Trump Tweets (no more)

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

All-knowing angels? Divine knowledge? What are you ranting about? Let's bring this back to a serious ground.

It was a serious question. Where exactly are you going to find someone who knows the preferences of others better than those others know themselves?

Having government making decisions from others involves a process of A and B deciding how much C should pay D, and in the process A and B will get a cut of the payment as well. Letting people make their own decisions entails C choosing how much to pay D, and D choosing how much he is willing to offer in return.

The first scenario is to be preferred if A and B are these all-knowing angels who know more about C and D than the latter know themselves.

You seem to have this notion that because you don't benefit from certain essential health benefits (EHB) that you shouldn't pay for them. Why should you as a man pay for maternity care? Why should you as a healthy person pay for mental health services and addiction treatment? Why should you as an adult pay for pediatric services? All of this stems from the argument whether we want people who have needs for services paying for the bulk of those services themselves or do we want to spread the cost of necessary services across a broader population so those services are affordable and accessible for everyone when they need them. This doesn't even take into account that by doing away with the EHB it would create a market for policies that either only covers marginal issues or are highly expensive. And let's not get started on the issue that providers could outright avoid people they judge 'non-profitable'.

I am a very strong advocate of many paying a little for everyone whereas you are the opposite.

Nope, you completely misunderstood my point.

The argument I am making is that the best people to make decisions about their own healthcare are the people themselves. Government do not know people better than people know themselves.

Let me elaborate with a personal example. As I mentioned earlier, I hold very very comprehensive private health and life insurance even though I am young and healthy because I prioritise protecting myself against future negative events more than current enjoyment. I chose to forego buying a car and used the money to buy insurance instead. I don't go on holidays to exotic places so that I can use the money to increase my insurance cover while I do not have any pre-existing conditions. Many of my friends choose the reverse. They don't buy any insurance and instead choose to buy a big car or go on a luxury holiday.

If a major illness were to strike both my friend and me, I would be adequately compensated but my friends would not be. But do I have a right to force my friend to buy insurance even if I had the power to? Of course not. I do not know his preferences and I do not know his risk profile since I'm not an "all-knowing angel with divine knowledge" to know better about his situation than he himself does. Each person is the best candidate to choose how much insurance to buy to protect himself/herself - not me, not anyone else, and not the government. This is not to say that each person makes the right decision. The point is that when the decision pertaining to an individual is made by others, then more often than not it ends up worse than if the individual made his or her own decision.

Now suppose the illness did strike both of us, and my friend ends up on the brink of bankruptcy because he chose not to purchase insurance. Do I then have the obligation to bail him out? Once again, of course not. I will most likely help him because that's what I do for friends, but it would be as a personal choice and not as an obligation. People who make the conscious decision to take on risk without insuring themselves have no right to force others to bail them out when an adverse event occurs.

The vast majority of "non-profitable" people are those who could have bought insurance earlier while they were young and healthy but chose not to, and now start looking to buy insurance after a claimable event has occurred. I have already explained in great detail why insurance must be bought before a claimable event occurs, and not after. You can't buy housing insurance after your house has burnt down, you can't buy car insurance after your car was wrecked, and you can't buy life insurance for a relative who's already dead. This is a simple tenet of insurance, and if you don't understand this concept then please read my earlier post again until you do. I am absolutely serious when I say that knowing what insurance can and cannot do can save you and your loved ones from a world of pain.

As for the very small minority of people who were born with birth defects that made them uninsurable from birth, the solution is privately run charities. This is similar to what I talked about, that I will help my friend on my own accord and not out of coercion. Private charities have also historically been more efficient in helping their target group in that they incur less overheads than their government department counterparts, thus enabling a larger percentage of donations to go directly to the people they are helping. And private charities have historically worked very well before the welfare state came in and pushed out efficient private charities with inefficient government departments.

So to correct your conclusion, I am a VERY strong advocate for many paying a little for everyone. Why else would I hold so much insurance that my yearly premiums would have been sufficient for me to go on a nice holiday every year? And why else would I be constantly encouraging my family, friends, and colleagues to purchase life insurance to protect themselves against future catastrophes?

What I am against, however, is the idea that anyone (including the government) has the right to force everyone to buy insurance even if they don't want to, and for everyone else to pick up the tab when adverse events do happen to those who choose not to buy insurance.

None of these individuals are relevant to the ACA.

Ok, I'll be direct then. Obama believed he knew what the people needed better than the people knew themselves. This is why he passed the ACA and spouted a bunch of forecasts that ultimately didn't come to fruition, eventually resulting in numerous Obamacare exchanges collapsing around the nation.

As it turns out, he didn't know better than anyone else and ended up leaving behind a gigantic mess.

That's just an illusionary utopia. Individuals don't cherry pick their own plans, they choose the options that providers offer them. If there is no common ground among providers we run into the aforementioned issue of individuals having the choice between taking the risk of massive costs when they actually have an issue or paying massive costs for issues they already have or might never get. The EHB are an important part of what balances the market and makes it affordable for everyone.

No, it is not a utopia. I for one chose my health and life insurance policies very carefully, taking into account my needs, risk profile, and how much I'm willing to pay. I can tell you as well that I read every single word of my policy disclosure documents, including the definitions of the conditions that are covered before making my decision. There were more than enough options from all of the insurance firms in the market.

The EHB plays no role in making things affordable for everyone and instead distorts decisions by not allowing people to get less coverage if they don't want it. There is no basis for arguing that the lack of an EHB will result in every plan being very cheap with little coverage or very expensive with more coverage. Insurers can offer a whole array of choices at multiple price levels, and if some don't, then their competitors will swoop in to fill that niche. The insurance industry is the same as every other industry in this regard.

As I've already mentioned twice in the last few posts, what ultimately makes things affordable is increased supply. Redistributing demand does nothing to reduce costs.

Affordable healthcare is in the interest of all generations.

The issue I asked was what what moral basis is there for taking the wealth of one generation and giving it to another, knowing that the generation whose wealth is taken will not be able to get it back due to the falling population?

But I'll address this point anyway since it's very important. The flaw in this particular line is that you're only looking at the benefits but not the costs. Healthcare doesn't become affordable for every generation just by taking wealth from one generation to pay the costs of another. Someone still has to pay for it at the end of the day. If you take the wealth of the next generation to pay for the healthcare cost of the current generation, then the next generation ends up poorer for it. Somewhere down the road, you'll have no more future money to borrow and that generation will have no money to pay for their healthcare costs.

