PDA

View Full Version : To those against UHC, what would you do in this hypothetical?


you with the face
11-06-2009, 02:58 PM
In this Pit thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=538568, I presented a hypothetical to someone who is against government supported healthcare apparently because he doesn't believe money from strangers should be unwillingly used for someone else's medical care.

This is what I presented him with:

1) Your child needs a transplant to live.
2) The cost of the operation is very expensive. Like hundreds of thousands of dollars over and beyond that which is covered by your insurance, assuming you have any.
3) You qualify for government-supported assistance that completely waives these costs.
4) You don't have the means to pay for the transplant and associated treatments from your own pocket. This means that to even consider paying any of this expense, you'd have to solicit donations (AKA begging), sell your furniture and jewlery, bake a whole lot of cookies and pies, and use other means to raise money.

The questions are:

1) Do you accept the government support.
2) Or do you not.

To those who are against the public option because you think the government needs to stay out of healthcare, I'd be interested in hearing what you would choose in this hypothetical situation and why you'd choose it. And if you think this hypothetical is too outlandish and fantasy-like to entertain, also explain why you think that. "Because I'm adequately insured so this is unrealistic" is not being fair to the hypothetical.

bri1600bv
11-06-2009, 03:35 PM
Not a hard dilemma.

Even if someone doesn't want gov't health care to exist, it does exist in your hypothetical. So they could take advantage of it without being a hypocrite.

smiling bandit
11-06-2009, 03:37 PM
First off, the scenario is the usual one offered by UHC proponents. This is where the problem comes in.

Simply put, we don't lookat the issue in the same way. You want to talk about poor little babies and innocent grandmas who will surely die without the government's assistance. We tend to look at the "Big Picture" and what it will do to the country. You want to focus on sweet adorable faces and we look at the body as a whole.

Second, we don't necessarily have problems with government programs for the needy. What we generally oppose are measures which increase government control over healthcare, which is exactly what we see in the Democrat's plan. This is because said plan(s) are poorly written, intended to create something they vaguely want which they will simply fiddle with endlessly later, and which have previously been failures at their stated goals while causing considerably economic disruption and budget crunching.

The reason we oppose govenrment control over healthcare varies considerably. For my money, it's because I'm willing to sacrifice healthcare today (even my own, and even that of my fellow citizens) so that our children and their children can have better medicine, whereas the government wants to push down on all prices (but not costs, which they confuse with prices because they are morons), drive out private profits, and control what services people get in the name of the "greater good." I want more drugs, even if they are expensive at first,a nd more and better treatments, even if they cost a fortune, so that the drugs will go off-patent sooner and the treatments will be improved and made cheaper. And we have the best possible proof that private industry does this far better and more reliably than any government.

Third, even supposedly inadequate insurance often deals well with far-fetched emergency scenarios like you present. This is because on average the ludicrously expensive scenarios are also exceedingly rare, which makes them quite cheap on a per-person basis, often amount to a small fraction of overall costs. It may require a few calls to push the insurance people, but insurance usually pays for it.

Fourth, your question is irrelevant and irrational. I do not have a problem with people who take advantage of government programs, even if they have a general objection tot he existence of the program, provided that neither the program nor their usage is intrinsically morally wrong. While I strive for an ideal world, I also recognize and accept the fatc that we still live in a poor representation thereof.

Edit:

Another issue which seperates us is that most UHC-proponents call healthcare a RIGHT. This is basically an example fo the rampant stupidity in humanity. Healthcare is emphatically not a right, never has been, and probably never will be, and is the perfect demonstration of why Positive Rights are the inbred bastard cousin of Negative Rights. Negative Rights only require that someone leave you alone and not bother you. Posituive Rights, if taken seriously, require human slavery.

If you have a so-called right to good health or at least good healthcare, you are claiming the authority to force other people to work and labor for your health or healthcare. There is no logical evasion to this, period, end of story. None. However, believers don't let a little thing like logic get in their way. Instead, they demand it as a right and claim with endlessly tinkered rules and regulations that they can somehow make it come out all right. It doesn't work like that. Eventually, they usually fall back on claiming it's the "greater good,", which even if it true, is not the same thing as a right.

you with the face
11-06-2009, 03:42 PM
Not a hard dilemma.

