# What are the conservative arguments against single payer health care? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 18, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974 "2015-02-18T03:59:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/221 "2015-02-24T19:40:41Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > While I agree that probabilistic threats are different than direct threats, this difference is not meaningful in the context you are using. Your previous assertion was that ‘_government has the obligation to not let us get killed when it is preventable._’ I think it’s fair to say you were isolating your comment to direct threats [after your latest post], is that accurate? You continue: If my posts led you to believe that I think government should eliminate all risk, I apologize. We certainly don’t want Williamson’s Humanoids running around protecting us from ourselves. > [@](#): > > But here you get it exactly backwards. The principle in play is that government via police have no obligation to protect anyone, even from direct threats. That’s just not their job. They may end up doing so in the course of their work, but the principle is that they are under no duty to do so. See [Warren v. DC,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia) [Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales) [DeShaney v. Winnebago County](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County). All of which ruled that there is no duty to protect anyone. These rest on the public duty doctrine - that without some special relationship, a government entity (as a state or municipality) cannot be held liable for the injuries of an individual resulting from a public officer’s or employee’s breach of a duty owed to the public as a whole as distinguished from a duty owed to the particular individual. Okay, I need to search for some stuff that doesn’t involve police departments defending themselves from lawsuits. Because they are certainly set up as if a primary function is to protect. Though I understand that when sued for failing to do so an argument is that we don’t really have to. > [@](#): > > You raised the example of a “preventable disease” - I’m just going with it. In other words, your example of _‘a kid dying of a preventable disease because he lives in a society which won’t treat him since his family has insufficient money’_ does not exist in this country. Your question about the difference between that non-existent kid and the kid that is shot illustrates the opposite of the point you are trying to make. We already have a duty and system to care for the sick kid - and there is absolutely no duty to protect the kid living in a bad neighborhood. People dying from lack of insurance has already been covered. While vaccines are good policy, someone not having a vaccine has a small chance of dying. Even measles. So, good thing to do but not a fundamental right. Plenty of people living in bad neighborhoods survive also. > [@](#): > > I don’t think there is element of ‘deserves’ in that equation how I typically understand the term. Deserves implies something that is earned in my experience. I would say it’s more accurate that below the Medicaid limit someone is entitled through statute, and someone that is above the Medicaid limit is not so entitled. I understand that ‘deserve’ and ‘entitled’ are synonyms but here I think the meaning is sufficiently different than one conveys something the other does not. To adjust the example, if we set the limit at Y in year 1, then raise the limit to Z in year 2, that does not mean that the new folks in year 2 have done anything that deserves the new found benefits they qualify for. They are entitled to them, but they have not done anything to earn them. It’s charity. What do people deserve living in our society? The right to vote? The right to bear arms? Nothing? If nothing I think the Founding Fathers would disagree, since the Declaration of Independence and the revolution were based on fundamental rights being violated. Do you think the Bill or Rights stems from rights the government deigned to give us, or from what were seen as fundamental rights that needed to be made into law? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/222 "2015-02-24T21:41:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > People dying from lack of insurance has already been covered. While vaccines are good policy, someone not having a vaccine has a small chance of dying. Even measles. So, good thing to do but not a fundamental right. Plenty of people living in bad neighborhoods survive also. Your original statement referred to _‘a ten year old kid dying of a **preventable disease** because he lives in a society which won’t treat him since his family has insufficient money’_. Are you expanding that now to include lack of insurance? The phrase ‘preventable diseases’ typically describes vaccine preventable diseases. That’s why I keyed on the Medicaid provisions which address it. It’s also why **wolfpup’s** post that consisted entirely of a quote from another source was not on point. > [@](#): > > What do people deserve living in our society? The right to vote? The right to bear arms? Nothing? If nothing I think the Founding Fathers would disagree, since the Declaration of Independence and the revolution were based on fundamental rights being violated. Do you think the Bill or Rights stems from rights the government deigned to give us, or from what were seen as fundamental rights that needed to be made into law? This is a pretty broad topic to introduce at this point in the thread. In general I think the Bill of Rights is a mix of rights being afforded or granted to all people by the government and recognition of pre-existing rights that all people enjoy independent of the government. Each right would be a longer discussion by themselves. As it pertains to this thread, I do not think that anyone has a right to government provided healthcare (current law notwithstanding). I acknowledge that people can collectively decide how they want to organize their relationship with their government and can do so in a way that includes things like single payer health care, etc. I don’t support it as I previously mentioned because I don’t think it’s the proper role of government to do so. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/223 "2015-02-24T21:51:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > What point are you trying to address? A statement explaining the purpose of your quote and how it applies would be helpful. As it stands it’s just noise. I am addressing the point that I quoted. You said, quote, “your example of ‘a kid dying of a preventable disease because he lives in a society which won’t treat him since his family has insufficient money’ does not exist in this country.” I gave you a cite for an estimated 17,000 instances of what you claimed does not exist. I also gave you another cite showing that lack of childhood health care due to lack of insurance is both (a) rampant, and (b) leads to greater incidence of serious diseases later in life. Which suggests that the 17,000 children’s deaths cited are really just the tip of the iceberg. There seems to be a view among conservatives – possibly a genuine belief among some – that the parsimonious charity of Medicaid and substandard coverages of Medicare actually constitute essential universal health care. They do not. Lack of insurance kills people. Period. Sometimes even having insurance kills people, say if the insurance company is running a contest to see which claims adjuster can save the company the most money this month. What a terrific way to provide health care! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/224 "2015-02-24T22:36:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I am addressing the point that I quoted. You said, quote, “your example of ‘a kid dying of a preventable disease because he lives in a society which won’t treat him since his family has insufficient money’ does not exist in this country.” I gave you a cite for an estimated 17,000 instances of what you claimed does not exist. The statement was about kids dying from preventable diseases due to lack of health care as a result of insufficient money. It has three prongs: [ol] [li]Dying from preventable diseases[/li][li]Lack of health care[/li][li]Lack of health care as a result of insufficient money[/li][/ol] Your example hit on none of these points. 1. It talked about general deaths, not those from preventable diseases specifically. 2. It talked about lack of insurance, not lack of health care. 3. it made no mention of insufficient money. Let’s look at the link I used to highlight the [Medicaid example](http://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-topics/quality-of-care/quality-of-care-%E2%80%93-vaccines.html): > [@](#): > > Medicaid plays a key role in the prevention of disease through facilitating access to vaccines and vaccine activities. All children under the age of 21 who are eligible for the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit receive all Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) recommended vaccines. The federally funded Vaccines for Children (VFC) program provides vaccines at no cost to children who are enrolled in Medicaid, uninsured, underinsured, or an American Indian or Alaska Native through age 18. 1. It talks about disease prevention through vaccines, essentially what is being discussed with the phrase ‘preventable diseases’. 2. It talks about the administration of the vaccines themselves - this is the health care part. 3. It talks about who is eligible - that is the addresses the insufficient money part. This is directly on point to each of the prongs in the example that \*\*Voyager \*\*offered. The link you provided was not on point at all. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/225 "2015-02-25T07:56:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The statement was about kids dying from preventable diseases due to lack of health care as a result of insufficient money. It has three prongs: > [ol] > [li]Dying from preventable diseases[/li][li]Lack of health care[/li][li]Lack of health care as a result of insufficient money[/li][/ol] > Your example hit on none of these points. 1. It talked about general deaths, not those from preventable diseases specifically. 2. It talked about lack of insurance, not lack of health care. 3. it made no mention of insufficient money. > > … The link you provided was not on point at all. Wrong on all points – you need to read it more carefully… _"1. It talked about general deaths, not those from preventable diseases specifically. "_ No, when it says that an uninsured child is “…60 percent more likely to die than the sick child in the next room who has insurance”, it’s talking about a preventable death. And did you miss the cite about the child who “died of complications from a preventable and treatable tooth abscess”? \*2. It talked about lack of insurance, not lack of health care. \* No, it said that “more than one child in four under 20 years of age does not have regular full year access to needed health care services”, it said that “nearly one-fourth [of all children in poor families] goes more than one year – some more than five years – without any medical visits at all”, and it said that “lack of access to preventive health care” is the cause of serious and costly diseases later in life. Lack of insurance was cited as the _ **cause** _ of this lack of health care. _3. it made no mention of insufficient money._ No, it explicitly said that nearly one-fourth “of children and adolescents in families with annual income under $35,000” may go as long as five years with no medical visits at all, and about the consequences of this lack of preventive care. It also talked about the perils of Medicaid, which is desperately inadequate. Who do you think has to rely on Medicaid? You appear to be engaged in a losing battle of trying find any possible excuse to defend what is, for many, an indefensible fiasco of a health care system, a system so criminally malevolent that [it kills an estimated 45,000 Americans a year](http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/) from lack of coverage, many of them children. A system so morally bankrupt and ideologically corrupted that 19 states rejected expanded Medicaid coverage even though the federal government was going to subsidize most of it – every single one of those states either led by a Republican governor and/or controlled by a Republican legislature. And the only defense you can come up with is that Medicaid sometimes pays for vaccinating some eligible children! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/226 "2015-02-25T14:33:36Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > _"1. It talked about general deaths, not those from preventable diseases specifically. "_ > No, when it says that an uninsured child is “…60 percent more likely to die than the sick child in the next room who has insurance”, it’s talking about a **preventable death.** And did you miss the cite about the child who “died of complications from a preventable and treatable tooth abscess”? (my bold) Do you think this makes a point in your favor? It doesn’t. Unless you are equating “preventable death” with “death from preventable diseases”, this is unresponsive to the scenario posited. Last time I checked, a tooth abscess wasn’t considered a preventable disease either. > [@](#): > > \*2. It talked about lack of insurance, not lack of health care. \* > No, it said that “more than one child in four under 20 years of age does not have regular full year access to needed health care services”, it said that “nearly one-fourth [of all children in poor families] goes more than one year – some more than five years – without any medical visits at all”, and it said that “lack of access to preventive health care” is the cause of serious and costly diseases later in life. Lack of insurance was cited as the _ **cause** _ of this lack of health care. Here are some relevant passages, with my bold for emphasis: > [@](#): > > A new US study concluded that lack of health \*\*insurance \*\*may have contributed or led to nearly 17,000 hospital deaths among American children over two decades. > > … > > He and his colleagues reviewed over 23 million hospital records from 37 states covering the period 1988 to 2005 and compared the risk of death between hospitalized children with and without health **insurance**. > > … > > “If you are a child without insurance, if you’re seriously ill and end up in the hospital, you are 60 percent more likely to die than the sick child in the next room who has **insurance**.” > > … > > “From a scientific perspective, we are confident in our finding that thousands of children likely did die because they lacked \*\*insurance \*\*or because of factors directly related to lack of insurance.” > [@](#): > > _3. it made no mention of insufficient money._ > No, it explicitly said that nearly one-fourth “of children and adolescents in families with annual income under $35,000” may go as long as five years with no medical visits at all, and about the consequences of this lack of preventive care. It also talked about the perils of Medicaid, which is desperately inadequate. Who do you think has to rely on Medicaid? There is no connection drawn that there was denial of care due to insufficient money. Sure folks with low incomes will find it harder to make the time to access available health care, but that is not the same as a denial due to insufficient money. I think this is your strongest point - but it is still a loser and not on point. > [@](#): > > You appear to be engaged in a losing battle of trying find any possible excuse to defend what is, for many, an indefensible fiasco of a health care system, … Actually I’m engaged in a discussion currently over a specific point in this thread that you seem unable to grasp. It’s cute that you think you’re responding to it, but again, your cite, and your points raised, are not relevant. Perhaps you can tell me more about Canadian morality? Maybe there are things that I could care less about! Read more carefully, indeed. ---
**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:** [February 25, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/227 "2015-02-25T15:27:15Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > (my bold) > > Do you think this makes a point in your favor? It doesn’t. Unless you are equating “preventable death” with “death from preventable diseases”, this is unresponsive to the scenario posited. Last time I checked, a tooth abscess wasn’t considered a preventable disease either. Perhaps not, but the brain infection that actually kills the kid might be considered a preventable disease. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/228 "2015-02-25T15:54:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > (my bold) > > Do you think this makes a point in your favor? It doesn’t. Unless you are equating “preventable death” with “death from preventable diseases”, this is unresponsive to the scenario posited. Last time I checked, a tooth abscess wasn’t considered a preventable disease either. Just to be clear: you are defining “preventable disease” to mean “disease that can be vaccinated against”, and only that? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/229 "2015-02-25T16:54:06Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Just to be clear: you are defining “preventable disease” to mean “disease that can be vaccinated against”, and only that? I don’t think that is the only definition of the phrase, but in the context of this line of discussion that’s how I’m interpreting it. I stated this in post #222 and asked for clarification if my interpretation was incorrect. I went further to ask specifically if the phrase “preventable disease” was being expanded to include lack of insurance. If \*\*Voyager \*\*would like to clarify I’m open to it. When I did a search on the term in quotes, the first result is a description of [“vaccine preventable diseases”.](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=%22preventable%20diseases%22&es_th=1) And in the context of this line of discussion, having an expansive interpretation of the phrase doesn’t make sense to me. It started in post #[211](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18157981&postcount=211): > [@Voyager](#): > > And what is the real difference between a ten year old kid shot in the street because he lives in a neighborhood the police have abandoned and a ten year old kid dying of a preventable disease because he lives in a society which won’t treat him since his family has insufficient money? The line of discussion was an attempt to draw a comparison between policing and healthcare. As a follow up, in post #214, \*\*Voyager \*\*delineates probabilistic threats and direct threats - indicating that vaccines are probabilistic. In combination with further statements about police protection relating to direct threats to flesh out the comparison, this implies the contrast being drawn in the original statement was referring to direct threats. But this is the part that doesn’t make sense to me. What exactly can we construe as direct threats that fall within the umbrella of preventable diseases that isn’t addressed with vaccines? I brought up issues of smoking [lung cancer] and heart disease as other types of preventable diseases but these were dismissed as not consistent with the example [direct threats] so I dropped it. This entire discussion point is about the comparison between police and healthcare, the line of argument going something like, “you are okay with this type of police activity, so you should be okay with this type of healthcare activity” and I’m challenging the comparison. They are not analogous. Even if they were, the example used was not on point since we do provide a level of care for certain specific threats. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/230 "2015-02-26T06:34:41Z")
I have to wonder at this point what you think you’ve proven. A number of us have provided comprehensive information about why every civilized country in the world except the US provides universal health care for its citizens, and is better off for it. We’ve documented the severe failings of the US health care system. The OP asks what the conservative arguments are against single payer health care. To sum up what you’ve provided so far: you do not, to use your words, “give two shits” what other countries have done, Medicaid is terrific because it pays for vaccinations, and health care is not like policing. If that’s the best that conservatives can come up with I can see why the insurance lobby has to spend so much to keep up the FUD and spin. Because there IS no conservative argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974/231 "2015-02-26T06:49:06Z")
Your powers of interpretation are truly something to behold. Cool story bro! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-conservative-arguments-against-single-payer-health-care/712974.md?page=11)