Dispelling US Health Care Myths: Part 1

[Voyager]

@sleestak

Your points are valid except that I have known others, and have seen others on this message board, argue that the right to housing means that every one should have a house regardless of who has to pay for it. I will look to see if I can hunt up the thread. I do know for sure that I have seen arguments in the Pit where people were arguing that everyone has a right to food no matter what. I agree that the goal is that everyone should have enough food to live, but I do not believe that food is a right. Same thing with health care. But that doesn’t make it a right.

Slee

Who is saying that the right to housing means the right to a house? Perhaps it is just the right to a place to sleep at night if you cannot afford one? Is the right to not have to sleep in the park so obnoxious?

If you say that everyone should have enough food to live, then you do believe that food is a right. This does not imply that everyone gets lobster every night. The right to free speech does not involve buying everyone a newspaper to publish. It really all boils down to the right to life. Do you agree that no one should be allowed to die of starvation or exposure due to a lack of money. If you buy that, then why should people be allowed to die from a disease or injury due to lack of money?

Odd how many seem to think that a fetus has a right to life, but the mother? Screw her, let her die of complications if she can’t afford care.

[emacknight]

@sleestak

Your points are valid except that I have known others, and have seen others on this message board, argue that the right to housing means that every one should have a house regardless of who has to pay for it. I will look to see if I can hunt up the thread. I do know for sure that I have seen arguments in the Pit where people were arguing that everyone has a right to food no matter what. I agree that the goal is that everyone should have enough food to live, but I do not believe that food is a right. Same thing with health care. But that doesn’t make it a right.

Slee

If you want to stick with the “right to housing” example, consider the fact that right now mortgage interest is tax deductible. Which to me means that the government is subsidizing the purchase of my house, to the tune of several hundred dollars per month. There is a very real cost under the current system. So for a conservative to argue against a “universal housing” system because it would cost several hundred a month, requires that they completely ignore the cost of the current system.

Okay, to really dumb it down enough: consider you’re out for dinner and you order chocolate icecream, and someone says, “you should order chocolate cake.”

To say, “I don’t want chocolate cake because it has chocolate in it” would be the dumbest argument you could come up with. Likewise, there is egg, sugar, and milk product it both desserts as well.

When I hear an argument like that made, all I can think is, "my god, that poor guy, he’s been lied to his whole life to the point he honestly believes chocolate icecream doesn’t have chocolate in it.

There are very real and legitimate arguments to be made, like an allergy to gluten, that could be made but aren’t.

So to rephrase the OP, it is a myth to think that chocolate icecream doesn’t contain chocolate, and it is stupid to stay you don’t want chocolate cake because it has chocolate in it, when you are currently eating chocolate.

[Frylock]

@Bricker

I believe you’re wrong. There is no justification to force members of society to pay for things that are properly an individual’s responsibility. None whatsoever.

Is it every individual’s responsibility to be able to recover from unforseeable disaster?

[Frylock]

I think that a better argument can be found in the OP than most people are finding.

Here’s a way to put it succinctly:

There’s a meme that pro-HRC people think health care is a right.

But in fact, pro-HRC is about fixing things so that people aren’t paying too much for others’ care.

The system as it stands puts an unfair burden on some to pay others’ insurance.

Proposed reforms will fix that problem.

[Bricker]

@spazattak

If this is a strongly rooted belief, then shouldn’t those who are opposed to paying for others’ health care be boycotting things like taxes, insurance, hospitals, etc? How can you participate in these systems without becoming a hypocrite? If you were to be consistent in your beliefs, shouldn’t you negotiate directly with doctors, nurses and surgeons for your services?

sigh

So much error.

Do you play Monopoly? I did a lot, as a kid. Most of my friends had this asinine rule about Free Parking. All the money the Bank collected through fines and penalties from Chance and Community Chest actions, and sometimes even the money the Bank collected by selling property and/or houses, ended up in the middle of the board, and a person who landed on Free Parking won it all. This despite the fact that the printed rules said, very clearly, that Free Parking was simply a resting place that entitled the player to no rewards of any kind.

So I would enforce that rule at my house, and argue vigorously for it when playing at someone else’s house. But ultimately, the person who hosted the game made the decision – “house rules.” So more than a few times, I played a game of Monopoly with the “Free Parking Lottery” rule in effect.

Do you suppose I refused the Free Parking money if I landed on it? Do you suppose that accepting it made me a hypocrite?

Of course not. Because there is a difference between arguing for the best course for a society to take, and participating in that society’s actual rules. Free Parking Lottery was a terrible rule. But if it was decided that the rule was in effect, then naturally it would be foolish not to use it.

[emacknight]

@Shodan

I don’t think this is the case. Defining health care as a right would be an upward pressure on costs that does not exist now.

You are free to make that case, and I encourage to you to do so. But it has nothing to do with UHC, and it has nothing to do with paying for other people’s health costs.

I would also like to point out, that even IF it caused an upward pressure, you say that as if there are no upward pressures on the current system. Why is it, that without UHC health care costs in the US continue to rise? Or do you argue that they are going down? Do you believe that in the current system there is a downward pressure on health care costs?