Even if someone doesn't want gov't health care to exist, it does exist in your hypothetical. So they could take advantage of it without being a hypocrite.

Isn't that like saying you can be against abortion, but since it's legal, you can get one without being called a hypocrite? Okay, maybe that's true. But it would be such a strong case of cognitive dissonance that I have to wonder if hypocrisy wouldn't be better.

Labrador Deceiver
11-06-2009, 03:46 PM
Isn't that like saying you can be against abortion, but since it's legal, you can get one without being called a hypocrite?

No. Most people who are forced to pay into a system will happily take advantage of the same system when it is needed. It isn't hypocritical at all.

It's called getting what you pay for.

you with the face
11-06-2009, 03:57 PM
I appreciate the time and attention to put into your post, smiling bandit, and I understand that this is how many people against UHC feel and/or believe. I work in public health and know very well the fundamentals of utilitarism. This is why I'm in favor of UHC.

Can you answer the question I posed, though? Although the subject is about your hypothetical kid, I'm not aiming for an emotional appeal along the lines of "Won't you think of the children?!!!" I think a lot of us our prepared to sacrifice ourselves for our own ideals, but not our dependents. I could just as easily asking about a spouse or a elderly parent.

you with the face
11-06-2009, 04:04 PM
No. Most people who are forced to pay into a system will happily take advantage of the same system when it is needed.

Yeah, but they are using money that was taken from other people against their wishes. If you have a problem with this when it's someone else's kid who benefits, why should you stop having this problem when it's your kid?

Labrador Deceiver
11-06-2009, 04:12 PM
Yeah, but they are using money that was taken from other people against their wishes. If you have a problem with this when it's someone else's kid who benefits, why should you stop having this problem when it's your kid?

What? You're paying into a system. You use the system. End of discussion.

Your money will fund other people's surgeries down the road. Other people's money pays for you when you have a medical issue in the private system.

People aren't opposed to health care. They're opposed to having more choices taken away from them.

Sinaijon
11-06-2009, 04:14 PM
Isn't that like saying you can be against abortion, but since it's legal, you can get one without being called a hypocrite? Okay, maybe that's true. But it would be such a strong case of cognitive dissonance that I have to wonder if hypocrisy wouldn't be better.


No. It's more like when everybody goes together to order a pizza, and you want pepperoni but everybody else wants sausage, so that's what is ordered. Evidently in your world, you're a hypocrite to eat a slice when it arrives.

Damn, there went my resolution.

you with the face
11-06-2009, 04:32 PM
People aren't opposed to health care.

People aren't opposed to healthcare, you're right. But people are opposed to paying higher taxes to support healthcare for other people. Isn't that right?

you with the face
11-06-2009, 04:54 PM
No. It's more like when everybody goes together to order a pizza, and you want pepperoni but everybody else wants sausage, so that's what is ordered. Evidently in your world, you're a hypocrite to eat a slice when it arrives.

If you're strongly against sausage pizza and think it's bad to eat, why wouldn't you just order your own pizza and let the others have theirs? Since this is a perfectly legitimate option for someone philosophically against sausage, I would most certainly consider you a victim of cognitive dissonance if you didn't even think to exercise this choice.

Der Trihs
11-06-2009, 05:32 PM
No. It's more like when everybody goes together to order a pizza, and you want pepperoni but everybody else wants sausage, so that's what is ordered. Evidently in your world, you're a hypocrite to eat a slice when it arrives.
Nor, it's more like trying to forbid everyone else from ordering pizza together at all, because doing anything as a group is Communism! and Slavery! Then eating the pizza when it comes anyway.

Sinaijon
11-06-2009, 05:52 PM
Nor, it's more like trying to forbid everyone else from ordering pizza together at all, because doing anything as a group is Communism! and Slavery! Then eating the pizza when it comes anyway.

No, Communism is more like some people wanting pizza, and you say "No thanks, I'm not hungry", and they make you pay for it anyway, and then when you want to eat a slice, they say "No, because you just ate a sandwich and don't need a slice. We haven't eaten since lunch, so we should get it all." Then they invade the next apartment over so they can make them pay for pizza too.

