No.
Even if federal healthcare were more efficient than state-level care, I would still be against it. If healthcare was administered at the federal level, I would have no freedom to choose. If healthcare was administered at the state level, I would have the freedom to move to a different state if I despised my state’s healthcare system. It will allow states to compete.
For me, freedom of choice trumps efficiency.
There are different types of UHC. There are UHC systems where there is nationalized health insurance. And you’d still go to the same doctors and hospitals that are there now. This doesn’t meaningfully alter your choices.
Did you know that?
SB, it all really depends on what “efficient and effective” means, doesn’t it?
I wasn’t making an argument but rather asking him about an idealized hypothetical - to see whether even if it were the best way (by whatever criteria he found fit to judge it) if he’d be okay with it then.
Hell, I’d be happy with UHC governed at the state level too. One way or another, private insurance companies need to be pushed back to a luxury position, not the necessity position they currently hold.
SB–looks like he didn’t take it like that.
I’ll go ahead and take a strong stand here and announce that I am in favor of doing things in the way that I think would cause the best result to be achieved.
The point, SB, is that you’ve set up a tautology–of course people are for what’s best, for their definition of best.
Ideally I would favor absolutely no government involvement in healthcare - at *any *level. But if there is to be government involvement, I would much rather have it at the state level (and thus have 50 different systems) than a single “efficient” system at the federal level.
So it’s better to be able to choose between two bad options than be forced to accept a good option?
Seriously?
<punches Crafter_Man gently on the arm>
Would you have preferred a choice between me shooting you in the face and shooting you in the balls?
You ideologues are insane. Carrying that through to its logical conclusion, we might as well disband the US and just have 50 small nations that aren’t bound by any umbrella laws.
I gotta hand it to Crafter. Damn few people have the honesty to say flat out, “I don’t care what my health insurance costs me as long as I know someone else isn’t getting it for free.”
Dog, meet manger.
If you have a non-laughable definition of your own to supply, please do so.
I’m not planning to wait up for it, though.
Some conservatives do support UHC, you know. I gave a perfectly workable idea upthread. It’s basically a government insurance company with no profit motive. It’d attract people for the same reason post offices attract customers. If it costs me less, I’m for it. You’d have to have a law that says it operates on a balanced budget by itself, though, or it’ll start doing what other agencies do and intentionally going overbudget so they can claim a dire need for more money.
And if you could conclusively prove that a federal system was the most efficient, yes, I’d support it. Of course, I’m assuming by “efficient”, you mean “cheapest for equivalent or better care”.
I’ve seen charts like the one posted, where other UHCs do more with less, but I’m unconvinced that it’s an analogous situation. Of course Americans spend more- we’re unhealthy. Charts like that look like they’re implying causation where they shouldn’t. If you could prove that the government can do it better with LESS OF MY MONEY, then you have my support.
Doesn’t “competition” between states in health care amount to a race to the bottom? Other things being equal, states with weak coverage will attract the affluent (for lower taxes) and drive away the poor (to seek better alternatives, if they’re able). States with better coverage will have an increasingly hard time sustaining their systems.
I am in fact a states’ rights advocate and generally in favor of devolving as many institutions as practicable to the state level (or below). But I think health care is one area not well served by this. There must be an inescapable minimum standard across the country, or many people will effectively have nothing.
If that’s the compromise it would take, then I wouldn’t necessarily object to UHC where each of the states manages it’s own system, provided there are good federal minimum standards and it really does achieve universal care in an efficient manner.
That is, after all, what Canada does, although their provinces are much larger.
My biggest concern about such a system would be the “race to the bottom” problem where each state tries not to be too attractive to sick people from other states. Hopefully, strong federal standards could prevent this.
Chessic: What makes you think the US is different in any relevant respect from all the other countries that have UHC? If all that other experience is mysteriously, or handwavingly, not applicable anyway, what “proof” *would *you accept? What proof would you allow even to be possible? :dubious:
Exactly so.
Of course not; as is typical of right wingers, you are fundamentally evil. You don’t care how many people suffer and die; in fact, you probably get off on it.
Conservatives are all about malice. They actually have no problem with government - as long as it’s being used to hurt people. They like wars, they like police brutality and executions, they like forcing their ideology onto others - but help or protect someone? That’s when they start opposing the government, when there’s a risk it will do anything other than harm.
No, that’s crazy people. What Chessic Sense posted is a perfectly reasonable and sane conservative position.
Like I said, you ideologues are crazy.
Well, you’re right. For almost everyone that’s not a dick, the best results typically mean the most utilitarian results - the most good done for the least cost. I know you operate on a different assumption where your best is actually a situation in which you can spend your days wandering the streets jerking off on the corpses of starved orphans, so maybe I should’ve made it clearer.
Anyway, he gave a reasonable answer (he’s against it being national even if it is effective and efficient) and I didn’t challenge him on it. You’re saying I trapped him when I was just asking a question about his philosophy out of my own curiosity and he answered - communication conducted successfully.
The closest proposal we’ve had to that was the public option that was in the initial proposal for the current reform, but that was opposed by conservatives with a fury of a thousand bags of dicks.