Are there any negatives to universal healthcare?

[Lyanna Stark]

But one could use that road someday. And the military serves the country, of which that person is a citizen. They have a stake in those things. Where is the personal benefit in paying for someone else's health care?

They will get well again, can continue working and pay their taxes, which means that they will be more productive members of society. To have a safety net of other people also means that should you lose everything yourself or get hit by a car, the safety net will be there for you too, and your children, if you have any.

EDIT: kungtotte beat me to it. :)

[Artas]

Where is the personal benefit in paying for someone else's health care?

Why should it always be about personal benefit?

[Lyanna Stark]

Why should it always be about personal benefit?

A question I often ask myself. :)

[kungtotte]

Because fuck poor people.

[john]

But one could use that road someday. And the military serves the country, of which that person is a citizen. They have a stake in those things. Where is the personal benefit in paying for someone else's health care?

Even putting aside the communal interest thing, you have a stake in the continued operation of the workforce of your society. You need people in general to be well so you can keep on buying stuff. It's in your interest as much as paying for roads and the military is.

[Galactus]

But one could use that road someday. And the military serves the country, of which that person is a citizen. They have a stake in those things. Where is the personal benefit in paying for someone else's health care?

Herd immunity. If someone is in better health chances are less that they'll catch some nasty disease and spread it around. Even combating cardiovascular diseases reduces the chances of say, someone having aheart attack while driving.

[ljkeane]

Herd immunity. If someone is in better health chances are less that they'll catch some nasty disease and spread it around. Even combating cardiovascular diseases reduces the chances of say, someone having aheart attack while driving.

This is true and on top of this I'm still not entirely convinced that it would not be cheaper to run a UHC system in the US than their current privatised system, as the current system is far more expensive per capita than any government run UHC system in the rest of the world.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Been lurking for awhile, and mostly posting amusing comments if anything, but time to actually make a stance.

Really, guys, we don't have much of an excuse to not have some sort of UHC plan in place. I understand what Swordstar has been saying, that the government will just blotch the entire thing up and make things worse for everyone. But, really, is "we can't do X because Y is broken" a valid reason? To me, it sounds more like an excuse, and that we should be fixing Y. If the government is horribly ineffecient, then make it more efficient. Which, I know is a tall order, but it's obvious that government ineffeciency a problem in several different areas, and it's something we need to address. If we do, we'll be in a much better place all around.

So, basically, instead of pointing out problems as an excuse as to why we can't do something, point out the problems as things we need to address before doing something.

[Jaime L]

Where is the personal benefit in paying for someone else's health care?

It's also protection for yourself in case you lose your job. I'm sure many of the people who would argue most strenuously against social safetynets like Unemployment Benefits and Food Stamps are now thanking their lucky stars that such programs exist now that they're the ones who need them.

As for, in a less personal context, the benefit to Universal Health Care is that encourages labor mobility. People don't jump from the jobs they hate or are ill-suited for as much out of fear of losing their benefits as fear of losing the paycheck. Fluid labor markets, like fluid credit or housing markets benefit us all.

This doesn't relate to your point, but I still don't understand why our right to healthcare should be tied into whether we have a job or not. Should only those currently working receive help from the fire department when their house catches on fire, or help from the police department when a robber breaks in? Should you not be able to use the libraries? I don't get the backlash to "socialism" coming from the right. We socialize so many things in our country...especially when it comes down to elements of common protection ie: police and fire departments, heck we all benefit from our military providing "equal" common protection though we contribute to its funding unequally. Why is common protection from germs and injury and cancer any less of a prerogative?

*That's right, rightys, I just called your precious military, socialist, whatcha gonna do about it?!

[Annelise]

Artas,

Why should it always be about personal benefit?

Because that's how some people feel about this topic. If the aim is to persuade them, trying to frame arguments around their POV could prove useful. :)

This is true and on top of this I'm still not entirely convinced that it would not be cheaper to run a UHC system in the US than their current privatised system, as the current system is far more expensive per capita than any government run UHC system in the rest of the world.

This would be a compelling argument, indeed. But fears would remain about the quality of care, especially if the price is advertised as less. Too good to be true and so on. Between this discussion and guns, you can perhaps see distrust of the government may be more .. robust here than what you're used too. And I think that does have its place in shunning the idea that it could ever work here.

[Annelise]

This doesn't relate to your point, but I still don't understand why our right to healthcare should be tied into whether we have a job or not.

The interesting thing to me is, historically, employer based healthcare was not created to be a long term system. It was created as a way to get around the WWII wage freezes - attracting workers via fringe benefits. People had grown accustomed to it as an employee benefit by the end of the war and continued to demand it, and so it remained. Talk about long-term repercussions.

[Swordfish]

Been lurking for awhile, and mostly posting amusing comments if anything, but time to actually make a stance.

Really, guys, we don't have much of an excuse to not have some sort of UHC plan in place. I understand what Swordstar has been saying, that the government will just blotch the entire thing up and make things worse for everyone. But, really, is "we can't do X because Y is broken" a valid reason? To me, it sounds more like an excuse, and that we should be fixing Y. If the government is horribly ineffecient, then make it more efficient. Which, I know is a tall order, but it's obvious that government ineffeciency a problem in several different areas, and it's something we need to address. If we do, we'll be in a much better place all around.

I absolutely agree.

Once Y is fixed, give me a jingle and and I'll be 100% on board with UHC. Until then.....

You can consider it an excuse if you'd like, I consider it reality.

[Shryke]

Are you against the government handling all the other shit it handles then?

[Maltaran]

Denial of coverage to those with "self inflicted" conditions: Also doesn't happen. People who seek help will get care. Sure, they will be recommended to stop smoking, stop drinking etc. but they will still never be denied care. Again 100% wrong.

While this is true, you will get denied certain elective operations if you're too far overweight.

[Chaldanya]

While this is true, you will get denied certain elective operations if you're too far overweight.

But this is true in private care - if you are too overweight some surgeons will refuse to operate because the risk is too great...

N

[CiaranAnnrach]

Here's the really pressing question.

If we institute a UHC program, when the zombie apocalypse comes, wouldn't we have to offer that care to the zombies?

As it is now, they wouldn't get health care because they aren't working. But if we institute some sort of UHC, then wouldn't we have to give zombies health care? Wouldn't that be dangerous for the doctors, and counter-productive?

[kungtotte]

UHC only applies to humans. Do you think UHC obligates hospitals to care for cats and dogs?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

that depends if you can cure the Zombie of Zombifercation then they can go back to work bassing the head in of over Zombies.

[kungtotte]

The only cure is severing the brainstem. Don't you know your Zombie Survival Guide?

[Swordfish]

Here's the really pressing question.

If we institute a UHC program, when the zombie apocalypse comes, wouldn't we have to offer that care to the zombies?

As it is now, they wouldn't get health care because they aren't working. But if we institute some sort of UHC, then wouldn't we have to give zombies health care? Wouldn't that be dangerous for the doctors, and counter-productive?

I think they could be considered dead, and therefor exempt from the right to medical treatment.