But it all collapses in the end because, frankly, the people are sick of eating pizza and would maybe like a salad for something. But the leaders who know better keep ordering it anyway and they have a big stack of extra pizzas and very little money left, so they stop paying the delivery man. Then the pizza place stops delivering and after the extra pizza just sits on the table, getting all moldy and isn't fit to eat anymore. Everybody ends up hungry AND broke because nobody in the apartment can actually cook for themselves anymore.

Labrador Deceiver
11-06-2009, 06:04 PM
People aren't opposed to healthcare, you're right. But people are opposed to paying higher taxes to support healthcare for other people. Isn't that right?

Yes, that is right. What is your point?

Actually, the second part isn't even right. Most people I know who are opposed to UHC would be okay with an option that just took care of the people who couldn't afford health care.

Labrador Deceiver
11-06-2009, 06:06 PM
If you're strongly against sausage pizza and think it's bad to eat, why wouldn't you just order your own pizza and let the others have theirs? Since this is a perfectly legitimate option for someone philosophically against sausage, I would most certainly consider you a victim of cognitive dissonance if you didn't even think to exercise this choice.

I'm not being hard to get along with, but you are terrible at analogies. This one is awful, but not as bad as the abortion one. Nobody is opposed to sausage pizza. They are opposed to being forced to order sausage pizza when they'd rather be free to order pepperoni.

Quite frankly, I cant even believe you're taking this attitude. It's extremely easy to see how someone can be opposed to being forced to pay into a certain system, yet still use the system when the situation arises.

Honesty
11-06-2009, 06:29 PM
The reason we oppose govenrment control over healthcare varies considerably. For my money, it's because I'm willing to sacrifice healthcare today (even my own, and even that of my fellow citizens) so that our children and their children can have better medicine, whereas the government wants to push down on all prices (but not costs, which they confuse with prices because they are morons), drive out private profits, and control what services people get in the name of the "greater good." I want more drugs, even if they are expensive at first,a nd more and better treatments, even if they cost a fortune, so that the drugs will go off-patent sooner and the treatments will be improved and made cheaper. And we have the best possible proof that private industry does this far better and more reliably than any government.



If you can name one drug that was researched, developed, and patented in the last 20 years without previously being researched by basic scientists, I'll buy a hat and eat it. Without Pubmed, Pfizer would be a vitamin company and Apple would be Sony. The vast majority of research in the U.S is financed by the government. <shrug> I hereby grant you 20 experience points for reading this.

- Honesty

Der Trihs
11-06-2009, 06:43 PM
No, Communism is more like some people wanting pizza, and you say "No thanks, I'm not hungry", and they make you pay for it anyway, and then when you want to eat a slice, they say "No, because you just ate a sandwich and don't need a slice. We haven't eaten since lunch, so we should get it all." Then they invade the next apartment over so they can make them pay for pizza too. And you might actually have a point, if UHC was remotely the same as Communism.

Chessic Sense
11-06-2009, 06:45 PM
If you're strongly against sausage pizza and think it's bad to eat, why wouldn't you just order your own pizza and let the others have theirs? Since this is a perfectly legitimate option for someone philosophically against sausage, I would most certainly consider you a victim of cognitive dissonance if you didn't even think to exercise this choice.

Because they're going to make me pay for their pizza. If I'm paying, I'm eating. It's not hypocritical to say "I don't want sausage pizza and I don't want to pay for it. Oh, you're taking my money by force? Then I'm eating some of the pizza."

If with UHC, there were an option to not eat nor pay for the pizza, then I'd be fine and dandy with letting whoever order whatever topping they want.

Grumman
11-06-2009, 07:13 PM
Because they're going to make me pay for their pizza. If I'm paying, I'm eating. It's not hypocritical to say "I don't want sausage pizza and I don't want to pay for it. Oh, you're taking my money by force? Then I'm eating some of the pizza."

If with UHC, there were an option to not eat nor pay for the pizza, then I'd be fine and dandy with letting whoever order whatever topping they want.
This is exactly how I see it. I'm going to be annoyed that my money was taken from me without my consent, but I'm not going to stage a hunger strike and thereby make a bad situation worse.

The Tao's Revenge
11-06-2009, 07:13 PM
Not a hard dilemma.

