Personality Cafe banner

Should the US implement universal healthcare?

  • YES! everyone deserves healthcare, it is a basic human righ

    Votes: 75 66.4%
  • No, I like the current healhcare system. Medicare/Medicaid are enough to help the unfortunate

    Votes: 8 7.1%
  • No, the government should not be involved in the healthcare system in any way

    Votes: 23 20.4%
  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 7 6.2%

  • Total voters
    113
1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
619 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Should the US implement universal healthcare?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Universal health care, like many other things, should be no business of the federal government. I'd be strongly opposed to any health care system it tries to implement based solely on that philosophy. It's not a human right, either; nobody is entitled to live off of someone else's money. But that isn't to say I'm against health care. If an individual state wants health care, comes up with a decent program, and has a sustainable way of paying for it, then I have nothing against it. I'd still like to see it get a supermajority of at least 66% in favor before passing, though.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,904 Posts
I think you guys should definitely have a healthcare system similar to what we have here in Canada.
I would love that, and I agree.

Having a single payer system would make health care more affordable (it's extremely expensive in the US), because pharmaceuticals would be able to be purchased at a lower cost due to quantity, and we wouldn't have to be paying for billing departments to dick around with all kinds of insurance companies.

I am not going to say it's a "human right" to have health care. But really, we are interdependent on each other in society. "Your money" wasn't made in a vacuum. Some people are wired to extract as much money out of anyone and out of anywhere, and I guess we can call that a speshul skill. But there are tons of people who work for their neighbors and to support and improve society, and they are responsible for the survival of our society. We owe them basic considerations such as health care. If society could not survive without them, then society should provide them their basic means for survival--and we shouldn't expect them to become greedy bastards in order to "play the game" of survival in the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Even as someone who is quite a fan of the NHS...

No, they should implement mandatory health insurance, like car insurance. Just like they did in Switzerland.
Dodge the constitutional issue by implementing state-by-state.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,904 Posts
Even as someone who is quite a fan of the NHS...

No, they should implement mandatory health insurance, like car insurance. Just like they did in Switzerland.
Dodge the constitutional issue by implementing state-by-state.
What, in your opinion, is the benefit of mandatory health insurance over a single-payer system? I'm really curious--I don't know much about Switzerland. :blushed:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
What, in your opinion, is the benefit of mandatory health insurance over a single-payer system? I'm really curious--I don't know much about Switzerland. :blushed:
AFAIK Switzerland has a fully private system, but it is the law that you must have basic cover.
The Swiss government regulates the pants off the industry, so health insurers are forbidden from making a profit on basic plans, and there are strict rules forbidding discrimination based on age, sex, and (most importantly) health status.

In short - different companies can charge different prices, but everyone at a company gets charged the same.

Generally speaking, I prefer a system like the UK, basic cover (for acute and chronic conditions) is well(and efficiently)-provided by the state, then if you want to top up with private, you can help yourself. I have company-subsidized private health-cover, this would get me faster, wider and more luxurious treatment for non-emergency conditions, I haven't needed it yet, touch-wood.

But the odds of getting state healthcare implemented in the US are slim. So I reckon regulation is your best bet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
I think the US needs lots of mental healthcare, especially in politics and companies like Monsanto. I'd call that Universal too!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrShatter

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,949 Posts
I haven't had health insurance for many years (I'm 21), and I would say I would not want a universal healthcare. I'd rather earn it.

Also, healthcare a basic human right? xD How would this argument hold up in the stone age when there was no such thing as "universal healthcare?" A time when it was all about "basic human right."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,659 Posts
I would love that, and I agree.

Having a single payer system would make health care more affordable (it's extremely expensive in the US), because pharmaceuticals would be able to be purchased at a lower cost due to quantity, and we wouldn't have to be paying for billing departments to dick around with all kinds of insurance companies.
Well with Medicare\Medicade they made it illegal to negotiate prices for a bulk discount so it costs us a ton more. I agree, they should do it to get a bulk discount.

Even as someone who is quite a fan of the NHS...

No, they should implement mandatory health insurance, like car insurance. Just like they did in Switzerland.
Dodge the constitutional issue by implementing state-by-state.
Well Obamacare is kind of like that. Also, it probably wouldn't work state-by-state. You'd have a bunch of states (especially the Deep South) that wouldn't implement it.

I say let Obamacare play out and see how well it works. Tweak it as time goes on.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,780 Posts
I haven't had health insurance for many years (I'm 21), and I would say I would not want a universal healthcare. I'd rather earn it.

Also, healthcare a basic human right? xD How would this argument hold up in the stone age when there was no such thing as "universal healthcare?" A time when it was all about "basic human right."
XD right so you can just die at age 30+ like back in the stone age when we picked berries and ran around in animal skins hunting deer, falling, breaking a leg and dieing of the infection :3 sweet. Why did we even invent medicine or all the other stuff? Such a load of baloney isn't it?

I'm with you on this man ;) yessir! Universal health care is for the dogs and crazy communists.

