# What do conservatives think about universal healthcare? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 18, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172 "2006-04-18T16:10:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/81 "2006-04-20T01:15:09Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > In response to \*\* Do not taunt \*\*: > > Nope. Tell me. I do know that it killed 100,000 people in ten years based on prohibiting the sale of beta-blockers. I don’t know either. You’re the one making the claim that FDA regulation hurts as many people as it helps. But your backup for it is a single anecdote. As long as we’re clear on that… > [@WillMagic](#): > > I’ve addressed what I call the “Dr. Nick” objection above. But here’s another tidbit about FDA regulation. > > In the status quo there is one marker that you need on your product - FDA-approval. Once you get it you are in the clear. With no other competing agencies evaluating and rating your product, there’s a huge incentive to meet the FDA requirements but little incentive to go any further. > > So what you have in regard to health care and medicine is a system where the quality of all health care converges at the bar the FDA sets, and very little healthcare goes above it. Why? It doesn’t make any sense. If you are an entrepreneur, why would you spend X amount of money to make your product better/safer when both your product and your cheaper competitor’s have the same little label and the same FDA-approval? It’s pointless! FDA approval is a baseline, a minimum. If anyone wanted guarantees above FDA approval and their own doctor’s prescription, I don’t believe there’s anything in law that would prevent such a system from arising. I also don’t see how abolishing the FDA would make such a system more likely to arise. > [@WillMagic](#): > > With competing rating systems, entrepreneurs are incentivized to produce the best product they can, as they aren’t brought down by the monopoly rating system. This is just faith. We used to not have an FDA. How well did our competing rating systems work then? > [@WillMagic](#): > > FDA regulation: > > - disincentivizes innovation in health care. > - disincentivizes the creation of new medicines that could save lives. > - sometimes prevents people from taking drugs that could save their lives. > - in doing these things, leads to health care costing more and helping fewer. I disagree. By creating a marketplace in which a drug must be proven effective and safe, and then protects such drugs against competitors that haven’t been rigorously tested, FDA regulation - incents the development of safe, effective drugs that are proven to save lives - sometimes prevents people from taking drugs that could hurt or kill them (or their offspring) - in doing these things, leads to health care which is reliable and effective ---
**Author:** ![WillMagic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@WillMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillMagic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/82 "2006-04-20T01:18:11Z")
> [@George Kaplin](#): > > Hi **WillMagic**. This may seem like nitpicking but I have three questions about this statement which I’d appreciate your help with. > > First of all, do you have a cite for your claim that 100,000 people died because the FDA prohibited the sale of beta-blockers? I’d be interested to see how that number was derived. Secondly, do you know _why_ the FDA prohibited the sale of beta-blockers? Perhaps they had a good reason. I tried googling but couldn’t find anything. Thirdly, and most importantly, if you don’t know how many lives have been saved due to FDA policy, what basis do you have for the claim that _“The FDA kills as many people as it saves.”_ For all you know, FDA policy could have saved tens of millions of lives. Certainly. [http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml](http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml) “Deaths owing to drug lag have been numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Wardell (1978a) estimated that practolol, a drug in the beta-blocking family, could save ten thousand lives a year if allowed in the United States. Although the FDA allowed a first beta-blocker, propranolol, in 1968, three years after that drug had been available in Europe, it waited until 1978 to allow the use of propranolol for the treatment of hypertension and angina pectoris, its most important indications. Despite clinical evidence as early as 1974, only in 1981 did the FDA allow a second beta-blocker, timolo, for prevention of a second heart attack. The agency’s withholding of beta-blockers was alone responsible for probably tens of thousands of deaths (on this general issue see Gieringer 1985; Kazman 1990).” " Gieringer (1985) used data on drug disasters in countries with less-stringent drug regulations than the United States to create a ballpark estimate of the number of lives saved by the extra scrutiny induced by FDA requirements. He then computed a similar ballpark figure for the number of lives lost owing to drug delay: ``` [T]he benefits of FDA regulation relative to that in foreign countries could reasonably be put at some 5,000 casualties per decade or 10,000 per decade for worst-case scenarios. In comparison, it has been argued above that the cost of FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21,000 to 120,000 lives per decade. . . . .Given the uncertainties of the data, these results must be interpreted with caution, although it seems clear that the costs of regulation are substantial when compared to benefits. (196)" ``` ---