Even if someone doesn't want gov't health care to exist, it does exist in your hypothetical. So they could take advantage of it without being a hypocrite.


So fuck everyone else's kids, cause your kids got his?

Why is it okay for your kid but other kids aren't good enough? Oh wait you're the poster who wants the unfortunate dieing in the streets, and teens to starve. No surprise.

The Tao's Revenge
11-06-2009, 07:18 PM
Because they're going to make me pay for their pizza. If I'm paying, I'm eating. It's not hypocritical to say "I don't want sausage pizza and I don't want to pay for it. Oh, you're taking my money by force? Then I'm eating some of the pizza."

If with UHC, there were an option to not eat nor pay for the pizza, then I'd be fine and dandy with letting whoever order whatever topping they want.

But the hypocritical and spineless part is taking more pizza then you paid for. Would you seriously argue anyone in the op's scenario paid enough into the healthcare system to pay for an organ transplant?

Der Trihs
11-06-2009, 07:21 PM
But the hypocritical and spineless part is taking more pizza then you paid for. Would you seriously argue anyone in the op's scenario paid enough into the healthcare system to pay for an organ transplant?Well, under this "I've got mine, screw the rest of humanity" ideal taking the pizza isn't hypocritical. It's all about selfishness.

Labrador Deceiver
11-06-2009, 07:24 PM
But the hypocritical and spineless part is taking more pizza then you paid for. Would you seriously argue anyone in the op's scenario paid enough into the healthcare system to pay for an organ transplant?

Not at all. When people have a certain amount of money to put towards health insurance, and you have prevented them from making the choice they would otherwise prefer, then it is perfectly acceptable for them to take advantage if the system you have forced them to take part in.

The Tao's Revenge
11-06-2009, 07:26 PM
Well, under this "I've got mine, screw the rest of humanity" ideal taking the pizza isn't hypocritical. It's all about selfishness.

Well if you strip away any pretense of higher principle, and reduce it to nothing but amoral greed then it is internally consistent, atleast.

Labrador Deceiver
11-06-2009, 07:27 PM
So fuck everyone else's kids, cause your kids got his?

Why is it okay for your kid but other kids aren't good enough? Oh wait you're the poster who wants the unfortunate dieing in the streets, and teens to starve. No surprise.

I don't think so. A lot of UHC opponents would be happy to pay for other kids, they just don't want their current setup taken away from them in the process.

Der Trihs
11-06-2009, 07:28 PM
Well if you strip away any pretense of higher principle, and reduce it to nothing but amoral greed then it is internally consistent, atleast.And in my opinion amoral greed is the only actual principle involved.

The Tao's Revenge
11-06-2009, 07:32 PM
Not at all. When people have a certain amount of money to put towards health insurance, and you have prevented them from making the choice they would otherwise prefer, then it is perfectly acceptable for them to take advantage if the system you have forced them to take part in.

The "choice" they would have preferred is being left in the medical wilderness while their kid died without any choices?

Remember the OP's scenario specified their kid was uninsurable for them, as without government intervention a very sick kid in need of an organ transplant would be.

Labrador Deceiver
11-06-2009, 07:40 PM
The "choice" they would have preferred is being left in the medical wilderness while their kid died without any choices?

Remember the OP's scenario specified their kid was uninsurable for them, as without government intervention a very sick kid in need of an organ transplant would be.

I'm guessing most UHC opponents don't accept that scenario & believe that they could have insured their children from the moment they were born.

The Tao's Revenge
11-06-2009, 07:46 PM
I'm guessing most UHC opponents don't accept that scenario & believe that they could have insured their children from the moment they were born.

Ahh the "it could never happen to me" belief. It's happening to a lot right now. American unemployment is over 10%. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/business/8346936.stm

Many of those folks won't be able to keep up their premiums, rendering their ailments and their kids a like "pre-existing".

John Mace
11-06-2009, 08:03 PM
I don't see the problem here. As others have said, if you're forced to pay into a system (ie, paying taxes for medicare, etc.) then what's the problem with taking back from that system if you have the need? It's like libertarians accepting unemployment benefits if they get laid off. They may oppose that system, but it's there and they paid into it, so why not get benefits from it?

