Universal healthcare - Yay or nay?

[Ariel]

Universal healthcare is used to subsidize alcoholics and drug addicts and fatties by taking money away from healthy people and giving it to them to pay for their self imposed healthcare costs and thus gives them more money to buy drugs and alcohol

You can suffer from heart problems even if you are healthy and slim.

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

It is not a good thing because it stops people from being able to work to be healthier than other people.

So really this is more of a, "fuck you and stop being so fat because I don't want to pay for you". Instead of a, "you contracted cancer because of a genetic reason and chemotherapy costs are going to be $100,000 a year. How do you intend to pay?" kind of thing?

You do understand that not everybody that needs medical help is there because of something they themselves caused either deliberately or accidentally. And don't give me that reason that "the vast majority of them are" because the vast majority of ER calls have nothing to do with that unless you have some numbers to prove your point?

If they want other people to be healthy then they should do it by their own will as opposed to being forced to with the threat of violence

You're not rich. You'll probably never be rich. So why worry about what some fat cat who makes billions a year thinks of this? This is still a democracy, at least in theory, and the majority of people want healthcare whether you like it or not. So suck it up and deal with it.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

So really this is more of a, "fuck you and stop being so fat because I don't want to pay for you". Instead of a, "you contracted cancer because of a genetic reason and chemotherapy costs are going to be $100,000 a year. How do you intend to pay?" kind of thing?

You do understand that not everybody that needs medical help is there because of something they themselves caused either deliberately or accidentally. And don't give me that reason that "the vast majority of them are" because the vast majority of ER calls have nothing to do with that unless you have some numbers to prove your point?


You're not rich. You'll probably never be rich. So why worry about what some fat cat who makes billions a year thinks of this? This is still a democracy, at least in theory, and the majority of people want healthcare whether you like it or not. So suck it up and deal with it.

I am not saying that everyone who needs healthcare needs it for a reason that is their fault. What I am saying is that the solution to random risks is insurance (not modern insurance but user owned not for profit insurance) not government intervention, I advocate a new type of insurance that does entirely what a welfare system does except for that it is voluntary because it is not a public good and as a result is not the role of government.

 

[Kazami Yuuka]

A stricter regulation on hospitals would actually solve a good bit of problems (quasi-universal).

Spoiler: The Logic

Remember before Reagan when airlines literally couldn't charge below a certain amount for tickets? That was good, because it forced airlines to compete on quality of service (which was excellent out of necessity), rather than price. Reagan's deregulation of airlines is what fucked us and lead to airlines like Spirit. So I'm going to extend that to hospitals

So this leads me to:

1. Abolition of health insurance
2. Mandatory minimum billing for all hospital visits as well as procedures (similar to how GTA charges you $5000 every time you go)
   1. Those who can't afford it will need to submit billing waivers for each stay and procedure
   2. Those wealthy enough have to pony up the cash
3. Cap on billing for all hospital visits and procedures
   1. While seemingly contradictory, caps on billing will help eliminate hospitals attempting to overcharge for the purposes of extracting money out of insurance (which would be replaced by the gov)
4. Surcharges on preventable disease (e.g. obesity-linked arteriosclerosis) as well as increased charges for unhealthy lifestyles (in order to compensate for frequent future hospital visits, it's purpose is similar to interest)

I'm stopping here, because it's decent and stupid at the same time. Anyone want to pitch in on this?

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

I am not saying that everyone who needs healthcare needs it for a reason that is their fault. What I am saying is that the solution to random risks is insurance (not modern insurance but user owned not for profit insurance) not government intervention, I advocate a new type of insurance that does entirely what a welfare system does except for that it is voluntary because it is not a public good and as a result is not the role of government.

Gotcha. You're effectively saying that you don't want to pay for another person's healthcare.

And I'm sure you also have a problem paying for another person's roads, fire department, public schools, police department, the armed forces, tax cuts for the rich and just about every single thing your taxes go towards paying that you don't benefit directly from. Here's a newsflash for you, you live in a country where these things are needed whether you like it or not. Well, tax cuts for the rich don't help anybody but the rich but that's something for another time. You don't get to pick and choose what your tax dollars pay for.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Gotcha. You're effectively saying that you don't want to pay for another person's healthcare.