**Author:** ![WillMagic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@WillMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillMagic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/83 "2006-04-20T01:26:26Z")
More excellent stuff from the Independent Institute (I honestly just found this site, but the arguments are very familiar.) [on fda incentives](http://www.fdareview.org/incentives.shtml) [on drug safety](http://www.fdareview.org/safety.shtml) [i know this is an appeal to authority, but still](http://www.fdareview.org/quotations.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![WillMagic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@WillMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillMagic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/84 "2006-04-20T01:38:33Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > More excellent stuff from the Independent Institute (I honestly just found this site, but the arguments are very familiar.) > > [on fda incentives](http://www.fdareview.org/incentives.shtml) > > [on drug safety](http://www.fdareview.org/safety.shtml) > > [i know this is an appeal to authority, but still](http://www.fdareview.org/quotations.shtml) and even more damning: [for christ’s sake, it’s just silicone and plastic](http://www.fdareview.org/devices.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/85 "2006-04-20T01:56:39Z")
Yeah, the sky is falling. [http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/courses/pps255s/2003/m-team-c/policy\_europe.html](http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/courses/pps255s/2003/m-team-c/policy_europe.html) > [@](#): > > Although the European Union created a different approach to drug development, approval times in Europe and the United States in the three years following the creation of the FDA were almost identical. For 30 new drugs approved by both agencies, the EMEA averaged 370 days per approval, while the FDA averaged 366 days. It is worth noting, however, that the ranges of the two agencies differed greatly: while the EMEA approval range was 166-651 days, the FDA had both much longer and much shorter cases, ranging from 42-907 days per approval. For a set of ten drugs that were submitted for approval in each agency at approximately the same time, the results were comparable: the FDA averaged 354 days with a range of 92-877 days, while the EMEA averaged 372 days with a shorter 301-438 day range. > > While, on the whole, approval times were even between the two agencies in the years immediately following the creation of the EMEA, each agency at times outpaced the other in approving certain types of drugs. For example, of 19 biotech drugs approved by the EMEA and the FDA during the same time, American approvals ran 35 days longer than did European approvals (452 and 417 days, respectively). Europe was also much faster at approving DNA products, averaging only 411 days to the United States’ 548. The FDA, however, was faster than the EMEA in certifying other types of therapies, such as monoclonal antibody drugs. > > Just as the Journal of the American Medical Association found the FDA had the better record in approving “more important” drugs in the early 1990s, the EMEA has come under the most fire for its slow approval of cancer drugs. The FDA in as little as 4.5 months, for example, approved the breast cancer drug Herceptin, while the EMEA took a year and a half. One reason for this discrepancy is the ability of the FDA to subject cancer drugs to priority review. Between 1997-2001, while the FDA prioritized 18 cancer drugs and approved seven based on preliminary evidence alone, the EMEA only prioritized two out of 26 cancer drugs submitted for review. On average, the FDA took 273 days to review cancer drugs, while the EMEA took just over 300, with the slowest taking over 800. The European agency has pushed legislation to allow it, like the FDA, to fast track certain drugs in order to cut approval times. These proposals, however, may yet take years to be approved by the European Parliament. But one important item is curiously being left out of your points **WillMagic** : the FDA’s financial dependence on the pharmaceutical industry and the latest reforms that were tailor made to benefit the big private pharmaceutical industry: > **[How drug-approval woes crept up on FDA](https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1126/p02s01-uspo.html)** > > Critics charge conflict of interest in a system where pharmaceutical giants fund the regulatory process. > [@](#): > > For many Americans, opening up the medicine cabinet may seem far more perilous than it did just a few months ago. > Revelations about potentially deadly problems with government-approved drugs - from Merck’s painkiller Vioxx to Bayer’s cholesterol-fighter Baycol - have prompted even the conservative Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) to charge that the Food and Drug Administration’s system for protecting consumers is broken. > > The JAMA’s doctors are calling for an independent board to be set up to monitor the safety of drugs already on the market. > > The pharmaceutical industry calls that “premature,” noting that FDA has asked the prestigious Institute of Medicine to study the problem and then make recommendations. But consumer advocates and some members of Congress contend that change is long overdue, in part because of the FDA’s financial dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. That, they say, creates a conflict of interest that undermines the agency’s effectiveness. > > “The FDA has a relationship with drug companies that is far to cozy,” says Sen. Charles Grassley (R ) of Iowa, who chaired hearings last week on drug safety. “That’s exactly the opposite of what it should be. The health and safety of the public must be FDA’s first and only concern.” > > This growing conflict over drug safety illustrates the difficulty the nation has had in achieving the right balance in regulating drugs that, while intended to help save lives, can come with very serious risks. > > In the 1980s, critics railed against the FDA for being too slow in approving drugs. One congressman referred to FDA investigators as “pusillanimous and faint-hearted” for their cautious approach. > > It took more than two years, on average, for new drugs to be approved. That changed after a major shake-up in 1992, and so did the FDA’s funding. Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which increased FDA funding for drug approvals by charging pharmaceutical companies a user fee. In the next 10 years, the drug companies paid $825 million dollars to the FDA, according to the JAMA. During that same period, the time it took for new drugs to be approved dropped by almost half, to just over a year. But that speed had a cost, according to the JAMA: “Drug recalls following approval increased from 1.56% for 1993-1996 to 5.35% for 1997-2001.” > > The Vioxx scandal indicates to many medical experts that the FDA’s regulatory loosening up may now have gone too far. ---
**Author:** ![WillMagic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@WillMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillMagic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/86 "2006-04-20T02:14:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yeah, the sky is falling. > > [http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/courses/pps255s/2003/m-team-c/policy\_europe.html](http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/courses/pps255s/2003/m-team-c/policy_europe.html) Um, yeah. I’m not a fan of either the American system or the European system. But one important item is curiously being left out of your points **WillMagic** : the FDA’s financial dependence on the pharmaceutical industry and the latest reforms that were tailor made to benefit the big private pharmaceutical industry: > **[How drug-approval woes crept up on FDA](https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1126/p02s01-uspo.html)** > > Critics charge conflict of interest in a system where pharmaceutical giants fund the regulatory process. [/QUOTE] [/quote] Shocking isn’t it? How goverment officials running programs ostensibly for the “public good” instead look out for their own interests? I hate the incestuous relationship between big business and big government just as much as you do. But yet you seem to think that the cure for this is…more government involvement in health care? Am I misstating your position? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/87 "2006-04-20T03:10:57Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > I hate the incestuous relationship between big business and big government just as much as you do. But yet you seem to think that the cure for this is…more government involvement in health care? Am I misstating your position? The conservative Journal of the American Medical Association says that an independent board needs to be set up to monitor the safety of drugs already on the market. I take it that well, yes. But it is clear to me that it is expected that there will be input from private industry, just not as prevalent as it is happening right now. Incidentally the best UHC systems I see out there are a combination of private and government health care providers, the lesson I take from there is that health care being a human issue can not be just a big business domain, but because some elements do follow supply and demand, it can not be a purely government solution either. Even I have some issues with the Canadian government only health care, but recently private industry is getting a chance of appearing in there too. I noticed before that many new or small business are not appearing or developing because workers do not want to risk losing benefits and small companies many times still pay more than big companies to insure their workers, big companies usually get a better deal because of the quantity of workers reduces the risk of a few of them having preexisting conditions (there is the negotiate a better deal “under the gun” again, and this time in the private industry!) However this means that people who dream of starting business on their own get a rude awakening when they find their insurance premiums kill their dreams if there is a preexisting condition. And sometimes not even that, in one case reported in the local Arizona TV channel, a woman starting her own business was a few pounds overweight, she found her premiums skyrocketed and that is when compared to the ones she was paying when she was employed. As \*\*Voyager \*\* mentions, right now big industry in the USA is being affected by the USA not having UHC, it is silly to pretend that the lack of UHC is not a factor when global corporations decide or not to open shops in the USA (or to move out of the USA), even with the power of numbers to get a better deal, health care costs remain higher in the USA than in other countries. Seeing that also many members of the middle class that want to start their own business are being affected too means to me that there is indeed hope for change, just not from the current administration. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/88 "2006-04-20T07:02:52Z")
> [@Mrs O'Malley's Cow](#): > > I have a friend who lives in the Netherlands and he doesn’t like the healthcare system. It takes months to get in with a doctor and quality is usually not happening. He would rather have our system where we have some choice in the matter. > . Which is weird, because as far as I know, only people with low incomes are covered by the public healthcare system in the Netherlands. Others have to pay for a private insurance. Could a dutch poster chime in? ---
**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:** [April 20, 2006, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/89 "2006-04-20T07:06:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Nor mine, and that was not what I was advocating. > > One disadvantage of taxpayer-funded UHC would be, in my opinion, a further disconnect between the cost of health care and demand for it. Taxes (largely due to withholding) are even more subject to the illusion of “free money” than employer-paid health care. ISTM that there would be even more pressure on the government to fund everything and anything, and a corresponding pressure for the government to regulate everything and anything to hold down costs. I know that this has become the standard conservative argument. Do you have any cites to studies showing that “free” health care increases consumption above the level warranted. This is from consumers - doctors assigning tests for malpractice prevention is a different issue. I don’t see it myself. Sure lonely Aunt Mabel will go to the doctor all the time for company, but that is an exception. Doctors visits are disruptive and not a lot of fun. I know, having been in doctors’ offices every day last week, two days this week, and Og knows how often next week. An increase in use by people who can’t afford it now will happen (as in Taiwan according to the cite) but that is a good thing. > [@](#): > > If I thought that the government was prepared to set hard limits on spending, and simply shrug their shoulders at arguments that therefore people were dying as a result, I would be much more open to the taxpayer funding 100% of US health care instead of 47%. But in a land where the government will mandate a 48 hour stay for normal obstetric deliveries, with no medical reason for it besides that it is popular, I am not so sure. As opposed to a 24 hour stay or a 72 hour stay (like my wife had 25 years ago?) Do you think the trend to shorter stays will be reversed? I think there is such a trend - when my father was 45 he had a blood clot, and was in the hospital for weeks. At 90 he had another one, and was out in two days. > [@](#): > > Entirely true. And, for the reasons stated above, and because governments rely on being re-elected, they are far more reluctant than a faceless insurance bureaucrat to make decisions that are unpopular but make economic sense. I agree that it is far more likely for the government to say yes too often rather than no. **WillMagic** must believe they get a cut of the savings. 🙂 > [@](#): > > But I think part of the point was that the government was going to simply try to set drug prices by fiat, and I do think that would tend to stifle innovation, which is driven mostly by the desire to make a buck. That’s the kind of regulation I was thinking about. But a lot of the increase in health care costs is on stuff that is only marginally useful in terms of increasing life span. The recent law prohibits the government from negotiating. I trust it would be unconstitutional for the government to force a drug company to sell a product at a certain price - but the government negotiates for a lot of things. There would certainly be political pressure to not rip off the drug companies. > [@](#): > > I thought health care spending accounts were one way to do this. But making the government your insurance company is not tending in that direction - just the opposite. Again, 31% of US health care costs are administrative. Do you think wasteful spending on treatment is anywhere near that? Health care accounts are much better for those who have money as opposed to those who don’t. They’d work for me, but not for the guy who would have to choose between putting money in a HCA or eating. I use a pretax spending account now, which works real well in my bracket. I really don’t think the rich need another tax break, and I’ve never understood how this would save money, except by keeping people who need care away from it. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/90 "2006-04-20T07:37:51Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > So what are we left with? Logic. Logically, if a UHC system offers worse health care than a free-market system then the quality of life of the people has been reduced. If there are procedures that the government forgoes because they are expensive and only save someone’s life 5-10% of the time, but that would have been available for purchase in a free market system, then the lengths of our lives have been reduced, ceteris paribus. I see some problems with this statement : -Have you evidences that “the government” forgoes expensive procedures in countries with an UHC system? In all such countries? -If expensives procedures are available “for purchase” in a country without an UHC system, doesn’t that mean that most people will be denied them since they can’t afford them, anyway? -What exactly is preventing you from “purchasing” such procedures in a country with a UHC system, even when they aren’t covered by the public system? There’s no difference between a procedure not covered by a public insurance scheme and a procedure not covered by a private insurance scheme. Nobody’s preventing you from having it done if you’re willing and able to shell the money, in either case. > [@](#): > > This is a bizarre way to look at the situation. Insurance companies aren’t "denying " anything. They are covering what is agreed to in their contract. And if your insurance doesn’t cover the operation you want, you can always pay for it out of pocket. You choose the contract you sign and the plan you want. And you somehow believe that you can’t pay an operation out of your pocket when there’s an UHC system in place? You’re under the belief that private insurances for expenses not covered by the UHC system don’t exist in such countries? > [@](#): > > OTOH, in a UHC system, this isn’t the case at all. The government takes your money by force and tells you what health care you are able to receive. If you want health care beyond that which the government provides, too bad: they won’t provide it and no one else is allowed to, either. Your statements are just plain ludicrous. You obviously don’t have the slightest clue about how UHC systems work, or how medical care is organized in countries with an UHC system. You apparently aren’t even aware that UHC systems are widely different from one country to another. Which apparently doesn’t prevent you from making broad-ranging statements. So, besides your ideological beliefs about an issue you’re completely ignorant of, and your reasonned criticisms of things that don’t exist, on what are you basing your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/91 "2006-04-20T07:47:07Z")
[QUOTE=WillMagic] > [@Voyager](#): > > [wait](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4905600.stm) [times](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3749801.stm) [rule](http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/) I don’t know how the Canadian system works, not being Canadian, but I’m not surprised, that, as usual, an opponent to UCH systems is pointing at the UK and Canada, both infamous for they waiting lists. Isn’t it much more convenient when you can pick the worst example to support your argument? 😉 Besides, even if healthcare is “rationned” in Canada, I still would rather have the Canadian system than the US one, where halthcare is equally rationned, but on the basis of how much money you’re making. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/92 "2006-04-20T07:58:36Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > Again, so? You made the decision as to how much insurance to purchase. The government didn’t force you to not buy insurance. That’s a choice only if you can afford an insurance at the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/93 "2006-04-20T08:51:42Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Which is weird, because as far as I know, only people with low incomes are covered by the public healthcare system in the Netherlands. Others have to pay for a private insurance. Could a dutch poster chime in? The health care system was completely overhauled in the Netherlands as of this year. There is no longer a distinction between the “low-income” (“Ziekenfonds”) and “high-income” systems. Link in English: > **[Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport](https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-volksgezondheid-welzijn-en-sport?utm_source=minvws.nl&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=redirect)** > > We worden met z’n allen steeds ouder en blijven steeds langer vitaal. Daarnaast kunnen we steeds meer ziektes behandelen. Dat is prachtig. Tegelijk maken mensen zich zorgen over de toekomst van de zorg, die veel geld kost en met een tekort aan... ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/94 "2006-04-20T09:36:01Z")
In fact there should be a lot to like about the new Dutch system by conservatives and liberals alike. Worth reading. [4-page PDF](http://www.minvws.nl/images/The%20new%20healh%20insurance%20system%20in%20brief_tcm11-56142.pdf) - The system is run by private, for-profit insurance companies - Insurers have the obligation to accept everybody and anybody as a customer, regardless of pre-existing conditions - Insurers must charge the same premium for a given policy, to all customers who choose that policy, regardless of pre-existing conditions - Government equalizes the differences in risk among the insurers - Rich people pay more than poor people (but the insurance companies do not have to deal with this) ---
**Author:** ![WillMagic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@WillMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillMagic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/95 "2006-04-20T09:54:35Z")
[QUOTE=clairobscur] I see some problems with this statement : > [@](#): > > -Have you evidences that “the government” forgoes expensive procedures in countries with an UHC system? In all such countries? This is just off the top of my head referencing a 4-5 month old WSJ article. [http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/enewsletters/mpt\_ind.php?pid=1055&nid=66](http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/enewsletters/mpt_ind.php?pid=1055&nid=66) > [@](#): > > I don’t know how the Canadian system works, not being Canadian, but I’m not surprised, that, as usual, an opponent to UCH systems is pointing at the UK and Canada, both infamous for they waiting lists. Isn’t it much more convenient when you can pick the worst example to support your argument? Handwaving. > [@](#): > > If expensives procedures are available “for purchase” in a country without an UHC system, doesn’t that mean that most people will be denied them since they can’t afford them, anyway? Not so. America has a free market in insurance, and you can insure yourself with a plan of your choosing. Again…nobody is denying anyone care in a free market. Each person makes the choice of how to insure him or herself, unlike in a UHC system in which you have no choice - you must take the government plan and nothing else. That’s the thing about government monopolies - they don’t like competition. > [@](#): > > What exactly is preventing you from “purchasing” such procedures in a country with a UHC system, even when they aren’t covered by the public system? There’s no difference between a procedure not covered by a public insurance scheme and a procedure not covered by a private insurance scheme. Nobody’s preventing you from having it done if you’re willing and able to shell the money, in either case. > [@](#): > > And you somehow believe that you can’t pay an operation out of your pocket when there’s an UHC system in place? You’re under the belief that private insurances for expenses not covered by the UHC system don’t exist in such countries? Um…it is illegal to offer private health care in Canada. Illegal. I-fucking-llegal. And I would guess that other countries with UHC while not banning private health care provision entirely would impose regulations on it to make it totally unfeasible. > [@](#): > > Your statements are just plain ludicrous. You obviously don’t have the slightest clue about how UHC systems work, or how medical care is organized in countries with an UHC system. You apparently aren’t even aware that UHC systems are widely different from one country to another. Which apparently doesn’t prevent you from making broad-ranging statements. So, besides your ideological beliefs about an issue you’re completely ignorant of, and your reasonned criticisms of things that don’t exist, on what are you basing your opinion? Funny. Your other questions were reasonable. And then we have this ad hominem monstrosity. But that’s cool. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/96 "2006-04-20T13:43:15Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > First off, I have to admit that I probably shouldn’t have participated in this thread, as I don’t consider myself a conservative - rather, an anarcho-capitalist. Well, exactly. Your positions in favor of letting anyone practice medicine (“Not to worry, you can sue them if they harm you!”) and letting any and all drugs be sold, untested, over the counter, are not those of a conservative, they’re those of an extremist. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/97 "2006-04-20T16:56:36Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > And I would guess that other countries with UHC while not banning private health care provision entirely would impose regulations on it to make it totally unfeasible. Not in the UK. Private health insurance is pretty common. I always had it as an adult in the UK. ---
**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:** [April 20, 2006, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/98 "2006-04-20T17:14:38Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > Not so. America has a free market in insurance, and you can insure yourself with a plan of your choosing. Again…nobody is denying anyone care in a free market. Each person makes the choice of how to insure him or herself, unlike in a UHC system in which you have no choice - you must take the government plan and nothing else. That’s the thing about government monopolies - they don’t like competition. As the man said, both the rich man and the poor man have the right to sleep under a bridge. The guy working minimum wage has the freedom to buy any insurance he wants. He also has the freedom to buy a Hummer. Just no money. Now, he doesn’t have the right to a car, but in a civilized nation he should have the right to see the doctor without driving himself into bankruptcy. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/99 "2006-04-20T20:41:24Z")
The [official position](http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41643) of Conservatives on universal health care. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172/100 "2006-04-20T21:40:19Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > Funny. Your other questions were reasonable. And then we have this ad hominem monstrosity. But that’s cool. You were making statements about how the medical care system is organized in countries with an UHC system. Your statements are false. What can I say besides “you don’t know what you’re talking about”? I noted, though, that in this last post you replaced your definitive statements by an “I would guess” (note that you’re still completely mistaken). Maybe next time you’ll actually try to know how it actually works instead of making guesses you pulled out of thin air, and then go on using those unexisting facts of your own making as arguments to support your stance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-conservatives-think-about-universal-healthcare/353172.md?page=6)