Zeke N. Destroi
11-06-2009, 08:07 PM
I haven't weighted in on this at all previously and I may regret doing so now but I just don't get the opposition to UHC at all.

I'll say up front that I am Canadian and that I am an avowed socialist. I can't help but think that the one informed the other.

I grew up with UHC (medicare hereafter) and I can't imagine not having it. Certainly there are abuses and there are most definitely problems but I'll take medicare with all it's warts over the gleaming visage of private for profit medicine everytime.

I am not a professional and I don't make a tradesman's wage. Mrs Zeke and I make enough money that I don't qualify for any low income programs but not enough to get ahead. Staying afloat is rough at times.

My wife is currently pregnant and if we had to pay for each visit to the doctor and each test etc. We would be bankrupt. It would take years to recover. And if the kid got sick on top of all that... Jesus!

When I see the income tax deducted from my cheque (truth be told I seldom look) I don't think "rotten government". I think "I'm glad a doctor's there if I need one."

I've never noticed a lack of choice (though I guess I've never had one :eek:.) Anyone I've ever known has been able to get a referal to a specialist with no problem. As to hospitals, if my town had more than one I'd be able to visit any I chose. If I don't like the options in my town - and my needs warranted it - I could relocate to another city and their hospitals would welcome me with open arms (pretty much).

Medical discoveries are regularly made in Canada: sometimes by research hospitals sometimes by universities. It isn't as if we are riding the world's coat-tails in R and D.

Sure I'm paying for someone else to see a doctor. They're also paying for me to see one. I'm also paying for me to see one. I do get a return on my investment in that if I break my arm all I pay out of pocket is the cast fee ($30 or something) the doctor, nurse, xrays and all things other are covered for me. Same goes if I need a kidney.

As to whether or not healthcare is a right, I believe it is. If you don't then more power to you. We're neither of us likely to argue the other into submission.

I truly don't understand the uproar.

Zeke

Labrador Deceiver
11-06-2009, 08:12 PM
Ahh the "it could never happen to me" belief. It's happening to a lot right now. American unemployment is over 10%. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/business/8346936.stm

Many of those folks won't be able to keep up their premiums, rendering their ailments and their kids a like "pre-existing".

Not really. The fact that it is happening a lot right now does not negate the fact that the hypothetical family is forced to participate in a certain program. It was impossible for it ever to have happened to them. They had no other choice but to participate in the program, and it is not hypocritical for them to continue to participate in it.

you with the face
11-06-2009, 08:45 PM
Most people I know who are opposed to UHC would be okay with an option that just took care of the people who couldn't afford health care.

The argument that I hear most commonly is that a public option for those who can't afford it translates to socialized medicine because for-profit healthcare can not compete against free healthcare. Few employers would pay for private insurance if there is a free plan that available. This would make private healthcare obsolete.

There are plenty of people who are opposed of the idea of making healthcare accessible to all just on this basis.

There are also those who object to paying higher taxes to pay for other people's healthcare. They don't see themselves as potential beneficiaries. Only other people.

you with the face
11-06-2009, 08:51 PM
If with UHC, there were an option to not eat nor pay for the pizza, then I'd be fine and dandy with letting whoever order whatever topping they want.

Okay, so let's say with UCH you could opt out and use private health insurance instead. The one caveat is that once you opt-out, you can not opt back in. So none of your taxes go towards supporting the program, but you're stuck with what you have. Meaning, if you lose your job and can not pay the premiums, tough titty for you and your kids.

Would you still decide to opt out?

you with the face
11-06-2009, 08:56 PM
Not at all. When people have a certain amount of money to put towards health insurance, and you have prevented them from making the choice they would otherwise prefer, then it is perfectly acceptable for them to take advantage if the system you have forced them to take part in.

Please see my question to Cheesic Sense.

smiling bandit
11-06-2009, 09:05 PM
I appreciate the time and attention to put into your post, smiling bandit, and I understand that this is how many people against UHC feel and/or believe. I work in public health and know very well the fundamentals of utilitarism. This is why I'm in favor of UHC.

Yes, I know you are. It's blatantly obvious. It's also obvious you haven't properly considered the dangers, costs, and problems of doing it as its proponents seem to want, because you don't seem to understand thenm. I don't claim you would necessarily agree with me if you did; it's simply clear that your sanguiness is based on a lack of introspection or understanding of my PoV.

