Healthcare

Schools have plenty of stuff that's not directly related to academics, and rightly so.

For example, sports, arts, sex ed and so on.

Schools are not just about academics; they're also about making people functional members of society, so basic cooking skills and other things to do with everyday life as well as basic healthcare and stuff like that certainly belong in a school. The point of school is that when you graduate from secondary school, you're supposed to have enough knowledge and skills to get by and be productive.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

@Kayeka: Yes..but...the average teacher these days is expected to be both nanny and teacher. The vast majority of parents honestlt don't give a hoot about teaching that stuff.

The purpose of school is to provide students with a skillset that they can use to be productive in society. If they're going to be running a household, then basic home economics are certainly a use ful addition to that skillset. Actually, it would probably be significantly more useful than say advanced math for many people.

the only "fair" way to fund a universal healthcare system would be to tax each person exactly the cost of the care they recieve. Otherwise it's just another way of saying "these people who don't use as much health care should pay for these people who do".

Then I guess it just comes down to a basic difference in our view of economic justice. I don't think it's right to take from one person and give to another just because "society will benefit as a whole". That philosophy leads to outrages like the government forcing you to sell your house to shopping mall builders.

<><

There is no principle so pure it cannot be abused.

Malls so you can argue about it, what about sewer lines?

You actually do benefit from having a healthier community, but how are you going to calculate the benefit? How do you calculate the benefits you get from paying any of your taxes?

edited 10th May '11 10:29:51 AM by blueharp

^ The difference: Malls are for the profit of their owners, while sewer lines are a public utility, even though the government sometimes contracts it out to a private company. The reason sewer service is a public utility is that it is an all-or-nothing thing: you can't run lines only to the people who want it. You can easily sell healthcare only to those who want it, except in the case of emergency services, which probably should be taxpayer supported.

edited 10th May '11 10:46:00 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

So, is there anyone actually proposing a universal emergency room plan? It seems all opposition to universal health care goes hand in hand with wanting to eliminate emergency rooms that treat people who can't afford it.

And I can find people who get upset over having to have sewer lines, or even just having to let them go through their yards. Some people also argue that having a place to engage in commerce is an important part of life.

But really, your problem is with the expression, not the principle. But I think you don't understand that most health care costs are not in the provision of services, but rather in the supporting infrastructure. And really, prevention reduces costs far more effectively than emergency care. If you are concerned about how much money is involved, you should pick the cheaper option.

Emergency care is already a mandatory provision, you're paying for it right now in the US. This has been very expensive.

edited 10th May '11 11:11:42 AM by blueharp

I think this looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. As you said, our view of "economic justice" - though I would use the term "social justice" - is very different.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

And as has been pointed out, a necessity to provide. The aim should thus be to reduce its cost by providing preventative alternatives (which universal health care as well as more widespread health education does), or else force hospitals to drive their ER users into debt.

Not that I know of, but it's not like there's ever been a huge surplus of sound, reasonable thinking up in Washington DC... Which is yet another reason to keep them as far away from our healthcare as possible.

The concern in that case wasn't having a place to engage in commerce. That will exist anywhere people live, unless one person owns all the land for miles around. The city wanted to take the land because they thought businesses would generate more jobs and more tax revenue.

That's a rather nebulous statement. What infrastucture are you talking about? Food production requires a huge amount of infrastructure, but works just fine without requiring everyone to buy the official "food plan".

Sounds great. Through preventative measures, I can have far lower healthcare costs than the average person. Only now, it doesn't matter, since I have to pay for everyone else anyway.

<><

Nope, you're made to pay for the emergency costs already, or didn't you know that? Perhaps because it's not a direct and obvious tax you don't realize it...but you are made to pay. There's plenty of outlays to health care, not to mention the charges they make to paying patients to cover the non-paying ones. Same with food. You think you aren't paying into a food plan? Hah. Try the USDA. Try the local Department of Health. Do you know they inspect restaurants you never eat at? HORRORS!

Just like with your mall example, it's the expression, not the principle you have a problem with. And there have been many communities which benefited by creating places of commerce for them to use. Perhaps you've just never been in a place where you couldn't find somewhere to shop with relative ease? Or heard of a food desert?

It can actually be a vicious cycle, and oddly the free market won't magically fix it.

Me, I'd rather cost myself less money as a whole, by doing things right, and benefiting the whole society than getting caught up in a mistaken belief that I'm somehow saving myself anything by doing things in a way that only looks cheap.

The real problem though, is still in the accounting. Have you accounted for the benefits you receive from living in a healthier, more productive society?

edited 10th May '11 11:49:39 AM by blueharp

Then that really wouldn't be a universal healthcaresystem, now would it? But from what I gather that is probably your point. Which there is absolutely nothing wrong with. Yes, some people will benefit more from a universal healthcaresystem than other people, however you never know when you might need it. I'll never understand this whiny "Oh god, I have to pay 5% more in taxes, I'd rather let people fucking die than ever do that". Yes, you will end up helping to pay for other people's treatment, but so fucking what? Some people need more help than you do and that's just the way it is, why not help them out? Besides it's not like this system will never benefit you, that's the entire point of universal welfare models, that everyone will gain benefits from the systems, not just the very poor. However, it gives the very poor a fighting chance, just like the middle-class, I don't really see the problem.

Of course I am from a country with one of the highest taxrates in the world. However, we get a lot for our taxes (not just healthcare) and frankly I'll happily pay them, while hoping I never have to rely on the healthcaresystem, because it's better not to be sick. But I don't mind helping those who are less fortunate and I like knowing that if I am ever among those, society is not just going to abandon me either. So your idea that healthy people would rather not pay taxes to a healthcaresytem is rather flawed, in fact it's one of the few things mainstream libetarians in Denmark never really openly attack, because it would make them very unpopular. But I guess the common attitude to universal healthcare may simply be a cultural difference.

The entire argument you and Major Tom presents relies on childish selfishness, where you don't want to help pay for other people's problems. I know that you will of course try to justify it with some libertarian hogswash, which I'm frankly getting almost as tired off as goddamn fundamentalist communism. I apoligize if I come off a bit impolite, this is why I generally don't stick my head into political issues on these forums, but I just sort of felt like a bit of a rant.

Your taxes go into education, which you do not receive once you pass a certain age. They go into the military, which may be involved in wars you don't care for.

Why single out healthcare and say "no, not this"? As pointed out before, the WHO report shows that countries with universal health care are healthier then those without. The costs are of little matter, given that a healthier populace is a productive populace. And public healthcare would likely lead to more jobs, which is good news for the economy.

^ I wouldn't trust the WHO report in the face of this.

Look at that one facet of healthcare social problems.

Well, of course, American children are already at the plateau.

@Mathias

Fundamentally, that's exactly what it comes down to. Everyone deserves what they get, and that includes the losers. It's an unsound argument to make because it turns the issue into a matter of anarchy versus statism, rather than determining how a state should be involved in the welfare of its citizens, which any decent state is.

But British kids are fatter on average, so your argument is completely invalid!

edited 10th May '11 12:01:53 PM by Ratix

This gets linked often in health care debates. As you see, the US is in a completely different league when it comes to health care spending per capita.

That is to say, the Us spends much more than most industrial countries.

In fact, it's more than double what Japan or Finland spends, despite both countries getting a higher life expectancy at birth than the US.

A quote from just above the table in the Wikipedia article:

Now before you cite the size of the country or infrastructure, I'm pretty sure those problems are much bigger in Australia.

Here's another table◊ comparing healthcare spending per capita.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

^^^^ If childhood obesity one of the easiest health conditions to prevent has efforts to combat it via universal health care environments fail, it's not praising evidence either for the WHO report or the concept of universal health care as superior.

edited 10th May '11 12:05:36 PM by MajorTom

Major Tom: Or you are ignoring what has been said and are grasping at a straw?
The only way of getting rid of "fat people" is either to make it impossible to aquire enough food, or get int a proper social stigma that enforces it. A lot of fat people could have been properly told back in childhood that they are actually eating too much , and increasing the size of the tummies which again leads to even more.
I would bet any "solutions" to the problem would not involve healthcare in itself.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

"Cultural differences" is an often heard phrase in such threads, typically from countries with universal healthcare to countries without. I'll say it again: the childhood obesity thing is a result of lifestyle: more money spent on junk food. Can it be prevented? Certainly. However, I am unsure of what you want the NHS to do about it besides educate people and advise against lifestyles which lead to it.

You cannot simply look at one (relatively minor issue) and declare the entire thing void with it. As Best Of implied, a far more telling indicator of the effectiveness is life expectancy and infant mortality rate. The United States is a year below the UK's average life expectancy and 1.9% higher in it's infant mortality rate - the UK is the US' closest competitor in these things. However, per capita, there is a gap of a staggering of about four-thousand-five-hundred dollars expended on healthcare. 16% of GDP is spent on health in the US, compared to 8.4% in the UK.

I do not think it would be worthwhile to continue lecturing on this: the figures are there and speak quite plainly for themselves!

edited 10th May '11 12:12:07 PM by AllanAssiduity

The huge difference is that if you choose to consume less food, or devote more effort into using food efficiently, then you get charged less. The USDA actually helps this, as it provides everybody with the information they need to make good choices. If the food situation was made anaylogous to universal healthcare, then you would just pay your taxes and get issued the food the government dicided you needed. Which would involve a cripplingly massive information cost, as well as a loss of freedom, as compared to letting people choose and buy what they want.

I don't doubt it. But I believe that it's more important to protect individual freedom than it is to create the theoretically optimal system. If for no other reason, if the system messes up we're all in a mess, while if a few individuals make mistakes society can recover.

Again, it simply comes down to a difference in base values. I think that if someone works and earns money, and then somebody else takes that money for no other purpose than to give benefits to somebody else, then that is wrong.

It's not selfishness: I'm poor enough that Obamacare won't cost me a dime, as long as I'm willing to accept the government handouts. But I care a lot about my freedom to make my own choices in life.

<><

It's hard to make choices when you're dead. Many Americans have life-threatening conditions, yet they wait until it's almost too late to get care. Why? Because they can't afford it. The hospital has to eat the cost on them, and pass it on to you.

So really, either way, you'll paying for my healthcare if we go to socialized healthcare and I get routine checkups and medication, or when my thyroid goes cancerous due to lack of medication.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Somehow, regardless of that, it's is often cheaper to pay out-of-pocket for most medical expenses than it is to carry coverage. Since that is the case, I must conclude that your failure to get preventative care isn't running up prices to the extent where I would be better off with mandated insurance.

<><

No, it isn't. At least not in my experience. Coverage through my employer is a couple hundred bucks a month. Each doctor's visit is between two and five hundred dollars. I have to have a general practitioner check me before I can get a referral to an endocrinologist. Once I hand over a chunk of change to one doc, I have to do to another doctor to get my medication adjusted. Specialist visits can cost between $300 and $700, depending on if I include bloodwork or not. Then you have to go back to said specialist another time to see if it's working and if I need further adjustment. Then there's other things included in insurance like gynecology visits, and emergency services, which would be very nice to have.

By the end of the month, I would have owed more than a thousand dollars to the healthcare industry. If I can't afford insurance through my employer, I sure as hell can't afford that.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian