Why America should NOT have any form of government run healthcare.

First, I think there are some obvious points to make. First is there no authority in the constitution for the federal government to regulate healthcare. So the only way to legally do it is to have an amendment. But I think there is a bigger issue at hand here.

When the government gets involved in healthcare, it essentially does so by spreading out the costs to every tax paying citizen. There are problems with this of course. Let's ignore the fact that many of the countries that currently have federal level healthcare are facing major debt crises. Let's just assume we would reach a tax rate that would allow for us to cover the costs....

Why is it fair for everyone to pay the same amount? I work out almost every single day. I do lots of cardio. I try to eat healthy and I have no family history of any particularly expensive diseases. I've never been to the emergency room. In fact I've only been to a clinic about 5 times because the worst thing I get are occasional allergies. Why should I pay the same amount as someone who is morbidly obese and has a history of heart failure, diabetes, and cholesterol issues. Now I know there is a common thought process when we reach this point in the logic: "Well as a country we should ensure everyone's health and safety so we should all pitch in." And I do agree with that point to an extent. But you should also look at the other side. This guy (or gal) is doing nothing to live a healthy life. In fact, he is doing things that will clearly accelerate his decline in health. So why does he deserve exceptional treatment at the same costs as someone who strives to prevent illness?

Now you run into an additional problem. Why do you think the seatbelt law exists? Most would argue that it is a law to protect people. But that seems unnatural. It seems logical that if the seatbelt were so protective, most people would be intelligent enough to wear it most of the time. No. I have a different theory. With more seatbelt usage, comes an overall decline in vehicular deaths. This of course would correlate to a reduction in hospital costs for socialized medicine. So what do we do then? Naturally we would start to regulate MORE to reduce costs. Start banning or limiting foods, and forcing people to take certain precautions for their health. While this is a noble idea, practically speaking it is simply an invasion of privacy. No, I don't agree with fat people eating 4 hamburgers in one meal. But just like freedom of religion and speech, I don't think the government has the right to tell someone how they have to treat their own body.


So while we may find a way to make socialized medicine a constitutional idea, I think there are certain cause/effect issues that must be examined more closely.

 

You make very reasonable points and don't use the usual "Liberal facists want to take over the world!" kind of hyperbole. Kudos.
That being said, I would respectfully disagree with you.
The cost of subsidizing Big Oil is spread through all tax payers. Do you feel the same way about that? We spend more on our military than every other country in the world combined. Do you feel the same way about that? I could go on about roads, etc... but you get the point. it's not a matter of cost or whether we can afford it - it's simply a matter of priorities.
As far as countries with Govt health care being in trouble, there are just as man without it that are in financial trouble. So that proves nothing. Or I could point out that every country that is currently at the top of the prosperity list has government health care and claim that as a case for why we should have it. But government HC doesn't break a country or make it prosperous.
As far as cause and effect, not having a public option does more to hurt the economy than it does to help it. 2/3 of bankruptcies filed each year are a direct result of medical costs - including those incurred by people who had the best health insurance they thought they could get. Thousand and thousands of entreprenaurs don't start their own businesses because they are chained to their employers by health care. The list of reasons go on.
Question: Have you lived in countries that had government health care? Have you had it here?

 

I do actually. I have very libertarian views. I don't think we should really be subsidizing anything. Our military is obviously out of control. I think roads could be potentially about 99% privatized also.

I agree with your points. But corrupt government listening to healthcare lobbyists is what put us in this position. So I don't think giving our potentially corrupt government MORE or even TOTAL power over it is a good idea. People say thats all 'conspiracy'. But i think with powerful governments it is always a good idea to examine the worst-case scenario to decide its worthiness.

 

Well here's the deal. The government is going to take some of our money. period. No getting around reality. So it comes down to what do I want in return for it. I'd rather have health care. I've had it here and in three other countries. Loved it.

 

Would you allow a system to let people completely opt out of it if they choose?

