Healthcare vs Other Necessities

[naita]

@Lemur866

Since everybody should get a checkup every other year, that’s a foreseeable expense and shouldn’t be covered under an “insurance” model.

Having a check-up every other year is an unnecessary and inefficient medical practice.
The Cochrane Library:
General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

Authors’ conclusions

General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow-up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow-up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

[Wesley_Clark]

@ishamael69

Proponents of UHC: Why is free / cheap healthcare regarded as something that the federal government should provide for everyone, as opposed to free food, free clothing, free water, or free housing?

Several reasons:

1. Health care is far more expensive and unpredictable than the other things listed. Food, clothing, water, shelter, etc are constant needs and are mostly affordable. Health care costs may be very little for 20 years, then become six figures overnight. Budgeting for health care is extremely difficult.

2. Many governments do say people are entitled to food, shelter, water and clothing. Even in America we have housing assistance and food stamps to help people meet these needs. Also in the US, there is massive public investment and regulation of sanitation and water to ensure everyone has access to clean water. So the things you list are things the government feels people are entitled to. People are also entitled to security, education, electricity, etc and collectively most people are perfectly fine with paying taxes and having government regulations to help achieve those things.

[Hari_Seldon]

If you are asking specifically why the federal government should provide it, there is no particular reason except that the federal government is already doing it with medicare and veterans. By all accounts, the former is very successful, the latter maybe not so much. But if left to the states, then some will be very well served while others more poorly. Will Kansas provide decent health service when they cannot fund their public schools? But it is worth noting that in Canada it is the individual provinces that provide universal health care, subject to the minimum standards imposed by federal laws and regulations and this works well too. The big difference is fewer hands taking their cut. No insurance companies involved, no medical coders (who make lawyers look good), no for-profit hospitals, etc.