# Universal health care- what's the problem? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173 "2009-09-07T17:15:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/41 "2009-09-09T05:29:10Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > This pie-in-the-sky scenario of a new government spending entitlements being funded 70% by changes to other government programs has never happened in the history of U.S. Federal budget actuals. > > Oh, and that “paperwork” savings of $389 billion you cited earlier? That’s another mathematics rainbow. > > If you favor UHC, it becomes so seductive to believe that bs math. However, it doesn’t mean it’s true. > > If everyone wants UHC, by all means, you’ll be able to eventually vote it in … but don’t be gullible and believe it will cost less. It will _not_ cost less. Where is your evidence of any of this being true? ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/42 "2009-09-09T10:31:31Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Incorrect. > > UHC is a noble goal and has many compelling moral justifications. > > However, it is total mathematically ignorant bs to say it will cost less than the Iraq war. The more likely scenario is that it will cost triple or quadruple or more than the government projections ever imagined. It will add to the federal deficit and add to the debt. > > UHC will cost more – period; there’s no way around that. It’s not a “noble goal” at all, it’s the electorate’s preference in every other industrialised society, and has been for decades. Nothing noble about that, just decades of experience. It’s a matter of fact UHC that a first world UHC system costs between 9%-11% of an industrialised society’s GDP - that’s it. Fact. At 11% you get the very best in the world - the French system, at 8-8% you get the UK’s NHS. It’s fact because it’s based on 30 advanced societies over 50 over decades. Fwiw, the USA currently spends 15.3% projecting towards 19%. > **[Universal health care](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care)** > > Universal health care (also called universal health coverage, universal coverage, or universal care) is a health care system in which all residents of a particular country or region are assured access to health care. It is generally organized around providing either all residents or only those who cannot afford on their own, with either health services or the means to acquire them, with the end goal of improving health outcomes. > Some universal healthcare systems are government-funded, while ot... What the fuck any of this has to do with waging war I do not know. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/43 "2009-09-09T13:21:25Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Incorrect. > > UHC is a noble goal and has many compelling moral justifications. > > However, it is total mathematically ignorant bs to say it will cost less than the Iraq war. The more likely scenario is that it will cost triple or quadruple or more than the government projections ever imagined. It will add to the federal deficit and add to the debt. > > UHC will cost more – period; there’s no way around that. Give me the cites and reasoning for your numbers, if you can. As pointed out already UHC costs well below current US expenditures on healthcare. The only way your numbers could make any sense would be to assume the US is the most incompetent industrialized nation on earth. > [@PrettyVacant](#): > > What the fuck any of this has to do with waging war I do not know. Simply, Republicans advocated this expensive war for no good reason, then turn around and try to say UHC is too expensive. What self serving evil horrid hyportical asses they are. A couple trillion to kill Arabs? easily affordable. People having access to healthcare? Tea-bagging party! government waste! How can these people sleep at night with such raging hypocrisy? What trash. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/44 "2009-09-09T13:26:19Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > What the fuck any of this has to do with waging war I do not know. Nothing, really - it’s a _tu quoque_ that liberal fools pull out of their asses whenever they want to change the subject. Even assuming that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unjustified, this has nothing to do with the question of whether other kinds of wasteful spending should be implemented. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/45 "2009-09-09T13:49:33Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Simply, Republicans advocated this expensive war for no good reason, then turn around and try to say UHC is too expensive. What self serving evil horrid hyportical asses they are. A couple trillion to kill Arabs? easily affordable. People having access to healthcare? Tea-bagging party! government waste! > How can these people sleep at night with such raging hypocrisy? What trash. Couldn’t that just be a dispute over facts? Imagine a Republican who believed – correctly or incorrectly – that “the war will pay for itself”: he figured we’d be greeted as liberators upon winning quickly, at which point the grateful head of state we’d install would give us an exclusive on cheap oil; as a side benefit, figure we also unearth a bunch of WMDs that would eventually have been smuggled over to wreak costly