 

Absolutely! There are a lot of countries that have both. If you want the govt covereage, you have to pay for a minimum period. There are also countries where there is a public option and a boom industry has been the equivalent of AFLAC here. So you get the government coverage BUT you pay for private coverage of certain exams and procedures e.g. MRI's, major surgery etc... Then there's options like the one in Indonesia. You pay into it for basic care but there are co-pays designed to prevent over-use / abuse. For example, if you go in for a phyical once a year, it's free. The second physical, you pay half the cost or about $100. If you want a third or more a year, you pay 100%. If you get cancer and need chemo, it's covered because olympic athletes have gotten cancer, perfectly healthy people get it - it just happens sometimes. If you get hit by a car, it's covered. However, if you wreck your car while driving drunk, guess what? You get to pay most of the cost. So there is no regulation of lifestyle at all, just how much the government covers based on how much your lifestyle, decisions etc.. contributed to the cost.
Americans who have never lived abroad tend to think that the only alternative is what FOX or other conservative outlets tell them. This is untrue.

 

If you need a PET-scan where I live and don't have the money for it, you won't get the exam at all, of course it is not the person's fault that he needs it, but they don't get it from the gorvenment "public" program nonetheless. What you don't understand is that, simply because you think everyone should get the best medical care available, that is not possible. It is like saying that people should have acess to penicillin before it was discovered. I am sure that, if we studied the problems of the american healthcare system we would find their roots in the law, government subsidises (tax deduction is a form of subsidize) and idiosyncrasies of the american people, rather than in the market and the way insurance works.

 

I think the best reason why the US should not have a form of government healthcare is that it will drive up costs for most of the rest of the developed world, who currently negotiate down the price of medicines and equipment using central pricing.

If the US got its act together to negotiate prices aggressively prices in the rest of the world would increase.

So please continue to overpay for medicines and equipment and subsidies the healthcare of the rest of the developed world.

 

Spreading the cost is a good idea, it means greater access to healthcare as needed. The link to deficits is not clear, Australia has a very low government debt to GDP ratio and has a national healthcare system that works okay.

It's quite fair for everyone to pay the same, it will come out of their taxes. Some folks might not like paying for “someone else's health care” and some may not want to pay for defence but they don't get much say in how their taxes are spent anyway. Your fitness and your health are two different issues. You may be fit but not healthy. Many health conditions are as a result of genetics rather than laziness. And remember you are not always going to be fit and healthy, you will find this as you age.

Education rather than diktat is the best way of improving general health of a population. I do think the government has the right to act in the general interest though, such as in banning the use of trans fats (I wish my government had the guts to do it). But if people want to pig out on crap then that's their business.

 

Most diagnoses can be made without any robust structure, the relation between cost and output in medicine is not very clear. The US doctors have to spend milions and milions of dolars a year with useless exam and insurances because the dumb judges will irresponsibly sue them if they don't (or bankrupt them if they don't have "lawsuit" insurances).

And no, it is not fair for everyone to socialize costs, not everyone smokes, not everyone is sedentary, not everyone eats too much junk food. Also, subsidizing the medical sector with tax deductions also seems to have made a terrible blow on health care services, punishing responsible people who saves money. (when they get fired, medical insurance costs automaticaly increases)

Furthermore, the US actually have some better results in some areas than Europe, for example, it has the best results when it comes to certains types of cancer (if I remember well, some cancers related to the neck).

 

No health insurance for anyone making $250,000.00 a year. Let them pay for their own health care, that's what they say to the poor.

Make middle class insurance like auto insurance. They can have comprehensive at a top rate, and cheap liability insurance if they think they are healthy and don't need any operations or meds.

Let the poor go to prison. Prison has unlimited health care for prisoners for free.

There, problem solved.

 

The question is really, why insurance? Why not a form of national health care which is funded from taxation?

 

Because for the cons, it's all about protecting the rich, insurance companies. I think taxing the rich for health care is a great idea. But first voters have to wise up and get rid of the cons that are the cause of all problems in America.

 

Let's look at your points one at a time.

Many do but many do not. Sweden, Switzerland, Germany for a few. Those that do have two problems. First, their economies tend to rely more on imports and second, as is our problem, they do not set tax policy to meet the services they provide.

While the first is a product of may social and economic factors the second is quite simply a refusal to behave responsibly.

 

Everyone is part of the system whether they choose to pay or not.

The hospital where a baby was born was not built just to birth that baby. It services thousands of women and children every year. If his parents pay (with or without insurance) it reduces everyone's costs. If not, everyone pays for the birth.

When the child enters school that he has his inoculations is important not just for his health but for other children as well. If he doesn't get those shots for whatever reason it will cost everyone.

We he's 22 and working at Starbucks his health can affect the health of every customer. A cold similar could sicken hundreds because he can't afford to go to the doctor.

When he's 24 and breaks his leg skateboarding the ER care he'll get will be the most expensive care available but will be paid for by everyone but him....

Everyone is part of the system. Those that choose not to pay or cannot pay raise the costs for everyone. By "forcing" younger people into the system they will pay for services they do not now need but they will have those services available at a reasonable cost when they do need them.

 

The government does not allow for poisons in foods (well, beyond certain limits), requires restaurants to properly prepare foods like pork and chicken. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't know of any instance you can point to where the government at any level has tried to regulate individual behavior on things like how many burgers you can eat, or how much exercise must you have and I see nothing in the health care law that permits such regulation and given the absence of any examples of it happening or any laws that permit it I really think worrying about it is like the drills we did when I was a kid to prepare for a nuclear bomb. It's a distraction but not a real issue.

 

The issues to address are the real cost drivers in the system.

Providing pre and post natal care. Babies born healthy and kept healthy in infancy tend to be healthier through their lives.

Teaching children good eating habits and encouraging more exercise both in and out of school.

Regular checkups particularly for women. finding problems earlier will reduce the costs of treatment.

Elder care and end of life care.

By focusing on these issues we can reduces costs in the system from current levels down to 10% or less of GDP significantly reducing expense at all levels and freeing 5-10% of the GDP for more productive uses.

 

Tell me what government has to do with people's *private* health (or do governments own people now? I know many politicians think they do. If you want to give other people your money, you are free to do so, but it is immoral to force people to do the same, for whatever reason you may like.

 

It's not "immoral". You mightn't like it but that doesn't mean it's "immoral". If government legislates to do something that is legal then they can go ahead and do it. Providing universal health care from general taxation is something that a government could do. I appreciate the current discussion about constitutionality in the United States and until that's sorted there will be a question over it but that aside, immorality doesn't enter into it.

 

If you steal money to give it back to the person in another "form" compulsorily (of course you will take your share in the process, also), you are commiting an immoral act to me, no matter how you look at it. Want true accessibility to health care? Then do not tax anything related to the healthcare system, exept for maybe a fixed land tax, without political tricks like tax deductions to who the government wants. Stop the regulations, and let people (and health insurance companies) assume the risks for the doctors they visit, take the quality responsibility away of the judiciary. Someone wants to treat himself with homeopathic treatmente? His sad problem, he is minding his own business as he should be.

 

See there's your problem. It's not "stealing". You may think it is but in reality it isn't. I would have the same response to a pacifist who told me that government is "stealing" his or her money in order to pay for defence. Since taxation is legislated and has been found to be legal it can't be stealing.

As I said, you are perfectly entitled to view anything you wish as being moral or immoral, but that's only your personal view. Something is or is not moral based on objective facts though, not our personal likes or dislikes.

 

So, what is your definition of stealing? If there was no mention to the word in the law, it would cease to have meaning?

 

Really? I'm sure all those disabled veterans out there really don't agree with you!

 

The big argument against health care insurance is, opponents claim it's government forcing people to buy something they don't want. Lots of people don't want to buy car insurance. Lots of people don't want to buy building permits, drivers licenses, business licenses. Lots of people don't want to buy all the bombs the government makes.

And when you get sick and don't have health care insurance, you're going to have to buy health care, not insurance because then it's too late. And buying a liver transplant is a lot more expensive than health care insurance. Unless you're planing on the hospital and doctor doing it for free, which you can get in prison. But the tax payers foot that bill.

 

My definition of stealing is probably similar to most common law concepts of stealing which involves an unlawful taking of property. It's been updated in many jurisdictions now to cover a lot more but at its basic the common law definition is along those lines. The key is "unlawful".