[QUOTE=Shodan]
That was part of the purpose behind my examples of my back and my arm. If I had not had insurance, I could have foregone the MRIs and CAT scans and so forth. Define health care as a right and set up UHC, and I am perfectly entitled to demand these as my right.
This makes no sense. All other things being equal, why would people deny themselves health care if they had already paid for it, or if it were paid for by someone else?
[/quote]

Two mistakes, if you did not have health insurance, you probably would have gotten the MRIs and then had to declare bankruptcy. Did you know that over 50% of bankruptcies in the US are the result of medical costs? And without insurance you would have learned that the nerve was infected and had to forgo treatment until you ended up in the ER. Or, you would have had to stop working because you couldn’t get treated. Each of those points has a cost that you are currently incurring but chose to ignore.

The other mistake is thinking that with UHC people just run into the MRI room and demand their $20 worth. Why do you think that? Where did you get that idea?

Further to that, does your current insurance allow you to do that? What stops you from getting treatment now?

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I don’t see this. The doctor wants to be paid just as much under UHC as he does now. One of my issues is that if we define health care as a right, I am entitled to demand that I get just as many MRIs as I would get now. After all, I have the right to health care.
I think most people are saying “I don’t want to pay MORE for other people’s health care, since it is not a right.” One of the dangers of defining health care as a right is that people can demand that you pay MORE. Because that is what a positive right like this means - the right to compel other people to do things, not the right to do things yourself.

It may clarify to think about free speech as a right. This means currently that I cannot be prevented from speaking. Defining free speech as the sort of positive right that I think you mean would imply that other people must assist mean speaking, by paying for my platform.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

You can demand what ever you want. I have the right to free speech so I demand you buy me a newspaper. I can go down and demand I get an op-ed published on the front page. How is that going to work out for me?

Or wait, the doctor can make an informed decision that you don’t need an MRI and tell you that.

In the real world of UHC, you can demand an MRI and the hospital staff will politely put you on the bottom of the list. And after the people that actually need an MRI get theirs you can have yours.

But all this is besides the point. Right now, your group plan means that the people in your group have the right to demand all the MRIs they can get, and you’re on the hook. Your premiums will go up next year just like mine did each of the last four years. Under the current system, there is an upward pressure on costs, starting with the desire to make profit. The hospitals, under the current system, have no reason NOT to put in the lastest and greatest MRIs because they can pass the cost off to you, the group plan member.

[Ruminator]

@emacknight

Okay, to really dumb it down enough: consider you’re out for dinner and you order chocolate icecream, and someone says, “you should order chocolate cake.”

To say, “I don’t want chocolate cake because it has chocolate in it” would be the dumbest argument you could come up with. Likewise, there is egg, sugar, and milk product it both desserts as well.

When I hear an argument like that made, all I can think is, "my god, that poor guy, he’s been lied to his whole life to the point he honestly believes chocolate icecream doesn’t have chocolate in it.

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.

[John_Mace]

@Frylock

I think that a better argument can be found in the OP than most people are finding.

Here’s a way to put it succinctly:

There’s a meme that pro-HRC people think health care is a right.

But in fact, pro-HRC is about fixing things so that people aren’t paying too much for others’ care.

The system as it stands puts an unfair burden on some to pay others’ insurance.

Proposed reforms will fix that problem.

There is a meme that meme means something often said but not true.

But I hear “health care is a right” all the time from people on the left, often on this MB. So it may be a “meme”, but it’s also true, if not universally so.

[Magiver]

Your meme aside, the health care that the military, Federal and State employees have is part of their salary. In the case of Federal and State employees it is private insurance.

Beyond that, we really don’t need to be lectured by someone from a country that spends 1/4 of what we spend in GNP on the military unless you wish to pony up your share of NATO. I would think the Queen would at least ask the same GDP contribution from you as the UK which is double what you’re paying now. In effect, the United States is subsidizing your health care system.

So unless you want to pay your share of the load you have no financial basis from which to lecture others.

[Voyager]

@Magiver

Your meme aside, the health care that the military, Federal and State employees have is part of their salary. In the case of Federal and State employees it is private insurance.

Beyond that, we really don’t need to be lectured by someone from a country that spends 1/4 of what we spend in GNP on the military unless you wish to pony up your share of NATO. I would think the Queen would at least ask the same GDP contribution from you as the UK which is double what you’re paying now. In effect, the United States is subsidizing your health care system.

So unless you want to pay your share of the load you have no financial basis from which to lecture others.

So you’re in favor of cutting US defense spending and putting the money into healthcare?
Bravo, sir, bravo!

[Magiver]

@Voyager

So you’re in favor of cutting US defense spending and putting the money into healthcare?
Bravo, sir, bravo!

If Canada replaces it, absolutely. Problem solved.

[Voyager]

@John_Mace

There is a meme that meme means something often said but not true.

But I hear “health care is a right” all the time from people on the left, often on this MB. So it may be a “meme”, but it’s also true, if not universally so.

So, do those who object to health care being a right object to the laws which require ERs to take everyone whether or not they can pay? That is the most basic implementation of the right in the US. Given that, which leads to extremely expensive and inefficient care, we seem to have the choice of making things better or letting them die. Or keeping the status quo, for those who think this is the best of all possible systems because it is in the Good Ole US of A.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Let me get this right Magiver… You are of the opinion that because the US spends a huge amount of money each year on things like invading and occupying Iraq, and on nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them around the world…

That this can be construed as a direct subsidy to the a Canadian citizen’s healthcare. Because we don’t “have to” spend extra money on the necessary tasks of invading countries or defending against cold war enemies that no longer exist.

That about right?

[Voyager]

@Magiver

If Canada replaces it, absolutely. Problem solved.

If they replaced it with the share of the GNP we now spend, we’ll all be speaking Chinese inside of five minutes.

[Voyager]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Let me get this right Magiver… You are of the opinion that because the US spends a huge amount of money each year on things like invading and occupying Iraq, and on nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them around the world…

That this can be construed as a direct subsidy to the a Canadian citizen’s healthcare. Because we don’t “have to” spend extra money on the necessary tasks of invading countries or defending against cold war enemies that no longer exist.

That about right?

Don’t forget that they spend less per capita then we do, so how their lack of defense spending is making up the difference is beyond me.

[Magiver]

@Voyager

If they replaced it with the share of the GNP we now spend, we’ll all be speaking Chinese inside of five minutes.

Then we’d be getting re-runs of Firefly so I guess there would be some benefit.

[Bricker]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Let me get this right Magiver… You are of the opinion that because the US spends a huge amount of money each year on things like invading and occupying Iraq, and on nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them around the world…

That this can be construed as a direct subsidy to the a Canadian citizen’s healthcare. Because we don’t “have to” spend extra money on the necessary tasks of invading countries or defending against cold war enemies that no longer exist.

That about right?

No. I don’t speak for Magiver, but if you gave his paragraph to 50 students and asked them for neutral, honest summaries, not one would come up with this screed. I am confident that’s not what he sought to convey.

And I’m confident you know it.

For fun, why don’t you try to honestly summarize his statement, and then rebut it?

[Voyager]

@Magiver

Then we’d be getting re-runs of Firefly so I guess there would be some benefit.

Hell, we’d be offered bootleg DVDs of Firefly for fifty cents on every street corner.

[Shodan]

@emacknight

You are free to make that case, and I encourage to you to do so. But it has nothing to do with UHC, and it has nothing to do with paying for other people’s health costs.

I believe I have explained twice that it does.

I would also like to point out, that even IF it caused an upward pressure, you say that as if there are no upward pressures on the current system.

Not at all. What I said was that another upward pressure is something we do not need.

Why is it, that without UHC health care costs in the US continue to rise?

Most of the health care inflation is driven by increased technology. We have things like MRIs and CAT scanners and drugs that weren’t availbale even twenty years ago. Much of the rest of it is an aging US population. Much of the rest of that is things like obesity and other lifestyle related issues. A large part of that is that we spend a lot more on those at the beginning and end of their lives. We treat low birth weight newborns that might be classed as stillbirths in other countries.

Or do you argue that they are going down? Do you believe that in the current system there is a downward pressure on health care costs?

No, there is not, but we desperately need one. That is a major flaw in Obama care - it does nothing to address the causes of health care inflation.

Two mistakes, if you did not have health insurance, you probably would have gotten the MRIs and then had to declare bankruptcy.

No, I would have gone without, as I did when I was without insurance.

Did you know that over 50% of bankruptcies in the US are the result of medical costs?

Yes, I did. Did you know that the majority of those had health insurance?

Further to that, does your current insurance allow you to do that? What stops you from getting treatment now?

Nothing - that’s the point. That’s why I got the MRIs and CAT scans.

You can demand what ever you want. I have the right to free speech so I demand you buy me a newspaper. I can go down and demand I get an op-ed published on the front page. How is that going to work out for me?

It depends on how the right is defined. If it is defined as an active right, the newspaper has an obligation to supply it. If health care is defined as an active right, health care providers have an obligation to supply it.

The hospitals, under the current system, have no reason NOT to put in the lastest and greatest MRIs because they can pass the cost off to you, the group plan member.

And this will not change under UHC. Hospitals have no reason to deny people MRIs, because they will always get paid. They can always pass the cost along to me, the taxpayer.

Regards,
Shodan

[begbert2]

@Bricker

No. I don’t speak for Magiver, but if you gave his paragraph to 50 students and asked them for neutral, honest summaries, not one would come up with this screed. I am confident that’s not what he sought to convey.

And I’m confident you know it.

For fun, why don’t you try to honestly summarize his statement, and then rebut it?

Magiver’s position relies on the notion that most or all of american military spending is being spent on causes contributary to Canadian welfare. If not, then the fact american spends so much isn’t doing jack to prop up a (possibly imaginary) shortage of Canadian military spending.