Plus XD HAHA freedom isn't a universal right either. >;) you'll have to earn your freedom by pitting your violence against my violence to see who triumphs "earning" their freedom like back in the stone age. This will be fun and logical indeed ;)..and then the same against everyone else to see if you can earn you freedom and come out top dog.

Need I continue? :dry: there are no such things as universal rights, you have no rights, I have none its all in our heads and can be taken away, by someone stronger, more clever, with more influence, the government, private army, power, you name it...but health care is a good idea, since it improves things...why mock it by saying dumb shit? Enjoy it while it lasts, fight for it when its taken away.

People have needs and affordable heath care is one of them, freedom another. Rights are enforced and can be taken away, needs push us to fight for these rights. Cavemen had a need for health care, its why we invented medicine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,949 Posts
XD right so you can just die at age 30+ like back in the stone age when we picked berries and ran around in animal skins hunting deer, falling, breaking a leg and dieing of the infection :3 sweet. Why did we even invent medicine or all the other stuff? Such a load of baloney isn't it?

I'm with you on this man ;) yessir! Universal health care is for the dogs and crazy communists.

Plus XD HAHA freedom isn't a universal right either. >;) you'll have to earn your freedom by pitting your violence against my violence to see who triumphs "earning" their freedom like back in the stone age. This will be fun and logical indeed ;)..and then the same against everyone else to see if you can earn you freedom and come out top dog.

Need I continue? :dry: there are no such things as universal rights, you have no rights, I have none its all in our heads and can be taken away, by someone stronger, more clever, with more influence, the government, private army, power, you name it...but health care is a good idea, since it improves things...why mock it by saying dumb shit? Enjoy it while it lasts, fight for it when its taken away.

People have needs and affordable heath care is one of them, freedom another. Rights are enforced and can be taken away, needs push us to fight for these rights. Cavemen had a need for health care, its why we invented medicine.
Condescension is such a weak argumentative tactic--mainly because it ends with people using extremist situations in order to prove their point. ";)"

However, while I could spend half this post listing all the words you decided to place in my mouth via just a couple of sentences I used (I guess the laws of thermodynamics doesn't apply with people's ideas?), I'd find incredibly wasteful on my part.

First off, I'm assuming when you refer to healthcare, you are actually referring to health insurance? The US has wonderful healthcare; however, health insurance is expensive. America is a capitalistic country where business is important, and where the government is implored not to meddle in it too drastically. Health insurance is no different...

I once had to debate car insurance--I understand there is a difference between the two and this example bears limitations, so please do not waste my time by spending half of your post pointing it on a condescending manner--and the person was saying how unfair it is that the insurance company is allowed to issue different rates merely based on gender.

They wanted it to be fair by having both genders pay the same amount.

The problem with this, regardless if his intentions were paved in positive gold, it is the men, statistically, that cause/get into more accidents than woman; also, they are more likely to speed. Thus, if, in fact, the insurance company--which is a business and does not have to offer you insurance in the first place: it is a luxury to begin with, then eventually they would start losing a lot of money, because men do crash more, but now they are paying less.

So what would happen is that the company would end up having to raise the price even higher, and to be fair, would have to raise the price of female insurance as well.

We call the business process a symbiotic relationship. The customers have demand, so companies supply. If the customers had to pay, but they received nothing, that would be a master/servant relationship: or, in biological terms: parasitic; however, the opposite is true--if the customer didn't have to pay anything, or much or anything, but still received the product. That would be parasitic for the company.

Now again, before you douse my mouth with words you deem appropriate, but I never intended: I'm not saying this idea should be taken to an extreme where customers should be paying insane amounts. The supply should meet the demand--and the price should be just.

You assume because health is part of a natural world that you should be allowed access to it without much of a cost (at least, that's the way it appeared in your post, so I could be wrong. "People have needs and affordable heath care is one of them..."

But you don't see food prices lowering once supply runs low--but oh wait, food is natural necessity for man! How can this barbaric process continue?

I understand America is leaning towards a more liberal society, and I honestly don't care where it leans, but if you want something, you work for it. It is the most basic nature of human.

I'm not saying we should push aside kindness and the will to help. There are a myriad of doctors who provide their patients with samples of drugs because the patient can't afford it. That is out of the kindness of the doctor's heart. That is wonderful, and that is what makes human so incredible. However, we do not force charity--we do not force the government to provide charity. It is by their choice.

I know it's hard for people to see the difference between giving charity, and being forced to give charity, but there is a difference.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,780 Posts
Condescension is such a weak argumentative tactic--mainly because it ends with people using extremist situations in order to prove their point. ";)"

However, while I could spend half this post listing all the words you decided to place in my mouth via just a couple of sentences I used (I guess the laws of thermodynamics doesn't apply with people's ideas?), I'd find incredibly wasteful on my part.

First off, I'm assuming when you refer to healthcare, you are actually referring to health insurance? The US has wonderful healthcare; however, health insurance is expensive. America is a capitalistic country where business is important, and where the government is implored not to meddle in it too drastically. Health insurance is no different...

I once had to debate car insurance--I understand there is a difference between the two and this example bears limitations, so please do not waste my time by spending half of your post pointing it on a condescending manner--and the person was saying how unfair it is that the insurance company is allowed to issue different rates merely based on gender.

They wanted it to be fair by having both genders pay the same amount.

The problem with this, regardless if his intentions were paved in positive gold, it is the men, statistically, that cause/get into more accidents than woman; also, they are more likely to speed. Thus, if, in fact, the insurance company--which is a business and does not have to offer you insurance in the first place: it is a luxury to begin with, then eventually they would start losing a lot of money, because men do crash more, but now they are paying less.

So what would happen is that the company would end up having to raise the price even higher, and to be fair, would have to raise the price of female insurance as well.

We call the business process a symbiotic relationship. The customers have demand, so companies supply. If the customers had to pay, but they received nothing, that would be a master/servant relationship: or, in biological terms: parasitic; however, the opposite is true--if the customer didn't have to pay anything, or much or anything, but still received the product. That would be parasitic for the company.

Now again, before you douse my mouth with words you deem appropriate, but I never intended: I'm not saying this idea should be taken to an extreme where customers should be paying insane amounts. The supply should meet the demand--and the price should be just.

You assume because health is part of a natural world that you should be allowed access to it without much of a cost (at least, that's the way it appeared in your post, so I could be wrong. "People have needs and affordable heath care is one of them..."

But you don't see food prices lowering once supply runs low--but oh wait, food is natural necessity for man! How can this barbaric process continue?

I understand America is leaning towards a more liberal society, and I honestly don't care where it leans, but if you want something, you work for it. It is the most basic nature of human.

I'm not saying we should push aside kindness and the will to help. There are a myriad of doctors who provide their patients with samples of drugs because the patient can't afford it. That is out of the kindness of the doctor's heart. That is wonderful, and that is what makes human so incredible. However, we do not force charity--we do not force the government to provide charity. It is by their choice.

I know it's hard for people to see the difference between giving charity, and being forced to give charity, but there is a difference.
I just had an issue with the way you initialy adressed the problem which didn't make sense, plz continue arguing more along the lines of the latter post, the former way is irritating. Lets leave the stone age out of this, I'd like to think we evolved a bit socially. You invited a condescending reply imo.

Where I live health insurance is obligatory. Either you arrange it privately and pay as much as you want, contract whatever insurance provider you want or the government will do it for you and transfer a portion of your salary to the insurance provider (the minimum). Everyone has to do this because the government can and will not cover the cost. To me it doesen't really matter as I pay for my private insurance anyway and thus I do not have to pay for the government provided option at all.

...not that I like the government...bunch of corrupt childish bastards, we'd be better off with anarchy, however affordable health care should be available in a modern society, its not a question of what was in the past.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
465 Posts
I haven't had health insurance for many years (I'm 21), and I would say I would not want a universal healthcare. I'd rather earn it.

Also, healthcare a basic human right? xD How would this argument hold up in the stone age when there was no such thing as "universal healthcare?" A time when it was all about "basic human right."
Haha, yeah, the stone age was such a great time right? xD They had dinosaurs as pets and everything, and everyone made all these puns about rocks. Funnily enough, the Stone Age was otherwise actually a lot like the 1950's... At least, according to this documentary I saw about it. It was about this loveable oaf who would always scream "Yabba-dabba-doo!" Hell, they even made some children's multivitamins and cereal with the guy's face on it. Oh yes, good times, good times... As long as you didn't, you know, die a terrible terrible death before you ever made it to the age of 21. Not like that would ever happen, am I right? xD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,949 Posts
I just had an issue with the way you initialy adressed the problem which didn't make sense, plz continue arguing more along the lines of the latter post, the former way is irritating. Lets leave the stone age out of this, I'd like to think we evolved a bit socially. You invited a condescending reply imo.
Actually, it made perfect sense. The debate people were using was that it was a basic human right--I was pointing out that the debate doesn't quite make sense, due to the fact that there wasn't health care in the "stone age."

If your argument is that "human rights" change over time, then by default, using "human rights" as an argumentative chess pieces means little if they can be so easily altered. Hell, that means with enough time and debate, anything can be called "human right," as long as others agree on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,949 Posts
Haha, yeah, the stone age was such a great time right? xD They had dinosaurs as pets and everything, and everyone made all these puns about rocks. Funnily enough, the Stone Age was otherwise actually a lot like the 1950's... At least, according to this documentary I saw about it. It was about this loveable oaf who would always scream "Yabba-dabba-doo!" Hell, they even made some children's multivitamins and cereal with the guy's face on it. Oh yes, good times, good times... As long as you didn't, you know, die a terrible terrible death before you ever made it to the age of 21. Not like that would ever happen, am I right? xD
Nice try: I've already countered a reply that was oddly similar to yours...
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top