# Dispelling US Health Care Myths: Part 1 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997 "2010-01-22T16:09:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/121 "2010-01-23T05:09:47Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So my point is to get rid of that statement from the discussion. > > It’s fine to discuss quality and quantity of care, even the stupidity of rationing and death panels. But it’s time to drop this nothing of “paying for other people’s health care,” and trying to rationalize it with the word “rights.” Uh, I assume you’re aware that conservatives utter the phrase you so dislike in response to liberals offering up the “healthcare is a right” as an argument. I’m sure that if you could convince those on the left to not make the claim that conservatives would be happy to not rebut it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/122 "2010-01-23T05:24:07Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Really confused. I can’t tell where exactly, or why, you’re eliding from talk of what _should_ be to talk of what _is_. In this case, they are the same thing. I think that we, as a society, should take help out the truly needy. That’s what Medicaid is for, and that’s what it does. We might argue about what the eligibility requirements are, but that’s a technical matter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/123 "2010-01-23T05:32:27Z")
The problem remains that our “system” (if such a grand term applies) makes needy people out of regular people. Surely you’ve seen the statistics on medical bankruptcy? The people who bought health insurance, thought they had health insurance, and then found out that all they had was a chance to play Wheel of Coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/124 "2010-01-23T05:33:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He said that which YOU do for the least of my brothers… we don’t follow this command by forcing others to do it;we follow it by doing ourselves. > > I could explain the rendering unto Ceasar quote, but I suspect you’re not really interested. If I’m mistaken, let me know. Maybe the Caesar thing was simply a dodge, he was trying to find a middle ground in order to avoid pissing off either the Romans or the Jews. There are different ways of interpreting it, but the overall message Jesus made seemed pretty clear to me regarding coveting money and helping out other human beings. There are precious few rich Christians out there who are selling their possessions to give to the poor, so it doesn’t seem to be about how they don’t want the government to take care of it since they’re already taking care of it voluntarily, it just seems like their strong opposition is because they want to hold on to their filthy Mammon for themselves. Maybe you’ve found a lawyers trick that will work for you at the Pearly Gates. 🙂 Or you might already be giving huge sums to charity, but the Prosperity Gospel types seem to outnumber the Albert Schweitzers by significant margins. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/125 "2010-01-23T05:40:59Z")
So the lawyer walks up to the Pearly Gates and says to Pete “Hey, why am I dead, I was only forty-three and in good shape?!” And Pete looks at his record book and says “Well, according to this record of billable hours, you were at least two hundred and eight!” Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week, sue the veal… ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/126 "2010-01-23T05:57:11Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Or you might already be giving huge sums to charity, but the Prosperity Gospel types seem to outnumber the Albert Schweitzers by significant margins. I think you’ve stumbled backwards into the answer. There actually needs to be more pagans, heathens, and atheists in America. Britain, Sweden, and many European countries have higher % of atheists and they have UHC. Do you want free health care? Convince more citizens to give up God and you might get the extra neighborly compassion you’re looking for to pass UHC through Congress. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/127 "2010-01-23T09:09:06Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#): > > There are a number of ways to reduce costs, and increase availability to more people, without taxing the hell out of the population at large: > > 1. Eliminate HMOs > 2. Meaningful tort reform, similar to Texas Which explains why Texas leads the nation in people without healthcare and is ranked 44th in people in poor or fair health. By some odd coincidence though, states headed by liberals fare better. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/128 "2010-01-23T10:06:00Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Which explains why Texas leads the nation in people without healthcare and is ranked 44th in people in poor or fair health. By some odd coincidence though, states headed by liberals fare better. How is “people” defined in the study you didn’t cite? (Please forgive me if it is already cited up above). Do you get to count illegal aliens? ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/129 "2010-01-23T11:18:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He said that which YOU do for the least of my brothers… we don’t follow this command by forcing others to do it;we follow it by doing ourselves. > > I could explain the rendering unto Ceasar quote, but I suspect you’re not really interested. If I’m mistaken, let me know. Fwiw and from afar, I do find your perspective on UHC perhaps the most curious and least rational of all I’ve read on here. I can only think it must be heavily influenced by having emotional bottons hit time and again by politicians and media. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/130 "2010-01-23T12:05:33Z")
I understand the “universal” part I think. The “health care” part needs a little explaining though. Who gets to decide how much “health care” is to be provided? That’s going to be a pretty important issue when you expand the recipients and reduce the providers. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/131 "2010-01-23T12:53:55Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > I understand the “universal” part I think. > > The “health care” part needs a little explaining though. > > Who gets to decide how much “health care” is to be provided? That’s going to be a pretty important issue when you expand the recipients and reduce the providers. The annual budget is adjusted - usually it’s a percentage of GDP and changes as GDP does. Then money is allocated as efficiently as possible. Any talk of ‘rationing’ is propaganda bollocks - honestly, how do people think that works, healthcare professionals attend to 100 people and then stop? Most bizarre thing I’ve heard - apart from ‘death panels’. If money is short (GDP declined), the wait for a service grows. If GDP was good the previous year, the service expands or they put more into infrastructure, whatever. Money is allocated according to where the need is by healthcare professionals. Politicians provide the budget only, and stand or fall electorally on that. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/132 "2010-01-23T13:32:28Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > I understand the “universal” part I think. > > The “health care” part needs a little explaining though. > > Who gets to decide how much “health care” is to be provided? That’s going to be a pretty important issue when you expand the recipients and reduce the providers. Who’s talking about reducing the providers ? ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/133 "2010-01-23T14:07:29Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > The annual budget is adjusted - usually it’s a percentage of GDP and changes as GDP does. > > Then money is allocated as efficiently as possible. Any talk of ‘rationing’ is propaganda bollocks - honestly, how do people think that works, healthcare professionals attend to 100 people and then stop? Most bizarre thing I’ve heard - apart from ‘death panels’. > > If money is short (GDP declined), the wait for a service grows. If GDP was good the previous year, the service expands or they put more into infrastructure, whatever. > > Money is allocated according to where the need is by healthcare professionals. Politicians provide the budget only, and stand or fall electorally on that. Is this theory or is it in the bill? As for rationing and reducing providers… that’s just my theory, based on a fact (more recipients) and an assumption (providers won’t put up with this kind of system). ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/134 "2010-01-23T14:45:36Z")
I’m just explaining a general application of a ‘proper’ UHC system, no idea what is currently going through Congress. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/135 "2010-01-23T16:17:58Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > The US is already a socialist country. We have socialized roads, socialized schools, a big fat chunk of social medicine in forms already mentioned, socialized defense, etc. Poor people learn in schools and drive on roads that they didn’t earned. Why should medical care be different (or not?) > > In my mind there are only 2 good arguments, one for and one against. The first is to acknowledge that although nobody has a right to demand healthcare, just like nobody really has a right to demand paved roads or schools, when there are opportunities to do things that benefit us all, we have government mechanisms that permit us to do those things. Our current system is the most bizarrely inefficient system on earth… we pay more than anyone else for less care and not significantly better outcomes. Shouldn’t we get together and do that? > > That’s a very persuasive argument. It’s one that had a hold on me for a while and from time to time is stated eloquently enough to sway me back. But here’s really the rub… > > While I don’t mind throwing in for the basic common good of everyone,\*\* I do have a problem with paying for other people’s bad choices. \*\* This is not because I am greedy and I want them to suffer but I think society is better when people are accountable for their own choices. We will not improve society by providing a safety net for sedentary Cheetos-bingers and smokers. Oh, I can hear some people saying… we’ll offset things like that by taxing junk food and tobacco, incentives for good health care practices, etc… > > By this point I have to say… um, no. Thanks, but fuck you, I don’t want the nanny state controlling my diet and vices just so we can cost-control universal healthcare. It’s just too much. I’d like the freedom to smoke MORE different kinds of plants, not less, and I’m willing to accept the responsibility in exchange for that freedom. I don’t mind helping other people. I do mind paying for other people to be stupid, and I do mind giving up my freedom because others are too stupid to handle theirs. > > So at that point, I have to say we ought to support bare-bones preventive medical care… shots, immunizations, physicals, dietary counseling out the wazoo… but other than that, pay out of pocket. I’m sure this Atlantic article [How Healthcare Killed My Father](http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care) has been tossed around a thousand times, but if not then there it is anyway. It lays out a good case for how we could all be better off if we mostly did away with insurance altogether and paid out of pocket. I find it extremely compelling. (bolding mine) Okay, here we go again. You are already paying for their health care! If you are in a group plan, your premiums reflect the fact that not everyone makes as wise choices as you. The guy eating chetos in the cube next to you gets the same health care as everyone else in your group plan. Further to that, “poor people” on medicare, and old people on medicaid are also smoking and making choices you don’t agree with, all the while getting the health care that you are paying for. There have been some really compelling arguments against UHC, and to be honest it is a damn easy thing to argue against. I’m not surprised people don’t want it, and while I’m young and healthy I’m happy to go without it too. But what you mention above completely and entirely ignores the facts of what you current have. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/136 "2010-01-23T16:43:44Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > I understand the “universal” part I think. > > The “health care” part needs a little explaining though. > > Who gets to decide how much “health care” is to be provided? That’s going to be a pretty important issue when you expand the recipients and reduce the providers. We are going to let a bureaucrat decide how much care to give. The bonuses paid to him will be determined by how much he can save by denying expensive procedures. There will be an upper limit on how much we spend on any individual, and when that runs out they will not be insurable by anyone else. Oh wait, that’s our current system. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/137 "2010-01-23T17:41:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We have programs that specifically cover children. We also have hospitals dedicated to the free care of children with extreme medical problems that greatly exceed the care found in any other nation. > > My former boss’s child had a rare brain tumor and he was medivac’d by private jet to Shriners where they pulled out all the stops to save him. The jet time and medical crew were donated as was all the hospital care. There was no waiting list to see a specialist and then another waiting list to see a surgeon. > > The reality of health care in the United States is that you will get emergency treatment if you need it. We do not have to abandon our current system to improve it. The reality is they don’t. There are thousands of people who die because they don’t have health care. there are many thousands suffering. Those programs do not fill the need by any measure. They just make you feel less guilty. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/138 "2010-01-23T20:04:08Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Sorry but I think your analogy is absurd. > > It’s like saying we should all pay for everyones gasoline because it’s already baked into everything we buy. If you buy postage stamps, you’re buying gasoline for postal delivery trucks. If you pay for schooling, you’re paying for the gasoline that goes into school buses and the gasoline that gets teachers’ cars to the classroom. If you’re buying a bag of apples, you’re paying for the gasoline to transport the crops from the field to the supermarket. > > With everything I pay money for, it indirectly pays for health insurance, gasoline, water, silicon, electricity, sheet metal, diet Pepsi, sex, drugs, rock & roll, etc, etc. > > Your argument covers any and all products and services therefore it’s an argument with no substance. It offers zero insights into the problem. I realize my analogy was way too complicated, consider this: We’ve all been to a buffet, I think UHC is a lot like a buffet. You are forced to pay regardless of how much you eat. When you’re starving (poor and/or deathly ill) the buffet is great idea, $20 for all you can eat. When you’re full (rich and/or healthy) the buffet concept sucks because you’re subsidizing fatty over there stuffing his face. So, it makes sense to say, “I don’t want to go to a buffet because I don’t want to pay for fat irresponsible people to keep getting fatter, especially when they’re poor and getting the buffet for free.” That, WOULD be a very logical argument AGAINST UHC. Bleeding heart liberals could get then plea to your compassion, and fiscal conservatives could show had it would make more sense to let individual pricing determine service. There exists very real and compelling arguments for and against UHC. So why doesn’t that work in the US? Because you are already paying for the fat people at the buffet. You think you’re ordering a la carte, and that with UHC you’d be paying for other people’s food. But you are wrong. There is currently a buffet for old people, poor people, and the people that go bankrupt and can’t pay their bill. You are currently paying the tab. It has been built into your bill, and into your taxes. Which is why saying, “I don’t want UHC because I don’t want to pay for other people’s health care” is a really stupid thing to say. If you want, you can try to shift and deflect the argument by talking about the nuances involving the quality of the food, the lineups to get fed, and who decides when you die. But the fact remains that you currently have a buffet that you are paying for run by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/139 "2010-01-23T20:24:52Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > You are currently paying the tab. > It has been built into your bill, and into your taxes. True. But it’s also true for every other product & service that’s _not_ healthcare. Gasoline is built into your bill. Worker’s compensation is built into your bill. Research & development is built into your bill. Retail theft from other shoplifting customers and dishonest employees is built into your bill. You’ve made a statement without a distinction. You’ve failed to differentiate what’s unique about healthcare being baked into various things we pay for. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/140 "2010-01-23T20:42:40Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > True. But it’s also true for every other product & service that’s _not_ healthcare. > > Gasoline is built into your bill. > Worker’s compensation is built into your bill. > Research & development is built into your bill. > Retail theft from other shoplifting customers and dishonest employees is built into your bill. > > You’ve made a statement without a distinction. You’ve failed to differentiate what’s unique about healthcare being baked into various things we pay for. You’re right, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were living under a rock. Right now there is considerable debate concerning health care in the US and how to provide it. This thread, and may others, are discussing that issue. For each of the items you mentioned, there is a cost built into the products they are related to. Take RnD for example: the cost of an iPod or a pacemaker includes the cost of RnD. If we were suddenly concerned about mp3 player technology and it’s impact on society a case could be made that perhaps it should be a government run system instead of a privatized one; that it is in our best interest to have mp3 player technology for everyone. Now, ready for this? The cost of RnD is ALREADY build into the cost. So to say, “I don’t want to pay for other people to have mp3 player technology” is a stupid thing to say. You are currently paying for it by owning an mp3 player. And if it switches from Apple’s budget to government coffers, the cost of an iPod goes down and taxes go up. There is a very real and logical argument to be made AGAINST putting the government in charge of mp3 technology. But to say, “mp3 playerss aren’t a right and I don’t want to pay for other people to have access to it” isn’t one of them. It is a myth to think that you are not currently paying for other people’s access to mp3 technology, whether they earned it or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997.md?page=8)