Can you answer the question I posed, though? Although the subject is about your hypothetical kid, I'm not aiming for an emotional appeal along the lines of "Won't you think of the children?!!!" I think a lot of us our prepared to sacrifice ourselves for our own ideals, but not our dependents. I could just as easily asking about a spouse or a elderly parent.

I believe I already did. There are numerous alternatives, including non-government community support. I might even support a national emergency coverage, provided it was truly voluntary. Let it serve people, not rule over them, which UHC will. Or you can simply buy emergency coverage, which should be available relatively easily and cheaply if some of the arbitrary and mistaken rules.

Being against UHC doesn't mean being against reform. In fact, I consider it the reverse, because I consider UHC the exact opposite of reform.

If you can name one drug that was researched, developed, and patented in the last 20 years without previously being researched by basic scientists, I'll buy a hat and eat it. Without Pubmed, Pfizer would be a vitamin company and Apple would be Sony. The vast majority of research in the U.S is financed by the government. <shrug> I hereby grant you 20 experience points for reading this.

First, let's assume this is true. Even if so, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Even if it is true, it doesn't change the fact that none of those drugs would have been made available. Maybe the government did the first 90% of the work. But as these things usually go, private enterprise did the other 90%.

Second, keep in mind (leftists usually don't) that I have no problem with research universities. They get some money from the feds and a lot more from private and state sources. None of that bothers me in the least.

Finaly, research scientists are not good at making useful products people can use. It's because their entire training and what they are interested in, and goals the they have, are utterly divorced from creating a drug. Rather, they try to figure out how atomic structures interact. This doesn't magically bring a useable drug into existence; that's a feat which takes a different skillset, a lot of time, and a lot of money.

Labrador Deceiver
11-06-2009, 09:27 PM
Please see my question to Cheesic Sense.

Probably opt out, but it would depend on what kind of care one would receive with UHC. I know a bunch of people who have lived in the UK, and they were all so dissatisfied with the quality of care that they paid for better heath insurance. I understand that may not be indicative of the system over there, and that it's merely an anecdote.

That being said, if my child were truly sick, I'd want the very best I could get and would take the chance in order to get it. My wife's 6-year-old godson is getting cutting edge cancer treatment (he's 6, and has been sick for 3 and a half years) and has qualified for programs that simply aren't available in other countries. That's probably the only thing keeping him alive. I have no earthly idea how much of that is thanks to their insurance, so it could be irrelevant. I do know that it has provided them with a great deal of choices and has made their quality of life as good as can possibly be expected considering the circumstances.

The question you posed is essentially the system we have now, by the way.

Ruminator
11-06-2009, 09:48 PM
If you can name one drug that was researched, developed, and patented in the last 20 years without previously being researched by basic scientists, I'll buy a hat and eat it. Without Pubmed, Pfizer would be a vitamin company and Apple would be Sony. The vast majority of research in the U.S is financed by the government.

This factoid (which I can't even verify) is brought up repeatedly as if it's supposed to be a path to enlightenment. It's irrelevant that commercial usage is derived off of govt research.

So private bicycle shop guys (Wright Brothers) invent the airplane and therefore the entire USA military Air Force should pay lifetime royalties to their estate until the end of time?

So the govt puts up GPS satellites therefore Garmin's profit should be re-distributed to the citizens? Ok, now think of every invention that was created by private individuals or corporations being used at govt offices such as the Pentagon. It is unfair that the Pentagon offices use lighting (Thomas Edison) and telephones (A. Graham Bell) therefore, what should we do about it to reimburse the private companies even further? These tit-for-tat scenarios of "if X didn't happen, then Y couldn't have happened" are ridiculous.

The Tao's Revenge
11-06-2009, 09:57 PM
Not really. The fact that it is happening a lot right now does not negate the fact that the hypothetical family is forced to participate in a certain program. It was impossible for it ever to have happened to them. They had no other choice but to participate in the program, and it is not hypocritical for them to continue to participate in it.


If they're against it, what objection, other then greed without regard for morals, could justify them taking out more then they paid in?

Further lets say after the program pays for their kid's organ transplant and they manage to lead a campaign to get the program removed. A month later a mother who's kid faces same medical crises calls them, but like them she can't afford the surgery, through her tears she asks why her kid should die after theirs lived from this program.

What could possible be said to this woman that's not more evil then Hitler raping an orphaned kitten?

you with the face
11-06-2009, 10:00 PM
The question you posed is essentially the system we have now, by the way.

No it's not. If your job doesn't give you insurance and you don't qualify for government-assistance, you're either stuck with nothing or a plan with ridiculously high premiums. In the system we have now, you can also be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions like diabetes and asthma. This reality is nothing like the option I presented you with.

Thanks for answering the question, by the way. The odds that someone would lose their job and by association, their means to pay for healthcare seem higher than the odds that they or one of their loved one's would need medical care requiring a quality of care so high that it's unlikely to be found at a public hospital. Which do you think scarier to most people: the risk of having no care at all or the risk of having some care but not the absolute best of the bestest?

Labrador Deceiver
11-07-2009, 08:26 AM
If they're against it, what objection, other then greed without regard for morals, could justify them taking out more then they paid in?

Further lets say after the program pays for their kid's organ transplant and they manage to lead a campaign to get the program removed. A month later a mother who's kid faces same medical crises calls them, but like them she can't afford the surgery, through her tears she asks why her kid should die after theirs lived from this program.

What could possible be said to this woman that's not more evil then Hitler raping an orphaned kitten?

This is moronic, and an excellent example of how certain people will argue any point, not matter how ridiculous, so long as it is on "their" side of a debate.

They're going to be forced to pay money into a system, yet prevent themselves from actually using the system. Brilliant. They would have no other choice, so they would have to use the system available to them. Just because they'd rather have a choice does not mean they are hypocritical for using what is forced upon them. On top of that, accounting is impossible when you're talking about individuals and how they contribute to a government program.

Labrador Deceiver
11-07-2009, 08:28 AM
No it's not. If your job doesn't give you insurance and you don't qualify for government-assistance, you're either stuck with nothing or a plan with ridiculously high premiums. In the system we have now, you can also be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions like diabetes and asthma. This reality is nothing like the option I presented you with.

I meant after the individual left the program. You said they couldn't go back. That would mean they would be essentially in the same situation we're in today.

Thanks for answering the question, by the way. The odds that someone would lose their job and by association, their means to pay for healthcare seem higher than the odds that they or one of their loved one's would need medical care requiring a quality of care so high that it's unlikely to be found at a public hospital. Which do you think scarier to most people: the risk of having no care at all or the risk of having some care but not the absolute best of the bestest?

In the situation you posed, there was a 100% chance that their children needed an extremely high level of health care.

Frylock
11-07-2009, 09:39 AM
Simply put, we don't lookat the issue in the same way. You want to talk about poor little babies and innocent grandmas who will surely die without the government's assistance. We tend to look at the "Big Picture" and what it will do to the country. You want to focus on sweet adorable faces and we look at the body as a whole.

Ridiculous.

You guys quite typically make arguments about individuals, their rights, how rightfully angry people are or would be to have those rights taken away, and so on.

Meanwhile, liberals quite typically make arguments about what is best for the nation economically and in terms of moral character.

Both sides have "big picture" arguments, and both sides have "how can you do this to this individual person?" arguments. For you to claim your side has a monopoly on one and ours shows a lack of reflection, or may even be downright disingenuous.

you with the face
11-07-2009, 10:43 AM
I meant after the individual left the program. You said they couldn't go back. That would mean they would be essentially in the same situation we're in today.


Okay, you're right. Opting out would be to keep things the same, but at least you'd have the other option of accepting government care. So you'd have more choices not less.

It's curious to me that the Republicans aren't advocating public healthcare with an opt-out clause. To go back to the pizza analogy, it's like telling everyone that doesn't want to eat pepperoni that they can't order sausage instead. And if they can't afford to buy pepperoni, then they get nothing. Why is that any better than when the pro-UHC's supposedly do it?