If you still don't understand this concept, then look at it this way. It's easy to say that affordable housing is in the interest of everyone, so the US government forced lenders to lend to high-risk individuals at low sub-prime rates. We all know what happened next.

It's the same with the ACA. Look at how much money it's been bleeding all this while. Someone has to pay for it eventually, and it will be the future generations who do.

That's some vile nonsense if I ever read one. This is proven false simply by looking at healthcare systems in Europe. Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Britain, France and ongoing all have higher health costs among older generations yet none of them is complaining about your so-called ponzi scheme. Mainly because it doesn't exist in the first place.

All of these countries are facing problems of a population pyramid that is starting to invert, and once that demographic change fully occurs, the publicly funded healthcare systems will collapse.

Britain is already experiencing this, with someone in the other Brexit thread even saying that the NHS is already dead. My brother lives in London so I get first-hand information from him about what's happening over there.

The system works well at the start when the population pyramid has a large base, since there's many young people to pay for the elderly's living costs. But once those young people grow old, who's going to pay for their healthcare costs when the base of new young workers is smaller due to the inverted population pyramid?

If you still don't understand this concept of an inter-generational transfer on wealth, then I'll give you a very simple numerical example. Seriously, please work through this example because this is the simplest explanation I can give you. It demonstrates why a healthcare system that takes money from future generations to fund the current one is precisely a Ponzi scheme.

Consider a scenario with 3 generations of people, two of which are alive at any one time. The first generation has 1 million people, second has 2 million people, and the third has 1 million people, so we start off with a population pyramid that has a wide base but later inverts - similar to what's occurring right now. Each person earns enough to contribute $1000 of healthcare over his/her lifetime. Therefore, in this scenario, Gen 1 has a budget of $1 billion, Gen 2 has a budget of $2 billion, and Gen 3 has a budget of $1 billion. This means that the total budget over 3 generations is $4 billion.

In the first time period, Gen 1 are the elderly, Gen 2 are the young workers, and Gen 3 isn't born yet. In the second time period, Gen 2 are the elderly and Gen 3 are the young workers, while Gen 1 has passed on.

So how do we allocate the healthcare costs? If each generation pays their own healthcare costs, then each generation spends $1000 per person on average.

Socialised healthcare does something very different. It takes the money belonging to future generations and spends it on the current generation.

So in period 1, the elderly in Gen 1 have $1 billion for 1000 people. Socialised healthcare takes the $2 billion from the young workers in Gen 2 and spends it on Gen 1, who then spends $3 billion instead.

Once period 2 comes around, Gen 2 have no money since their $2 billion was spent on Gen 1. So they take Gen 3's $1 billion, but that is still less than Gen 2's $2 billion. Gen 2 is now worse off since the young workers in Gen 3 cannot raise the original $2 billion due to the falling population. To add to that, Gen 3 now has zero as well and needs to rely on Gen 4 (the number of people in Gen 4 is not important, since Gen 3 and Gen 4 will still be worse off compared to being under a system where each generation pays their own expenses).

As time goes on and the population continues to fall, every subsequent generation becomes even worse off. At some point, one generation has to take the hit and have practically no money left to pay for healthcare bills. And why did this happen? Because in period 1, the healthcare costs of the young workers in Gen 2 were taken as an "inter-generational transfer of wealth" to let Gen 1 spend $3000 per person instead of $1000. Someone has to pay for it, and that someone is the future generation somewhere down the line.

Note that such a problem will not occur if the population keeps on increasing. But even this would eventually be untenable since land has its carrying capacity, beyond which it can't support any more people. You'll eventually end up with one of the future generations having less to spend on healthcare even if you assume that the population simply remains constant without falling.

Or you could, you know, have each generation pay for their own healthcare costs, which keeps the system sustainable for every single generation down the line.

That's nice and well but this isn't just about you. It's about everyone but as long as you refuse to acknowledge that there is no point in arguing further.

You said to me, "Hopefully you're still far from retirement because that 'ponzi scheme' will be taking care of you then."

And when I replied saying that I'm not going to rely on a ponzi scheme to take care of me, you started saying that it's not about me.

The whole point I've been making all along is that an unsustainable healthcare system affects everyone, particularly the future generations who are disproportionately affected. Taking wealth from future generations to pay for the current generation will only end up burdening them when the system eventually collapses due to the inverted population pyramid.

It's about making sure that we do not burden future generations but as long as you refuse to acknowledge that there is no point in arguing further.

Originally Posted by GDB

So in other words, pseudo monopolies just like internet corporations. And they sure aren't trying to gouge people or anything.

When there is market competition, which will be the case when insurers can offer insurance across state lines, then no they aren't monopolies and they aren't trying to gouge people since they maximise profits by selling as many policies as possible.

And the way they sell as many policies as they can is by offering products at competitive rates in order to poach as many customers as possible from their competitors, and prevent competitors from poaching theirs.

That's a completely separate issue that shouldn't have any basis in this discussion. Otherwise you can handwave any argument for anything government-based with "Government is corrupt, tear it down."

It absolutely is relevant to this discussion. Government departments are invariably less efficient than their private sector counterparts, and part of this is because government departments have every incentive to use up their entire budget even when not needed. I personally have witnessed this even in Australia, where corruption is very low. This is true pretty much anywhere in the world with few exceptions such as Singapore, which is a special case that I'll leave for another post.

Originally Posted by Sheba

I am thankful I do live under that "ponzi-scheme" European healtcare.

Because my appendicitisis came at the worst time for me (no job, barely making ends meet with my savings), and I'd not typing here if I had not the french healthcare system to cover my surgery's costs. So, I'll gladly give away some of my income to the system to help any guy who'd experience the same misfortune as I did. And I am pretty sure that a lot of French citizens understand as much why we do that.

Good on you for profiting from the system. Do you think your children or grandchildren will enjoy the same luxury in their old age when the population falls and there aren't enough young people to pay for their medical bills?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Good on you for profiting from the system. Do you think your children or grandchildren will enjoy the same luxury in their old age when the population falls and there aren't enough young people to pay for their medical bills?

I fail to see how "not dying" is considered profiting?
Is that how you see sick people? Thieves for daring to not die like they are suppose to?

Is dying from an infection a profitable enterprise?

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I fail to see how "not dying" is considered profiting?
Is that how you see sick people? Thieves for daring to not die like they are suppose to?

Is dying from an infection a profitable enterprise?

Profit is the word that Eisdrache used, and I'm using it in the same context as he was, since the majority of my post was directed as a response to him:

This question is so unbelievably loaded but the answer is Yes.

