# US healthcare reform debate question. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 9, 2009, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-healthcare-reform-debate-question/505792 "2009-08-09T01:52:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-healthcare-reform-debate-question/505792/41 "2009-08-09T20:29:44Z")
**Ruminator** , I won’t spend much more energy banging my head against this particular brick wall but it must be noted that despite your smugness that some are just not understanding your answers it seems to some of the rest of us that you are the one who just isn’t understanding some very basic concepts. You seem to have fixated on a very particular hypothetical: an intervention is possible within the cost of annual premium that would be life-saving and for which a payor will not pay and for which an individual can only afford by going without paying for coverage for any other healthcare needs. It is an absurd hypothetical that brings no light to this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![tetranz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@tetranz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tetranz)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-healthcare-reform-debate-question/505792/42 "2009-08-09T20:30:12Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Because if you don’t like what the insurer is telling you, they can’t stop you cancelling your contract with them and paying for the treatment yourself. The government has the power to force you to buy their insurance (i.e. whatever health insurance levy they claim in taxes), even if it’s completely worthless to you and actively harms your ability to pay for the treatment you _do_ need. You mean like the way local government forces you to pay for their school system even if you don’t have kids or your kids go to a private school? Why is there not an outcry about that? ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-healthcare-reform-debate-question/505792/43 "2009-08-09T20:46:07Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > You seem to have fixated on a very particular hypothetical: an intervention is possible within the cost of annual premium that would be life-saving and for which a payor will not pay and for which an individual can only afford by going without paying for coverage for any other healthcare needs. It is an absurd hypothetical that brings no light to this discussion. Perhaps it’s an intervention (drug) that simply makes quality of life more comfortable but does not extend the years of that life. It seems like you think there are absolutely zero reasons for consumers to retain a choice with the $$$ paid to premiums and the arrogance of that judgment is what sounds absurd. And adding the logical error of talking about “effectiveness” of the alternative treatment isn’t shedding light on this discussion. That’s a separate tangent. I’m not against UHC but I think it’s wrong to claim that UHC has the same restrictions on choice as private insurance. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-healthcare-reform-debate-question/505792/44 "2009-08-09T20:53:02Z")
The guideline is Medicare for all. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-healthcare-reform-debate-question/505792/45 "2009-08-09T20:55:16Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The guideline is Medicare for all. Yes, the Medicare that is financially insolvent should be extended for all. It’s magic. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-healthcare-reform-debate-question/505792/46 "2009-08-09T21:05:44Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Would a couple of cites really change your opinion? I doubt it. > > You said you currently don’t have insurance and can’t afford it. To you, all that matters is that folks like yourself go from zero coverage to UHC vs someone with UHC that wants treatment that’s not covered. > > Maybe in the whole big scheme of things, that should be the best option (the “greatest good for the greatest number” argument) but that’s not what you originally asked. Your first postings were saying the situations were identical. They are not identical. A couple of sites of about people in countries with UHC who have experienced what you’re describing? That would be nice. Also, give me your honest opinion. Your concern about people not being able to drop their coverage is a con against UHC. OK, under out present system if you want good health coverage you need to have a full time job. If you’re part time or self-employed you have to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket, and even then if you have a preexisting health condition you’re denied coverage. These are two cons against the current system. Which is worse? Right now I believe that our current system is worse because there’s a greater number of people who can’t afford or who are denied health care than there would be people who couldn’t drop it if it was mandatory. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-healthcare-reform-debate-question/505792/47 "2009-08-10T02:03:36Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Sometimes, you have to do the “impractical” action in the short term SO THAT YOU EVEN HAVE a long run to worry about. And sometimes that’s it, you don’t have a long run left to worry about. People battling unsuccessfully for year with cancer run out of options. People with massive brain trauma that are in a persistent vegetative state. There is a very real and very practical decision that has to be made to stop treatment. People die, that’s what we do, and dumping thousands of dollars down the drain on life support systems won’t change that. I am not advocating that the government should decide, nor am I saying that a private company should decide. Ultimately there are two people, the doctor and the next of kin (power of attorney, or patient). > [@Ruminator](#): > > There was a [hiker](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Ralston) that had his right arm pinned by a boulder. He was stuck for 5 days with no chance for rescue. He decided to make the “impractical” choice to amputate his own arm so he’d have a chance to live. We as outsiders could play armchair quarterback and say that the hiker should consider that in the “long run”, he’s going to need that right arm for the rest of his life and that there’s no point in cutting it off to free himself from that boulder. Even if he does cut off his arm, he might lose so much blood that he would pass out and become ineffective and finding help. Those “long run” concerns are only valid if you are ALIVE in the first place. This nuance seems to be missing from some of the comments I read. Or maybe he bleeds out before tying off the arteries. Or maybe he bleeds out trying to walk back to rescue. Or maybe his infected stump becomes septic and kills him. This is not the example you want to use. He clearly was not thinking about the “short term” realities of his situation, only long term survival at any cost. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-healthcare-reform-debate-question/505792.md?page=2)