Labrador Deceiver
11-07-2009, 10:46 AM
It's curious to me that the Republicans aren't advocating public healthcare with an opt-out clause. To go back to the pizza analogy, it's like telling everyone that doesn't want to eat pepperoni that they can't order sausage instead. And if they can't afford to buy pepperoni, then they get nothing. Why is that any better than when the pro-UHC's supposedly do it?

I honestly couldn't tell you if they are or not. I know most republicans would like to be able to opt out of SS, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were okay with a UHC system with an opt-out solution. I'm not sure if that's workable, though.

you with the face
11-07-2009, 11:00 AM
I honestly couldn't tell you if they are or not. I know most republicans would like to be able to opt out of SS, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were okay with a UHC system with an opt-out solution. I'm not sure if that's workable, though.

Don't see why not. Didn't you just say your friends in London have their own private insurance?

Labrador Deceiver
11-07-2009, 12:01 PM
Don't see why not. Didn't you just say your friends in London have their own private insurance?

Yes, but I think they still had to pay into the government run system.

I need to clarify that with them. At least 2 families are back in the States now.

gonzomax
11-07-2009, 01:48 PM
The objections are Catmanesque. It is my money, not your money, it is mine. I don't care about your problems. I don't care about your children or anybody else's. It is my money.I will never need help. I am absolutely a self reliant back woodsman ,and I will never need help.

sleestak
11-07-2009, 02:18 PM
If they're against it, what objection, other then greed without regard for morals, could justify them taking out more then they paid in?

Further lets say after the program pays for their kid's organ transplant and they manage to lead a campaign to get the program removed. A month later a mother who's kid faces same medical crises calls them, but like them she can't afford the surgery, through her tears she asks why her kid should die after theirs lived from this program.

What could possible be said to this woman that's not more evil then Hitler raping an orphaned kitten?

This post is a perfect example of why I am against putting UHC in place. I believe that UHC is going to cost way more and provide lower quality and less choice for individuals.

Of course, it UHC does get put in place and I am correct, there is no way it will ever be repealed because the only people who would want it repealed are little Hitlers who don't care about anyone. Fiscal responsibility and the effectiveness of the system won't mean much to a lot of people who scream 'But what about the children?!?!?!' while they ignore the reality of the situation.

The Tao's Revenge argument is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. If you are against UHC then you are Hitler, regardless of any rational reasons for your opposition to UHC.

I would be for putting UHC in place if there were some sort of guarantee that, if costs were higher than expected or the results were worse than expect, the program would be killed. But we all know that will never happen. All that would happen is that the government would keep the program in place while throwing more money at it regardless of the results.

Are there things that can be done to make the health system better? Certainly. Is UHC the best option? I highly doubt it.

Slee

Der Trihs
11-07-2009, 04:55 PM
This post is a perfect example of why I am against putting UHC in place. I believe that UHC is going to cost way more and provide lower quality and less choice for individuals. Ah; the old "America is uniquely incompetent" argument. It's the opposite for everyone else; better care for less money. But somehow in America alone that won't happen.

Of course, it UHC does get put in place and I am correct, there is no way it will ever be repealed because the only people who would want it repealed are little Hitlers who don't care about anyone. Pretty much. The people who oppose it ARE mostly the sort who care for no one but themselves. And when people see how much better things are, they won't listen to the selfish ones anymore. And you won't be correct; all the evidence from other countries says you are wrong.

The crazy experiment here is not UHC; that's the mainstream. The experiment here is America's profit driven system, and it's a failed experiment.

otternell
11-09-2009, 01:21 PM
The argument that I hear most commonly is that a public option for those who can't afford it translates to socialized medicine because for-profit healthcare can not compete against free healthcare. Few employers would pay for private insurance if there is a free plan that available. This would make private healthcare obsolete.

There are plenty of people who are opposed of the idea of making healthcare accessible to all just on this basis.

There are also those who object to paying higher taxes to pay for other people's healthcare. They don't see themselves as potential beneficiaries. Only other people.

My HR exec mentioned to the controller, that if there were a public option, and the low level of fines to not provide health care (this was several weeks ago) than my company would ditch the current health care and pay the fine for all employees to be on public health care. So yeah, I am nervous about a public plan, because cheap skate companies like the one I work for would rather have me on a plan that they don't have to pay for. Don't want!!:mad: