possible negatives in a country the size of the U.S. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks 37th in the world for health care, however some stark biases are found in the ranking critearia as exemplified by this statement by a fellow named Glen Whittman:"suppose that a country currently provides everyone the same quality of health care. And then suppose the quality of health care improves for half of the population, while remaining the same (not getting any worse) for the other half. This should be regarded as an unambiguous improvement: some people become better off, and no one is worse off. But in the WHO index, the effect is ambiguous. An improvement in average life expectancy would have a positive effect, while the increase in inequality would have a negative effect. In principle, the net effect could go either way. "

Inequality should not count if there is an overall positive shift.

The main problems with the universal healthcare system, especially one which is totally publically funded include but are not limited to;
Long wait times, slow response to new technology, decrease in quality for certain mre rare procedures when compared to countries with acess to the new technology. Another downside is that you only get basic coverage, with supplementary coverage available for purchase(so they tax you and give you inferior health coverage when you could afford better coverage for less, depending on your income of course), the main point being that there is still a big gap and people with this basic coverage are still not protected if they have some manner of complication that they are not covered for.

Conversely, England has seen frivolous proceedures insured such as plastic surgery, leading one to worry that as time goes on people will push for an expanded coverage that includes these proceedures at the expense of the other tax payers. England has also been seeing more and more outsourcing of medial services to the private sector.

The biggest argument for universal healthcare in the U.S. stems from the fact that we have 16% of people without health care at any given time. There is a problem implicit in this figure: It does not take into account those who choose not to have health care because they would rather keep the money assuming they will not come down with anything that is too serious because they are young or think they are in good health generally. I have met a number of people who do this in my town alone, so I must conclude that it is likely that the figure for those who cannot afford health care is probably between 7% and 11% as a reasonable estimate, it could well be lower or higher, but it is not 16% nor is it higher.

I personally do not see universal healthcare as a big issue.

I am deeply embarrassed that my country (the U.S.) has a system of basic human need structured as for profit. How... humiliating. It is beyond my comprehension how someone, in any position of authority, can see it as a "good thing" that something so important, so needed, so universal is ok to keep like this.

*runs off, yet again, to the voting booth*

:nonooo:

I don't understand the lack of government run and funded whorehouses, either, as long as we're talking about basic human needs.

Is the fact that something is a basic human need justification enough to include it in the political system? Basic human needs aren't always warm and cuddly.

Sure inequality should matter. Not everyone is at the top, nor even in the top half.

If we are going to rate the relative freedom of a nation, should we give a country a net increasing in the rating if the top 50% see an increase in freedom when the bottom 10% are at the same time forced into slavery? Hardly. Disparity in treatment seems extremely relevant to me.

Hey Grim,

I sense some rather caustic bitterness there, no need. Just talkin here.

Having a fruit-stand as a "for profit" operation doesn't much hurt anything. The ones with the best product for the best price should, in theory, do much better! But when we're talking about medical treatment, should that be subject to all the fun things that come with "trying to make a buck"?

I just don't think so.

The problem with a viciously commercial health care system is the potential for abuse. Mankind will sacrifice a great deal for an extra dollar, and I am not particularly comfortable with the idea that my health may be sacrificed for an extra dollar.

The quality of my morning coffee? I can handle that being corrupted in order for someone to turn a greater profit; I wont like it, but I'll live. When it comes to health care, I may very well not live. Luckily, I'm relatively well-off, so I can afford insurance and quality healthcare. But even here, in the wealthiest nation in the world, millions do not have access to decent healthcare. That is, to say the least, a travesty of modern healthcare.

Bitterness? No.

Although life is not a zero sum game, massive, sweeping social reform of the type we're talking here always amounts to a transfer payment from one group to another - nothing more, nothing less.

Debating the value of various systems is fine with me, and I'm not necessarily against socialized medicine of some sort (at the very least, emergency care could be considered a public good), but I do like to face up to the reality of what's being discussed rather than see it posited a priori that everyone should have a right to "health care" (how much is perhaps the better question). Should everyone have a right to the most expensive, cutting-edge treatments?

As always, it devolves not into a competition between opposite poles (they do not exist), but a question of where the line should be drawn. We then turn to the problem of the impossibility of setting anything close to general rules without getting into specifics and...such is political debate.

As far as making a buck and matters of coffee go, have we forgotten the fact that commerical competition is the motor that drives medical research in the western world? Smart people don't break their backs for peanuts. I'm not some laissez-faire dinosaur, but what's with all the flapping about the poisonous influence of capitalism on the health care industry? Without primarily capital-driven medical research, social medicine systems all over the world would have a lot fewer tools to work with.

Yes, the pharmaceutical companies want to make a buck off of you and your grandmother. No, that is not a bad thing. I'm only trying to knock you off of a nonexistent moral high ground, not suggest a return to the state of nature.

Private health care and a privatized pharmaceutical industry easily brings in a lot of corruption to the system. The goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to sell drugs, thus by promoting doctors proscribe certain drugs and by marketing the drugs to consumers to ask their doctors, they have a continued base of customers. To me this is not health care; this is death care. Most people have a lot of health problems because they either eat crap or do not exercise. Simple logic says to exercise, but pharmaceutical companies are on the ball trying to make short cuts for lazy people so they do not have to.

Anyway, that is pretty much my issue with privatized health care. People are profiting off others' bad health and attempting to drug the symptoms away.

I think Theaetetus is right on. Health care needs to be holistic, not a barrage of super-expensive medications used to treat the symptoms of poor health care. But the drugs are where the money is - exercise and good nutrition do not translate to billions of dollars in revenue for big pharma, these good practices translate to less demand for big pharma's products.

Only under this insane capitalist system would we give 5 year old kids amphetamine (speed!) and develop hyper-addictive versions of heroin (oxycontin).

Medical research is largely driven by profit margins - but isn't this practice a bit dangerous? Again, the result seems to be drug after drug, and a population that is increasingly unhealthy and reliant on some pill to solve problems, rather than addressing the underlying causes of problems, like diet and exercise.

I'm not trying to argue against all prescription drugs - we have many wonderful medications, and that's great. But the market as is does not promote health, it promotes un-healthy lifestyle, a sort of "yeah, clog those arteries, we have a drug to fix them!"

Thanks Didymos for the addition to the argument. I agree that some medications are wonderful additions to certain people's diets, but the extent that individuals are medicated in the United States (could not speak to this issue in other countries--anyone?) is beyond ridiculous. Children are not supposed to sit still and defer to authority all day everyday. It definately would be easy if all children paid attention and followed orders, but that takes away the certain quality that makes them children. They are learning about themselves and the world, and their place within it. We have probably medicated millions out of ever becoming who they are whether painter, musician, or athlete. Sure, some become productive, but really what does productive mean within a society that is characterized by many insane traits.

Anyway, enough on my rant about medicated children. Many people are drug addicts thanks to the U.S. health care system. Sure, the doctor is supposed to be an expert on health and you should trust him, but if anyone is lazy and unhealthy they should question your doctor's motive when he begins to mention medication. Seriously, if people are unhealthy because they do not exercise or eat well, they will be slaves to the system. The goal should be good health by natural methods first, and then sustained drugging.

I realize that some conditions require instantaneous drugging, but isn't that what pharmaceuticals are for in the first place. There is a major different for treatment of symptoms for short term illness and the treatment of symptoms for a long term illness. The latter is a customer, the former a misfortuned individual.

Actually, the police do not protect with taxes, they use guns. They do a damn poor job of 'protecting' anyway. You call them AFTER you get mugged, robbed, killed! Then they try to find someone to blame. And everyone gets some pay; the cops, the attorneys, the DA, the prisons and all of their support systems. The criminal justice INDUSTRY. They are not here to protect!

Now, you want to put my health care in the hands of these corrupt insane pathological capitalist materialists?!?! Are you serious?
Though Sweden and the like are superior countries than Amerikkka, superior standards of living, superior health care and education, we (US) are not sufficiently 'evolved' to attempt such an evolutionary step without proper 'inner' evolution as well!
Heck! We still have people who reach for their guns when they hear the word 'socialism'! It's still fine with them that people here have to choose between medication or food or the rent! They are all my brothers and sisters, but they are morons and we let them run the country. Besides, what else can they do?!?
So, if it's all the same, I'd rather not have my medical care (or education, for that matter) in their sweaty cold hands.

So the solution is for people to take better care of themselves? I fully agree that pill-popping is unhealthy, but how are we supposed to approach health holistically in real-world terms? Top-notch preventive medicine for all? Perhaps, but again preventive medicine requires some action on the part of the patient to be effective.

All but the true troglodytes of western society know by now that shoving McDonalds into your already corpulent face while you watch American Idol is the road to heart disease. I understand the need for public health care, but not the need for the healthy to underwrite the self-destruction of the sick. Perhaps we should tax foodstuffs at a level commensurate with their long-term negative impact on the health care system?

Health is not entirely a matter of choice, but it is not wholly out of our control, either. How permissive should the system be? Should we refuse treatment to smokers with lung cancer? In a society in which all members are responsible for the health of all others, is self-destruction not a form of theft?

I fancy the idea of universal health care provided for through taxes but I'm not sure how much impovement in the system we would see if it was actually implemented in the U.S.

Considering good health is an active process, being healthy requires action on the part of the individual.

Part of health care should be education. Many people are educated by their televisions, thus, they learn from commercials. Health education should be an integral part of public eduction so either people can see through the bullsh!t in commercials or decide to limit the reaches or the advertisements.

Lets follow in the foot steps of all the other 1st world nations

come one america

ideological evolution is around us

and we can not conform because of our out of date classical liberal paradigm


lolz



lets see what is gonna happen :bigsmile:

If there become's a national government heath care plan, taxes would be raised to cover such, yet since corperation's would no longer need to pay the people that they employe or them self, they would make alot more money, and therefor the government can say that they will do this if they pay everyone more money, hence min wage can be higher. (10$)

But there are 3 down side's, yet in the long run it will be worth it.

1.All the people that are paying for there health plan's, would lose all there money that they have invested in those plan's.

2.All the people that work in telemarketing for those health insurance people would lose there job's and would need to be relocated.

3.All the bank's that hold the money for the health insurance company's would lose the money that the health insurance companys have placed in there bank's.

Yet, all those people will need health care, so in the long run the money they lose then would be less than the money they would lose in the future.

So a national government health insurance is the solution to health care, since it is a more wiser investment of your money.

So, since the person that you work for would no longer need to pay for your health insurance plan's, they can pay you more, and since you are no longer paying for health insurance at a unfair price, and you are geting paid more, therefore those perk's would cover the higher tax for a government health insurance.

(For example if min wage was made to 10$, and you where paid 8$ before the raise, you would be realy making 9$ after the new tax, so therefore its a win win for you and the employer, and the government and the bank's that deal with them, due to the fact you would get paid more and pay less for insurance.)

(*note in W.A. nexted year they are making min wage $8.55, to comp for high cost of living, so companies would be all for this kind of health insurance.)