havoc on American soil. Imagine, too, that this Republican believes – correctly or incorrectly – that UHC will cost rather a lot of money. You can believe he’s wrong about either or both, but AFAICT that doesn’t make him inconsistent; there’s nothing hypocritical about playing the stock market by purchasing shares in one company but not another – and never mind which one winds up collapsing and which one winds up going through the roof, just note that he truly believed the former would turn a profit and the latter wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/46 "2009-09-09T13:50:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Nothing, really - it’s a _tu quoque_ that liberal fools pull out of their asses whenever they want to change the subject. Even assuming that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unjustified, this has nothing to do with the question of whether other kinds of wasteful spending should be implemented. > > Regards, > Shodan “implemented” - be sure not to let the facts get in the way of that blindfold. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/47 "2009-09-09T13:51:08Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes. I do not for a second buy the silliness that we will somehow expand coverage AND decrease costs. That’s a fantasy, one that has already been debunked. The Feds are horrible at cost-effective design and execution of massive programs. Additionally, I see no magical reason why insurance costs will decrease because the Feds are the ones writing the check, not unless they’ll be rationing coverage. The health insurers, those evil profit-mongers, currently enjoy about a 3% profit margin. What, then, will this option actually do to decrease costs? What? How will a program that does not exclude for pre-existing conditions–a notion that defies the very essence of insurance–lead to lower costs? This is where the free marketeers venture into [All Things Scottish](http://snltranscripts.jt.org/91/91escottish.phtml) territory. If it’s not free market… it’s crap! There’s no actual thought involved, no examination of the mountains of evidence showing UHC being less expensive than our current system. The free market is good when it reduces costs and improves service. It is clearly not doing that for health care, we pay far more than every other industrialized country (all of whom have some form of UHC) and do not have better health statistics (infant mortality and life span as examples). The real question shouldn’t be “what process will cause UHC to lower costs”, it should be “what process will prevent UHC from lowering costs, like it does for absolutely every other industrialized country in the world.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/48 "2009-09-09T13:59:36Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > mountains of evidence showing UHC being less expensive than our current system. The free market is good when it reduces costs and improves service. It is clearly not doing that for health care… But “our current system” isn’t a “free market”. That’s why the Republican talking point du jour advocates dropping assorted barriers to selling insurance across state lines, which they claim will – in combination with tort reform – bring down costs and improve service. You can argue with that claim, but argue with _ **that** _ claim; you’re merely attacking a straw man if you label the current system a free market. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/49 "2009-09-09T14:10:00Z")
Selling across state lines and tort reform is going to drop our spending by 30-40%, while extending coverage to 100% of the population? Because, that’s what other countries have already. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/50 "2009-09-09T14:12:56Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > I’ve certainly heard Repubs argue that the potential cost of UHC raises grave concerns. You don’t think that’s reasonable? No. The repubs have admitted that leaving the health care alone would be a disaster. They ran in 2000 and 2004 saying if left alone, it will self destruct. The ever increasing costs will make it unsustainable . Everybody knows we can not allow the system to go on. This whole conflict is political. They don’t want the dems to do, what they were too gutless to do in the last 2 terms. If the dems fix this mess, the repubs will take a huge political hit. So they are fighting. lying and buying their way through as they sabotage the bills in the short term interests of the party. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/51 "2009-09-09T14:15:44Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > “implemented” - be sure not to let the facts get in the way of that blindfold. I am not sure what you think you are saying here - did you miss the “should be” part? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/52 "2009-09-09T14:24:52Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Selling across state lines and tort reform is going to drop our spending by 30-40%, while extending coverage to 100% of the population? It might drop “our” spending less than that, or more than that; we could run the experiment and find out. It probably won’t extend coverage to 100% of the population, though. (That said, I’m not entirely sure who you’re referring to with that “our” – will I, personally, be paying more or less money if UHC goes through? Will you? Will a majority of the citizens? Will a majority of the voters?) ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/53 "2009-09-09T16:55:32Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > **spifflog** , how much of that $30,000 is for the Iraqi war? Killing Arabs more important then taking care of Americans? Who cares? Comparing health care costs to the war is a complete red herring. Where did the $30,000 come from? I don’t know or care. If it came from the war or from free Easter candy it doesn’t really matter. The debit is still there. Actually, it does matter in one sense. The war will end, and the cost will end with it. Social security, health care and all other social programs are the gifts are that keep on giving. They will never end, and will only increase in costs. So perhaps you harping on the war isn’t such a good strategy after all. Let’s find a way to pay for the bills we have now before we find new ones. ---
**Author:** ![want2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@want2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/want2know)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/54 "2009-09-09T17:18:46Z")
The question posed in the OP is something that has mystified me for some time now. Most arguments against UHC (except for the “freedom” one posed by the insurance-industry-funded teabag wackos) seems to come down to one thing–money. “It’ll cost too much!” “The insurance companies will never be able to compete!” Then, of course there are the “rationed care”, “long waits”, and “no choice” arguments. Let’s start with the latter. All these things already exist with the private insurance companies. Most plans already tell you which doctor you can see, which tests you can have, and how long your hospital stay should be. And as for the waiting periods, let me tell you a personal story. A friend of mine at work suffers from chronic health problems. One of the medications he takes is Humira. One of the side effects of this drug is the possibility of skin cancer. Last week, he noticed a mole on his thigh, so he calls his physician to make an appointment to have it looked at. So when is the next available appointment? _Two months!_ Melanoma can be a very aggressive form of cancer, meaning that he could be dead or dying in two months! Where is the advantage to private health insurance now? There are many more examples of people having to wait months for a simple doctor’s appointment that I’ve personally seen and heard of. I’m not saying that it would be better under a public option; I’m simply stating that these things already exist under the present system. “The insurance companies won’t be able to compete!” Boo-hoo. By that rationale, Macy’s should be able to sue Wal-Mart for opening a store within 5 miles of one of their stores. Now, the compelling argument in favor of UHC, and the one that should trump all arguments against it: _it’s the right thing to do!_ 45-50 million people in this country have no insurance, and therefore no access to decent health care, and no way to pay for it should something catastrophic occur. This is _unacceptable_! Read [this column](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30kristof.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1252512005-wLOifMJVAucHXifNIv9pdA) by Nicholas Kristof in the August 30 NY Times for some eye-opening revelations: > [@](#): > > My friend M. — you’ll understand in a moment why she’s terrified of my using her name — had to make a searing decision a year ago. She was married to a sweet, gentle man whom she loved, but who had become increasingly absent-minded. Finally, he was diagnosed with early-onset dementia. > > The disease is degenerative, and he will become steadily less able to care for himself. At some point, as his medical needs multiply, he will probably need to be institutionalized. > > The hospital arranged a conference call with a social worker, who outlined how the dementia and its financial toll on the family would progress, and then added, out of the blue: “Maybe you should divorce.” Divorce? _Divorce?_ So, let me get this straight–the only way for these people not to go into complete financial ruin is for them to _dissolve their marriage?_ And, in addition, perpetrate a fraud on the insurance provider? This is the precious status quo that the party of “law and order” and “family values” wants to protect? And lest you think that this example is some kind of anomaly, let me assure you that, in 18 years of working in hospitals, I have seen this happen more times than you can imagine. > [@](#): > > A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, _78 percent of these people actually had health insurance_, but the gaps and inadequacies left them unprotected when they were hit by devastating bills. (italics mine) So much for the present system. My ex-wife has ulcerative colitis, and has had to be taken to the emergency room at least three times so far this year. She works at a job that does not offer health insurance and barely makes her rent and utilities. So there’s more hospital bills not being paid. Which leads to another argument: _“Why should I pay for someone else’s health care?”_ Well, folks, you already do, through higher health care costs and insurance premiums to offset the care that doesn’t get paid for. > [@](#): > > The existing system doesn’t just break up families, it also costs lives. A 2004 study by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, found that lack of health insurance causes 18,000 unnecessary deaths a year. That’s one person slipping through the cracks and dying every half an hour. Unacceptable, unconscionable, disgusting. How can we call ourselves the greatest nation in the world with this shame hanging over our heads? Finally, the “it’ll cost too much” argument. Contrary to opinions expressed in this thread, the “waging war vs. health care” debate is hardly invalid. The previous administration lied us into a war, bankrupted the country to pay for it, and cost over 4000 Americans and who knows how many Iraqi civilians their lives. The current administration is trying to _save_ 45 million people from potential death or devastation, admittedly at no small cost, but with potential benefits that will, in the long run, possibly end up saving us money. And _Obama’s_ the jerk? Give me a _God-damned break!_ Universal health care is right, it’s necessary, and it just makes sense. Is it socialist? I don’t believe so. But, even if it is, I’d rather be a socialist than a selfish son-of-a-bitch any day of the week. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/55 "2009-09-09T17:25:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Nothing, really - it’s a _tu quoque_ that liberal fools pull out of their asses whenever they want to change the subject. Even assuming that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unjustified, this has nothing to do with the question of whether other kinds of wasteful spending should be implemented. > > Regards, > Shodan Not even close. It is a statement about our character as a nation. If we are a nation that thinks spending 120 billion a year in Iraq is ok but spending 40-50 billion for universal health care is a wasteful program, then that says a lot about our priorities and values in this country. It has nothing to do with changing the subject. It has to do with our values and agenda as a nation. Suffice it to say, ending the war or ending Bush’s tax cuts on people who make over $250,000 a year would pay for universal health care. So it is a statement of values, should we spend money on A or B. It is related to the subject at hand. ---
**Author:** ![want2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@want2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/want2know)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/56 "2009-09-09T17:47:31Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Not even close. It is a statement about our character as a nation. If we are a nation that thinks spending 120 billion a year in Iraq is ok but spending 40-50 billion for universal health care is a wasteful program, then that says a lot about our priorities and values in this country. > > It has nothing to do with changing the subject. It has to do with our values and agenda as a nation. > > Suffice it to say, ending the war or ending Bush’s tax cuts on people who make over $250,000 a year would pay for universal health care. So it is a statement of values, should we spend money on A or B. > > It is related to the subject at hand. What he said. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/57 "2009-09-09T17:55:35Z")
> [@want2know](#): > > Universal health care is right, it’s necessary, and it just makes sense. Is it socialist? I don’t believe so. But, even if it is, I’d rather be a socialist than a selfish son-of-a-bitch any day of the week. Just for the record, one of the best organised healthcare systems in Europe is Spain’s - initially implemented by fascist Franco. And if Japan and Taiwan are ‘socialist’, I’m Bob Woodward. Just ridiculous labeling. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/58 "2009-09-09T18:03:53Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Just for the record, one of the best organised healthcare systems in Europe is Spain’s - initially implemented by fascist Franco. > > And if Japan and Taiwan are ‘socialist’, I’m Bob Woodward. > > Just ridiculous labeling. Anything that helps other people is socialist and, therefore, bad. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/59 "2009-09-09T18:55:35Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > It is related to the subject at hand. No, it isn’t. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy, even when it comes from Democrats. The fact that liberals have nothing better to offer means they aren’t going to stop embracing this, but that doesn’t make it valid. It isn’t valid, and serves merely as a marker for when one side has run out of arguments. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173/60 "2009-09-09T19:09:46Z")
How is it a tu quoque? Tu quoque, as I understand it, is Latin for “You, also”. It’s used for things like: [ul] [li]“You did something I find objectionable.”[/li][li]“Oh yea? Well you did the same thing!”[/li][/ul]It’s basically a claim of hypocrisy, isn’t it? War spending versus health care spending is a discussion of allocation of resources and doesn’t seem to fit the definition of tu quoque, at least not to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-health-care-whats-the-problem/509173.md?page=4)