There needs to be a common ground for everyone. Obviously not everyone is going to profit from every single point but then again why should they? Health care in a nut shell is a system in which everyone pays a comparatively small amount in order to have everyone covered. It does not work by paying for yourself only which is what you mean by not having all of the essentials covered.

The point that both Eisdrache and I were referring to is that not everybody profits from insurance ex-post. Some people will gain more they paid since they're unlucky enough to suffer from a claimable event, while others who don't suffer from the event will pay more in premiums than the amount they get back. The whole point of insurance is that nobody knows ex-ante who the catastrophe will fall on, so the risk can be spread among those who are risk averse. Where Eisdrache and I disagree is on whether people should be forced to purchase insurance even if they don't prioritise it and made the conscious decision not to get it.

My view is that nobody has the knowledge to dictate to others that they should prioritise insurance when those others choose not to. Eisdrache's view is the reverse, and I can understand where he's coming from even if I disagree with it. After all, I completely agree with the view that having insurance is beneficial and that everyone should prioritise coverage as part of their budget, but I do not consider myself to be all-knowing enough to force others to act against their own will.

In any case, I like how you chose to nitpick the narrowest segment of my post. It's nice to know that there are people who read every single word of it.

[Solace]

Insurance is stupid. Either you're all in it together as a society, or you're not in it at all. This halfway system based on profit motive leaves a lot of people screwed.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Solace

Insurance is stupid. Either you're all in it together as a society, or you're not in it at all. This halfway system based on profit motive leaves a lot of people screwed.

Same could be said for food. Would you like to move to Venezuela with all its price controls that remove the profit motive on food essentials?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Same could be said for food. Would you like to move to Venezuela with all its price controls that remove the profit motive on food essentials?

Venezuela has problems far deeper than price controls. Let's not strawman by pointing to unstable countries. The US has the capability of providing an excellent health care system that would not financially burden its citizens to the extremes that it currently does. It would "harm" the upper end of profits currently enjoyed by the medical system, but the benefits outweigh the negatives. This is true for most problems that require insurance.

The entire point of insurance is that people pitch into a pot to cover financial problems that cannot be paid for individually. But the need for particular insurances also points to particular problems that could be addressed to remove the need for those insurances and/or mitigate their expenses. This concept is more difficult to apply in a world where "any problem that generates money is good as long as it isn't my problem and my money" exists.

I understand the utility of insurance. I don't agree with how it is currently abused. Case in point: the individual mandate of Obamacare. Think about how silly it sounds. Basically at this point every citizen in the country is forced to pay either the government or a private company. So step one of single payer - make everyone pay into the system - is already done. But now it's the worst of both worlds. You're either paying heavily for not having health insurance, or you're paying heavily for having health insurance, and you get to enjoy the bonus of paying heavily when you need health care.

It's stupidity at its finest. The only people truly benefiting are the ones collecting the money. Everyone else is simply hoping not to get sick and die. That's when you know the insurance system is broken.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by frivolity

It was a serious question. Where exactly are you going to find someone who knows the preferences of others better than those others know themselves?

Having government making decisions from others involves a process of A and B deciding how much C should pay D, and in the process A and B will get a cut of the payment as well. Letting people make their own decisions entails C choosing how much to pay D, and D choosing how much he is willing to offer in return.

The first scenario is to be preferred if A and B are these all-knowing angels who know more about C and D than the latter know themselves.

Nope, you completely misunderstood my point.

The argument I am making is that the best people to make decisions about their own healthcare are the people themselves. Government do not know people better than people know themselves.

Let me elaborate with a personal example. As I mentioned earlier, I hold very very comprehensive private health and life insurance even though I am young and healthy because I prioritise protecting myself against future negative events more than current enjoyment. I chose to forego buying a car and used the money to buy insurance instead. I don't go on holidays to exotic places so that I can use the money to increase my insurance cover while I do not have any pre-existing conditions. Many of my friends choose the reverse. They don't buy any insurance and instead choose to buy a big car or go on a luxury holiday.

If a major illness were to strike both my friend and me, I would be adequately compensated but my friends would not be. But do I have a right to force my friend to buy insurance even if I had the power to? Of course not. I do not know his preferences and I do not know his risk profile since I'm not an "all-knowing angel with divine knowledge" to know better about his situation than he himself does. Each person is the best candidate to choose how much insurance to buy to protect himself/herself - not me, not anyone else, and not the government. This is not to say that each person makes the right decision. The point is that when the decision pertaining to an individual is made by others, then more often than not it ends up worse than if the individual made his or her own decision.

Now suppose the illness did strike both of us, and my friend ends up on the brink of bankruptcy because he chose not to purchase insurance. Do I then have the obligation to bail him out? Once again, of course not. I will most likely help him because that's what I do for friends, but it would be as a personal choice and not as an obligation. People who make the conscious decision to take on risk without insuring themselves have no right to force others to bail them out when an adverse event occurs.

[...]

So to correct your conclusion, I am a VERY strong advocate for many paying a little for everyone. Why else would I hold so much insurance that my yearly premiums would have been sufficient for me to go on a nice holiday every year? And why else would I be constantly encouraging my family, friends, and colleagues to purchase life insurance to protect themselves against future catastrophes?

First health care does not stop you from being able to buy a car or go to holidays. It might take more time but in no way are you barred from doing so eventually. You can have -gasp- both if you reduce your own needs slightly but in the long term everyone gets more (monetary and non-monetary combined) back, including you.
Second yes the state can force its citizens do things that might not overlap with their own interests. Laws and regulations exist for a reason or else we would just be an anarchy. And yes I'd make health care a law without this tax penalty nonsense.

Originally Posted by frivolity

The vast majority of "non-profitable" people are those who could have bought insurance earlier while they were young and healthy but chose not to, and now start looking to buy insurance after a claimable event has occurred. I have already explained in great detail why insurance must be bought before a claimable event occurs, and not after. You can't buy housing insurance after your house has burnt down, you can't buy car insurance after your car was wrecked, and you can't buy life insurance for a relative who's already dead. This is a simple tenet of insurance, and if you don't understand this concept then please read my earlier post again until you do. I am absolutely serious when I say that knowing what insurance can and cannot do can save you and your loved ones from a world of pain.

No, the non-profitables are those who insurance companies judge to be too risky to insure. Had several cases of cancer in the family? Out. An aunt had diabetes? Out. A brother had some chronic disease? Out. Insurance companies would have free hand in creating these criteria and sending anyone who doesn't meet them away.

Originally Posted by frivolity

Ok, I'll be direct then. Obama believed he knew what the people needed better than the people knew themselves. This is why he passed the ACA and spouted a bunch of forecasts that ultimately didn't come to fruition, eventually resulting in numerous Obamacare exchanges collapsing around the nation.

As it turns out, he didn't know better than anyone else and ended up leaving behind a gigantic mess.

Oh please. Let's not pretend that the ACA wasn't an improvement. America indisputably had the worst health care system of any developed country and the ACA was a step in the right direction to change that. Nobody will deny that it has problems but it laid the foundation on which we can improve on. The republican idea of health care is trash and threatens to reverse much of the progress that was made.

Originally Posted by frivolity

No, it is not a utopia. I for one chose my health and life insurance policies very carefully, taking into account my needs, risk profile, and how much I'm willing to pay. I can tell you as well that I read every single word of my policy disclosure documents, including the definitions of the conditions that are covered before making my decision. There were more than enough options from all of the insurance firms in the market.

The EHB plays no role in making things affordable for everyone and instead distorts decisions by not allowing people to get less coverage if they don't want it. There is no basis for arguing that the lack of an EHB will result in every plan being very cheap with little coverage or very expensive with more coverage. Insurers can offer a whole array of choices at multiple price levels, and if some don't, then their competitors will swoop in to fill that niche. The insurance industry is the same as every other industry in this regard.

As I've already mentioned twice in the last few posts, what ultimately makes things affordable is increased supply. Redistributing demand does nothing to reduce costs.

There is a very real risk that they won't as there is little motivation for them to do so. Insurance companies first and foremost want to make profit. Offering either cheap skimpy plans or expensive full coverage plans aligns perfectly with that interest. The EHB prevent such price spikes by creating a equal basis for everyone and therefore play a large role in keeping costs affordable.

Originally Posted by frivolity

The issue I asked was what what moral basis is there for taking the wealth of one generation and giving it to another, knowing that the generation whose wealth is taken will not be able to get it back due to the falling population?

Solidarity.

TL;DR…

 

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

That was a nice example. I stopped reading half-way through it because it became more and more fantastic about a worst case hypothetical scenario that we are nowhere close to. Since Britain was mentioned above, the 65+ age group is projected to grow to roughly a quarter of the total. Your point about reverse age demographics valid but they are still facing a healthy pyramid for at least two generations. Less healthy than it was before but not a sickly one either. Europe is aging indeed and will have to face the problems caused by it but there are several ideas to reverse or at least soften it (immigration, changes to pension age, encouragement of birth rates through marriage for example, etc). Every country will have to come up with their own solution and it would require a whole new thread to discuss every single one of them but I believe that Europe as a continent will find a way.

Originally Posted by frivolity

You said to me, "Hopefully you're still far from retirement because that 'ponzi scheme' will be taking care of you then."

And when I replied saying that I'm not going to rely on a ponzi scheme to take care of me, you started saying that it's not about me.

I disagree with the very idea that our current health care system is a ponzi scheme. You won't have to rely on your self-invented ponzi scheme since it doesn't exist.
And yes, the individual is part of health care but it is a system for everyone, not just one.

Originally Posted by frivolity

The whole point I've been making all along is that an unsustainable healthcare system affects everyone, particularly the future generations who are disproportionately affected. Taking wealth from future generations to pay for the current generation will only end up burdening them when the system eventually collapses due to the inverted population pyramid.

It's about making sure that we do not burden future generations but as long as you refuse to acknowledge that there is no point in arguing further.

You are talking as if the system has already collapsed or is on the verge to do so. This is false. You are giving the points in favour of the current system far not enough weight while blowing up those against it. Obviously you then end up with a doomsday scenario.

[Sheba]

Nice knowing I am a borderline thief for daring to not die! Glad I do not live under the clusterfuck that is the US healthcare systel.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Solidarity.

Also Christian charity, something I have been taught when I attended catechism when Mom was still a Christian.

A foreign and alien concept, it seems.

[frivolity]

Finally finished the full reply, phew!

Originally Posted by Solace

Venezuela has problems far deeper than price controls. Let's not strawman by pointing to unstable countries. The US has the capability of providing an excellent health care system that would not financially burden its citizens to the extremes that it currently does. It would "harm" the upper end of profits currently enjoyed by the medical system, but the benefits outweigh the negatives. This is true for most problems that require insurance.

The entire point of insurance is that people pitch into a pot to cover financial problems that cannot be paid for individually. But the need for particular insurances also points to particular problems that could be addressed to remove the need for those insurances and/or mitigate their expenses. This concept is more difficult to apply in a world where "any problem that generates money is good as long as it isn't my problem and my money" exists.

I understand the utility of insurance. I don't agree with how it is currently abused. Case in point: the individual mandate of Obamacare. Think about how silly it sounds. Basically at this point every citizen in the country is forced to pay either the government or a private company. So step one of single payer - make everyone pay into the system - is already done. But now it's the worst of both worlds. You're either paying heavily for not having health insurance, or you're paying heavily for having health insurance, and you get to enjoy the bonus of paying heavily when you need health care.

It's stupidity at its finest. The only people truly benefiting are the ones collecting the money. Everyone else is simply hoping not to get sick and die. That's when you know the insurance system is broken.

Price controls and socialism are precisely why Venezuela is in its current unstable position and have no means of getting out. Venezuela is the country with one of the highest oil reserves per capita in the world, and a well-functioning market system would have allocated resources correctly to the parties that value it most. By setting prices on food at artificially low levels, it removes the profit incentive of growing food, so less firms are willing to invest in the agricultural industry, less people are willing to grow food, and you end up with even less food plus a black market where massive markups are imposed since the amount of food available is so small.

The same principle applies to healthcare and health insurance. You're missing a key point in your description of insurance, which is Obamacare's treatment of pre-existing conditions. Reviewing the historical origins of insurance helps to illustrate the issue. The earliest form of insurance took place in maritime trade, back when sea voyage was very dangerous and unpredictable (think Merchant of Venice). A bunch of merchants got together and decided that it was better for all of them to contribute a little to a fund, and use it to pay for the losses of whoever was unlucky enough to lose his trade goods during the voyage.

The important point here is that only those who choose to contribute to the fund before the voyage will get covered for the losses. You cannot have a system where someone who doesn't pay the contribution before the voyage is allowed to pay the fund after his goods get lost and expect to get paid out by the fund. If you did allow that, then everyone would not pay any contribution before the voyage, and only those whose goods were damaged will pay the fund. The end result is that the fund collapses because there was no spreading of risk since the only participants in the fund are those whose goods are damaged, while those whose goods made it through the journey won't participate. Alternatively, the fund ends up raising the required contribution rates to the point that the rate is equal to the damage, which is equivalent to each person paying for his own losses - back to square one!

Do you see a parallel here between the two scenarios here and what you said above?

You're either paying heavily for not having health insurance, or you're paying heavily for having health insurance, and you get to enjoy the bonus of paying heavily when you need health care.

Over the years, the concept of the maritime trade fund evolved to become the insurance companies of today, but the initial principles still remain. Obamacare forced insurance firms to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions, even though those applicants did not purchase the policies before the pre-existing conditions manifested themselves. So no, step one of making everyone pay into the system is NOT done. What Obamacare did was equivalent to forcing the maritime fund to accept all of the applicants who did not pay the contribution before the voyage but were seeking to make the contribution only after their goods had been lost.

There's only two ways to go: either the fund collapses, forcing people into "paying heavily for not having health insurance"; or the fund is forced to raise its contribution rates, so you're "paying heavily for having health insurance, and you get to enjoy the bonus of paying heavily when you need health care". The result is that even those people who have been paying health insurance from the time when they were young and healthy also ended up losing their insurance as well.

What's broken is not the insurance system. What's broken is the government policy that ignores the basic principles of insurance.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

First health care does not stop you from being able to buy a car or go to holidays. It might take more time but in no way are you barred from doing so eventually. You can have -gasp- both if you reduce your own needs slightly but in the long term everyone gets more (monetary and non-monetary combined) back, including you.
Second yes the state can force its citizens do things that might not overlap with their own interests. Laws and regulations exist for a reason or else we would just be an anarchy. And yes I'd make health care a law without this tax penalty nonsense.

Paying for health and life insurance does stop me from being able to buy a car and going to holidays in exotic places due to income constraints, duh .

Insurance is meant to be bought before you start developing the symptoms of pre-existing conditions and not before. I chose to buy health and life insurance early because I don't know what the future holds, and delaying my purchase increases the risk of me developing symptoms that could bar me from getting insurance in the future. I have no idea why you think it is good for anyone to delay the purchase of insurance. You're meant to buy insurance precisely when you're young and healthy.

Laws and regulations have their place, and I'm not an anarchist either. I've explained in the previous thread about the three basic functions of government, which are the provision of national defence, the setting up of a system of contracts/property rights and courts to enforce them, and protection of third parties from spillover effects arising out of transactions that don't involve those third parties but are difficult to track.

The issue arises when government tries to go beyond those three roles and end up overruling the individual decision-making of the citizens themselves. Whether or not this is beneficial to society will depend on the basic question that I asked in my original post. If you believe that a select few can ever have superior knowledge above and beyond the rest of society, then yes it will be beneficial. I don't believe that such all-knowing angels exist, however, and history has demonstrated how dangerous such belief would be.

I'm interested to know under what system you can allow everyone to get back more in the long term. Please explain the mechanics of your system to me, preferably with some simplified numbers for illustrative purposes so I can understand how it works.

No, the non-profitables are those who insurance companies judge to be too risky to insure. Had several cases of cancer in the family? Out. An aunt had diabetes? Out. A brother had some chronic disease? Out. Insurance companies would have free hand in creating these criteria and sending anyone who doesn't meet them away.

Sorry, I'm going to have to call BS on that. One parent with cancer before 50, grandfather with diabetes, hereditary thalassemia minor, eczema since young, recent complaints of RSI-like wrist pain, and a slightly positive result on a blood test cancer marker. Still got life insurance with no premium loading and no exclusions.

The percentage of people at the age of 20 who would get rejected by insurance companies is VERY low. Majority of those who can't get insurance are those who left it until too late and end up trying to get insurance only after the pre-existing conditions show up.

Oh please. Let's not pretend that the ACA wasn't an improvement. America indisputably had the worst health care system of any developed country and the ACA was a step in the right direction to change that. Nobody will deny that it has problems but it laid the foundation on which we can improve on. The republican idea of health care is trash and threatens to reverse much of the progress that was made.

Saying that America had the worst health care system in the developed world is pure nonsense. Bernie Sanders' own home state of Montana has Canadian flags on its medical centres as a signal that it welcomed Canadians who were flying in for healthcare. America's 5-year cancer survival rate is among the best in the world.

The ACA was a step in the wrong direction. Premiums and deductibles both went up, people who have been periodically paying for insurance from the time when they were young and healthy ended up suffering too, and the states that suffered the most from Obamacare rightly voted against the Democrats in the latest election. The reason why the Republicans' recent healthcare proposal is trash is precisely because it didn't rip Obamacare apart from the foundations. They need to do a full repeal.

There is a very real risk that they won't as there is little motivation for them to do so. Insurance companies first and foremost want to make profit. Offering either cheap skimpy plans or expensive full coverage plans aligns perfectly with that interest. The EHB prevent such price spikes by creating a equal basis for everyone and therefore play a large role in keeping costs affordable.

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of economics and the probability foundations of insurance.

Profit is increased whenever the insurer sells a policy that is at least equal to its marginal cost [1]. To do this, the insurer needs to cater to as many consumer preferences as it can, at least until the point where administrative costs become too prohibitive, but this is still a fairly high ceiling. Low-risk customers are attracted to cheap skimpy plans, medium-risk customers are attracted to medium-price medium-coverage plans, and high-risk customers are attracted to high-price high-coverage plans (a bit of a simplification here, since there's a whole spectrum of risk profiles). If an insurer only sells skimpy plans and full coverage plans with no medium coverage ones, then those customers will simply go to competitors who do, which causes that insurer to lose potential profits. In this way, every insurer has the incentive to offer as broad a range of policies as it can, including medium-priced ones, and multiple firms will focus on various niches such that the industry as a whole offers a wide degree of choice for consumers.

This was precisely what I observed while poring through the life insurance disclosure statements of the 10 different firms that I evaluated.

[1] This refers to economic profit and not accounting profit.

Solidarity.

Great, so those who are alive are showing solidarity to take wealth away from future generations and saddling them with debts that they didn't incur.

Now who's going to show solidarity for the future generations?

That was a nice example. I stopped reading half-way through it because it became more and more fantastic about a worst case hypothetical scenario that we are nowhere close to. Since Britain was mentioned above, the 65+ age group is projected to grow to roughly a quarter of the total. Your point about reverse age demographics valid but they are still facing a healthy pyramid for at least two generations. Less healthy than it was before but not a sickly one either. Europe is aging indeed and will have to face the problems caused by it but there are several ideas to reverse or at least soften it (immigration, changes to pension age, encouragement of birth rates through marriage for example, etc). Every country will have to come up with their own solution and it would require a whole new thread to discuss every single one of them but I believe that Europe as a continent will find a way.

I disagree with the very idea that our current health care system is a ponzi scheme. You won't have to rely on your self-invented ponzi scheme since it doesn't exist.
And yes, the individual is part of health care but it is a system for everyone, not just one.

You are talking as if the system has already collapsed or is on the verge to do so. This is false. You are giving the points in favour of the current system far not enough weight while blowing up those against it. Obviously you then end up with a doomsday scenario.

You missed the forest for the trees. The principle that I'm getting at is that an inter-generational transfer of wealth shifts the burden away from the current generation to future generations. This is true because the additional money that is spent on the first generation must still be paid by someone. There is no such thing as a free good. My example holds true provided one assumption is met: that the population cannot keep growing forever.

The example still holds even with your assumption that population stays constant for 2 generations and slowly falls.

• Gen 1 with 1 million people so total $1b
• Gen 2, 3, 4 with 2 million people so total $2b each generation
• Gen 5 with 1.99 million people so total $1.99b
• Gen 6 with 1.98 million people so total $1.98b
• ...
• Gen x with [2 - 0.01 * (x - 4)] million people so total $[2 - 0.01 * (x - 4)]b

Socialised healthcare kicks in for Gen 1, who gets Gen 2's healthcare contributions and thus spend $3000 each.
Gen 2 and 3 take Gen 3's and Gen 4's contributions respectively, and so spend $1000 each. Straightaway we see that Gen 2 and 3 already can't sustain Gen 1's spending.
Gen 4 takes Gen 5's contributions, and so spends $995 each, which is already less than its initial contribution of $1000.
Gen 5 takes Gen 6's contributions, and so spends $994.98 each, which is even less than Gen 6.

The result is that subsequent generations face ever-decreasing funds for healthcare because the money that was spent by an earlier generation must eventually be paid back by future generations. This is not even considering the likely scenario under socialised healthcare, which is that Gen 2 sees Gen 1 spending $3000 and demands that it get that same amount too, so it takes the money belonging to Gen 3 and incurs debt equal to Gen 4 and Gen 5's contributions. Gen 3 demands the same and incurs debt equal to Gen 6, Gen 7, and Gen 8's contributions, to the point that the nation's debt is equal to several generation's contributions. Somewhere down the road, one generation runs out of borrowing capacity and the music stops.

Or you could, you know, have each generation pay for their own healthcare costs, which keeps the system sustainable for every single generation down the line.

Immigration, increased birth rate, yadda yadda. You're relying on population growing indefinitely so that successive generations can keep paying the costs of a previous generation. Do you seriously not see the similarities to what Bernie Madoff was doing? He used the fees of new members to pay out the previous members and would have been able to keep doing so provided the number of new members kept increasing. Once the number of new members stopped increasing, everyone who was still in the fund ended up losing something, and the worst to be hit were the members from the last batch to join, who lost everything.

Now, "changes to pension age" is where you're finally getting the point. Governments overspent on earlier generations and later generations end up paying for it, be it through higher taxes than the earlier generations, austerity measures, etc.

Or you could, you know, have each generation pay for their own healthcare costs, which keeps the system sustainable for every single generation down the line.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Nice knowing I am a borderline thief for daring to not die! Glad I do not live under the clusterfuck that is the US healthcare systel.


Also Christian charity, something I have been taught when I attended catechism when Mom was still a Christian.

A foreign and alien concept, it seems.

Nobody called you a thief lol.

Look, I am happy that you profited from the system and that you're alive, but the argument I've been making all along is about sustainability for future generations.

Lots of people profited from Ponzi schemes too. The first generation of Bernie Madoff's customers got paid big if they cashed out in time. The ones who ended up suffering big time were those who were still in the system when it inevitably collapsed.

I firmly believe in Christian charity, and I do give an amount that is not insignificant. I and many others would in fact give more if we weren't being taxed to the teeth.

[monir]

I admire Frivolity's patience. To the Aussies: What kind of healthcare system do you have? And is it effective?

The recent signal from the white house is GOP will push for another revival of a health care talk. Trump's tweets from couple of days ago seem to confirm that notion.

[OH&S]

^
Good old publicly funded, universal healthcare aka Medicare aka one of the most successful government policies ever administered in Australian political history.

It doesn't cover everything though; and it is a must to also be covered by private health insurance lest you occur a surcharge on your tax return; that's on top of the fixed percentage (2%) that's already taken from everyone above a specific income threshold. Those with low income and others on a special exemption list don't pay for Medicare as well as those that aren't entitled to it.

As for problems. It's universal healthcare; so it will have all of the general problems associated with it that you've probably heard before.

But well, you know, I like having the option to go to my GP without having to think about paying $100 upfront and only think about paying for the gas needed to get me there. It's sure saved me a lot of money.

You're not going to get a cheaper option when it comes to healthcare systems.

It would be a nightmare living in a country with a healthcare system like the US. So many people who just aren't covered... And Trump's/Republican Party's repeal and replace strategy is just complete bonkers.

EDIT: Surcharges for not having private health insurance are only applicable to those whose "income for surcharge purposes" (a tax technical term) is above a certain threshold. The threshold is quite high at $90,000 for singles; but it makes sense as those with high wealth should not be burdening the public system in the first place.

[MeoTwister5]

Let me give some perspective as someone in the healthcare sector with an underfunded public option and restrictive private option in a 3rd world country.

Whenver a different medical specialty service comes to me for an opinion on a patient the discussions we have tends to vary.

1. Patient is rich or with insurance? Maximize best modality for imaging and treatment.
2. Somewhere in between? Tailor planned management etc.

Indigent patient with nothing to their name?

Just a few minutes before this post one of my codoctors came to me practicallg begging for some imaging modality to determine the extent of a cancerous mass on her patients face. Patinet cannot even afford a basic xray let alone the ct scan which is the bare minimum for her case. There is even a running joke that the only reason we government doctors get paid as much as we are is so that we can spend some on our poor patients (which we do!)

At least you guys have some sort of working health care insurance. I have to spend half my time figuring out why a patient comes in for first consult on a rificulously advanced case so far gone there is almost nothing to be done but palliative care. Hell some cannot even afford that. We get advanced cases to extreme to realistically treat in our ER.

Every. Single. Day.

Sometimes I ask myzelf how I manage to deal with all the death and suffering I see on a daily basis.

I watch too many patients die from treatable causes every day. Patients and relatives resigned to their fates due to poverty. Your ACA in its infancy could have been the true difference between life and death for many people like the same socialized medicine in countries like Sweden and Denmark that my country could only dream of having.

Then your government gutted it like a swine in the slaughterhouse before reanimating its barely dissected corpse into a zombiefied husk of its former self.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by OH&S

^
Good old publicly funded, universal healthcare aka Medicare aka one of the most successful government policies ever administered in Australian political history.

It doesn't cover everything though; and it is a must to also be covered by private health insurance lest you occur a surcharge on your tax return; that's on top of the fixed percentage (2%) that's already taken from everyone above a specific income threshold. Those with low income and others on a special exemption list don't pay for Medicare as well as those that aren't entitled to it.

As for problems. It's universal healthcare; so it will have all of the general problems associated with it that you've probably heard before.

But well, you know, I like having the option to go to my GP without having to think about paying $100 upfront and only think about paying for the gas needed to get me there. It's sure saved me a lot of money.

You're not going to get a cheaper option when it comes to healthcare systems.

It would be a nightmare living in a country with a healthcare system like the US. So many people who just aren't covered... And Trump's/Republican Party's repeal and replace strategy is just complete bonkers.

EDIT: Surcharges for not having private health insurance are only applicable to those whose "income for surcharge purposes" (a tax technical term) is above a certain threshold. The threshold is quite high at $90,000 for singles; but it makes sense as those with high wealth should not be burdening the public system in the first place.

The mining boom has been great for us and allowed us to finance all kinds of public expenditure. It was nice being able to dig stuff out of the ground and sell it for high prices.

We're gonna have to buckle up for the upcoming ride when the RBA eventually has to raise the interest rate soon.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Let me give some perspective as someone in the healthcare sector with an underfunded public option and restrictive private option in a 3rd world country.

Whenver a different medical specialty service comes to me for an opinion on a patient the discussions we have tends to vary.

1. Patient is rich or with insurance? Maximize best modality for imaging and treatment.
2. Somewhere in between? Tailor planned management etc.

Indigent patient with nothing to their name?

Just a few minutes before this post one of my codoctors came to me practicallg begging for some imaging modality to determine the extent of a cancerous mass on her patients face. Patinet cannot even afford a basic xray let alone the ct scan which is the bare minimum for her case. There is even a running joke that the only reason we government doctors get paid as much as we are is so that we can spend some on our poor patients (which we do!)

At least you guys have some sort of working health care insurance. I have to spend half my time figuring out why a patient comes in for first consult on a rificulously advanced case so far gone there is almost nothing to be done but palliative care. Hell some cannot even afford that. We get advanced cases to extreme to realistically treat in our ER.

Every. Single. Day.

Sometimes I ask myzelf how I manage to deal with all the death and suffering I see on a daily basis.

I watch too many patients die from treatable causes every day. Patients and relatives resigned to their fates due to poverty. Your ACA in its infancy could have been the true difference between life and death for many people like the same socialized medicine in countries like Sweden and Denmark that my country could only dream of having.

Then your government gutted it like a swine in the slaughterhouse before reanimating its barely dissected corpse into a zombiefied husk of its former self.

Thank you for your service. Stay strong bro.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Over the years, the concept of the maritime trade fund evolved to become the insurance companies of today, but the initial principles still remain. Obamacare forced insurance firms to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions, even though those applicants did not purchase the policies before the pre-existing conditions manifested themselves. So no, step one of making everyone pay into the system is NOT done. What Obamacare did was equivalent to forcing the maritime fund to accept all of the applicants who did not pay the contribution before the voyage but were seeking to make the contribution only after their goods had been lost.

There's only two ways to go: either the fund collapses, forcing people into "paying heavily for not having health insurance"; or the fund is forced to raise its contribution rates, so you're "paying heavily for having health insurance, and you get to enjoy the bonus of paying heavily when you need health care". The result is that even those people who have been paying health insurance from the time when they were young and healthy also ended up losing their insurance as well.

What's broken is not the insurance system. What's broken is the government policy that ignores the basic principles of insurance.

Paying for health and life insurance does stop me from being able to buy a car and going to holidays in exotic places due to income constraints, duh .

Insurance is meant to be bought before you start developing the symptoms of pre-existing conditions and not before. I chose to buy health and life insurance early because I don't know what the future holds, and delaying my purchase increases the risk of me developing symptoms that could bar me from getting insurance in the future. I have no idea why you think it is good for anyone to delay the purchase of insurance. You're meant to buy insurance precisely when you're young and healthy.

You're ignoring something really important. Before ACA insurance companies dropped people all the time once a "preexisting" condition showed up. The system before ACA was really, really screwed up and only benefited rich people. I know of this firsthand because I've seen it, and we saw countless stories of this out there.

At the end of the day one must ask how beneficial it is to put something like people's healthcare on the marketplace. Like I said before, no one WANTS to pay for healthcare, but you sure as hell are you going to want it if god forbid you need it. There are benefits in theory to paying for a more expensive private insurance system because the US arguably is propping up the rest of the world by paying more for everything which goes into good R&D for drugs that would never get made otherwise without a profit motive in the end. The argument that we should pay more is a hard one though for voters.

Originally Posted by frivolity

The ACA was a step in the wrong direction. Premiums and deductibles both went up, people who have been periodically paying for insurance from the time when they were young and healthy ended up suffering too, and the states that suffered the most from Obamacare rightly voted against the Democrats in the latest election. The reason why the Republicans' recent healthcare proposal is trash is precisely because it didn't rip Obamacare apart from the foundations. They need to do a full repeal.

Yes, the healthy and rich essentially are subsidizing the poor and sick in the system. What a terrible idea. There are problems still in the system (health care is complicated yo), no one denies that, but to me the system doesn't go far enough.

From a purely economic perspective, your libertarian fantasy only works in a world where we let people die in the streets. Yes, if someone shows up at the ER without means to pay for care you HAVE to turn them away. Otherwise our tax dollars end up paying their bills and the system ends up more costly overall than before. Is that something you are prepared to do with your hyper individualist worldview? Economically speaking, it's better to get these people treated for perfectly treatable conditions before they truly become costly in our system and I morally cannot support the idea of letting people die in the streets.

Originally Posted by frivolity

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of economics and the probability foundations of insurance.

Your argument is using people's lives in a free market capitalist system, which to me is morally repugnant on so many levels. There's a reason I started this discussion with you with asking about basic moral principles and not any of the economic stuff. Do you fundamentally believe society has a responsibility to care for its citizens health in this day and age? I believe your answer is no, even if I'm not sure you're fully committed to what that means.

That's a fundamental disagreement as a human being that cannot be bridged and any further discussion beyond that operates on a flawed premise here. It's what many Republicans on capital hill like Paul Ryan believe as well although they are too chicken shit to not lie to their constituents about it.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Price controls and socialism are precisely why Venezuela is in its current unstable position and have no means of getting out. Venezuela is the country with one of the highest oil reserves per capita in the world, and a well-functioning market system would have allocated resources correctly to the parties that value it most. By setting prices on food at artificially low levels, it removes the profit incentive of growing food, so less firms are willing to invest in the agricultural industry, less people are willing to grow food, and you end up with even less food plus a black market where massive markups are imposed since the amount of food available is so small.

Venezuela is facing problems because it has been run as a de facto dictatorship for decades. It has nothing to do with socialism or price controls, and everything to do with the lack of a properly functioning government. It has been under constant human rights watch as a result and the country is on the verge of collapse because Maduro's desire for power threatens what little order is left in the country.

Of course it doesn't have a functioning market. Who the fuck would want to deal with that, even without price controls? The very existence of the country is under question, that doesn't exactly scream "we're open for business". Using Venezuela for your example is a complete strawman and you know it.

Do you see a parallel here between the two scenarios here and what you said above?

You're either paying heavily for not having health insurance, or you're paying heavily for having health insurance, and you get to enjoy the bonus of paying heavily when you need health care.

I stand by my statement. You're being extracted regardless of you having insurance, and having insurance might mean less expensive but it doesn't mean affordable. If you can't afford health care even if you have insurance then what is the point of insurance?

Health care is something that everyone needs in their life at some point, and even if people can't afford to pay into the system, they deserve the best possible care because they should be treated just as human as the rest of us.

Over the years, the concept of the maritime trade fund evolved to become the insurance companies of today, but the initial principles still remain. Obamacare forced insurance firms to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions, even though those applicants did not purchase the policies before the pre-existing conditions manifested themselves. So no, step one of making everyone pay into the system is NOT done. What Obamacare did was equivalent to forcing the maritime fund to accept all of the applicants who did not pay the contribution before the voyage but were seeking to make the contribution only after their goods had been lost.

Covering prexisting conditions is one of the best aspects of the law. Losing some parcels on a boat is not the same as discovering you have cancer...or that it came back. I understand your point about risk and costs, but the reason insurance companies used to exclude preexisting conditions was because it helped them save money. It turns out that when people require an expensive treatment, there's a good chance they might need it more than once. Why insure a risk? There's a reason insurance companies love you when you're young and healthy.

Let's not pretend either the health care or insurance industries are angels. They're profit driven, and if the cost benefit analysis says it's better to screw you for more profit, they'll do exactly that.

There's only two ways to go: either the fund collapses, forcing people into "paying heavily for not having health insurance"; or the fund is forced to raise its contribution rates, so you're "paying heavily for having health insurance, and you get to enjoy the bonus of paying heavily when you need health care". The result is that even those people who have been paying health insurance from the time when they were young and healthy also ended up losing their insurance as well.

What's broken is not the insurance system. What's broken is the government policy that ignores the basic principles of insurance.

I'm no fan of the ACA, but the insurance system is busted and I stand by that. I'm not saying universal health care is some magic cure either, but the current systems of health care and insurance in America are patchworked together from different parts and it's now this massive untenable mass of shit that's on the verge of collapsing. We've danced around this issue for nearly a century and we're still pretending it just needs some "tweaks" and things will be fine.

And don't bother feeding me the "free market would fix it if the government would let it" line. The line between private and public institutions is practically incestuous and almost always has been.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I went to a "Conservative" forum the other day, and noticed that some of them have openly admitted that they consider it a necessary evil to let sick people die, in order to save money/cut taxes.

Not all the people present there made that argument. But I noted that no one actually disagreed or opposed it.

But in the end, that's really unique to America. That there is a belief that everyone is living on a homestead fending for themselves with no law or order, and that it is normal to just die if you get in trouble. That's of course, assuming that the people who die are other people. That if it was anyone they know instead, then suddenly survival matters.

[MeoTwister5]

The mere premise of needing healthcare as an "if" is itself flawed.

If my clinical experience amounts for anything here, needing healthcare is a matter of when, not a matter of if.

Everyone here, everyone reading this even me, will guaranteed need healthcare at some point in their life. It is an eventuality. Some people are probably far too ignorant or in denial to realize this. The sad iront is that those who do probably cannot even afford it.

Thus it should be an inalienable right even if you have to force people to have the foresight to be prepared for it. The mere fact that this right is given almost entirely to the command of the private sector more concerned with the health of their bank accounts is an atrocity.

If that means one less patient who goes into cardiac arrest while we figure out how to treat and diagnose, well, I would be ecstatic.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

The mere premise of needing healthcare as an "if" is itself flawed.

That's because the objection isn't to healthcare. It is objection to offering healthcare to undesirable people, who would then get to live and breed. The objection is to allow those of lower income, who must have earned their punishment of poverty somehow, to not drop dead and leave more resources to the more successful "good" people.

If it is possible to offer immortality, Americans will be the first to object to it being readily available. They don't want the lesser humans to live too long.

The irony is not lost to me that those who think this way, never realised they are themselves in the undesirable camp by their own definition. That it is too easy to see others as being poor because they are lazy, but that one's self is rich and only temporarily made poor by bad luck.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Solace

Health care is something that everyone needs in their life at some point, and even if people can't afford to pay into the system, they deserve the best possible care because they should be treated just as human as the rest of us.

I do not think it is about a morality issue (help thy neighbor) but simply put it is the reason of existence of any government (build/repair infrastructure, provide law enforcement, education and healthcare). Why would citizens of the USA would allow health care to lag in comparison with any other developed country is mind boggling.

[Ithekro]

Some Americas don't feel that it is the government's job to provide health care. They don't see that as being something the government (or at least the Federal Government, they might accept it from the State Governments) should have the power to enact.

A lot of it is the idea that the Federal Government has too much power and the States not enough. Others think these things should be handled by the hospitals and churches, without government interference. Others by the corporate business structure that was the free market.

They don't see health care as a right, but a privilege. Something you earn. Something you can choose not to have if you can't afford it, or simply don't want it. This is also why some of the Baby Boomers are upset that the mentality has shifted and corporations are letting people go within months of retirement age so they don't have to pay them the benefits they had earned the last 30 years or whatever, and that what was standard practice for their parents, sometimes even their older siblings is no longer the case. These are people who has health insurance via their jobs for decades, and had planned on keeping that via retirement, only to have that swept away in the last decade or so. Instead it is handed out for free to people they feel didn't earn it.