And I'm sure you also have a problem paying for another person's roads, fire department, public schools, police department, the armed forces, tax cuts for the rich and just about every single thing your taxes go towards paying that you don't benefit directly from. Here's a newsflash for you, you live in a country where these things are needed whether you like it or not. Well, tax cuts for the rich don't help anybody but the rich but that's something for another time. You don't get to pick and choose what your tax dollars pay for.

What I am saying is that only public goods are to be provided by the government. All of those things with the exception of public schools are public goods so a government needs to exist in order to pay for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
by contrast public schools and public healthcare are both rival and excludable (although vaccinations and some types of ER visits are non excludable and thus are public goods that should be provided by government)

A stricter regulation on hospitals would actually solve a good bit of problems (quasi-universal).

Spoiler: The Logic

Remember before Reagan when airlines literally couldn't charge below a certain amount for tickets? That was good, because it forced airlines to compete on quality of service (which was excellent out of necessity), rather than price. Reagan's deregulation of airlines is what fucked us and lead to airlines like Spirit. So I'm going to extend that to hospitals

So this leads me to:

1. Abolition of health insurance
2. Mandatory minimum billing for all hospital visits as well as procedures (similar to how GTA charges you $5000 every time you go)
   1. Those who can't afford it will need to submit billing waivers for each stay and procedure
   2. Those wealthy enough have to pony up the cash
3. Cap on billing for all hospital visits and procedures
   1. While seemingly contradictory, caps on billing will help eliminate hospitals attempting to overcharge for the purposes of extracting money out of insurance (which would be replaced by the gov)
4. Surcharges on preventable disease (e.g. obesity-linked arteriosclerosis) as well as increased charges for unhealthy lifestyles (in order to compensate for frequent future hospital visits, it's purpose is similar to interest)

I'm stopping here, because it's decent and stupid at the same time. Anyone want to pitch in on this?

I think that such a system is not going to be one that is productive because a complete abolition of health insurance wouldn't work because it would make many unable to pay.

I propose a system in which government just provides non rival health goods (treating infectious diseases and mental illnesses likely to cause people to harm others) but rival goods would be provided privately but there would be price regulations as well as a removal of barriers to entry in order to drive down prices (quality control will occur through a different mechanism not related to licenses). There would be insurance but it would be cooperatives that provide it not for profit corporations (as in insurance would be literally a bunch of people coming together and agreeing to pay each others medical bills collectively with the conditions that they get the cheapest viable healthcare and that they try to live healthily)

 

[Vitriol]

A stricter regulation on hospitals would actually solve a good bit of problems (quasi-universal).

Spoiler: The Logic

Remember before Reagan when airlines literally couldn't charge below a certain amount for tickets? That was good, because it forced airlines to compete on quality of service (which was excellent out of necessity), rather than price. Reagan's deregulation of airlines is what fucked us and lead to airlines like Spirit. So I'm going to extend that to hospitals

So this leads me to:

1. Abolition of health insurance
2. Mandatory minimum billing for all hospital visits as well as procedures (similar to how GTA charges you $5000 every time you go)
   1. Those who can't afford it will need to submit billing waivers for each stay and procedure
   2. Those wealthy enough have to pony up the cash
3. Cap on billing for all hospital visits and procedures
   1. While seemingly contradictory, caps on billing will help eliminate hospitals attempting to overcharge for the purposes of extracting money out of insurance (which would be replaced by the gov)
4. Surcharges on preventable disease (e.g. obesity-linked arteriosclerosis) as well as increased charges for unhealthy lifestyles (in order to compensate for frequent future hospital visits, it's purpose is similar to interest)

I'm stopping here, because it's decent and stupid at the same time. Anyone want to pitch in on this?

This system is used in parts of africa. In practice it struggles to raise enough money to be financially viable without paying nurses next to nothing and drs a teachers salary.

All of those things with the exception of public schools are public goods so a government needs to exist in order to pay for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

When the nhs was brought in it was because of the 'public good' as the system you are argueing for, which was in place in the uk before had left the working classes too ridden with malnutrition and disease to make as effective soldiers as were needed. The problem was first identified after difficulties replacing losses in the boer war but it wasnt until the near disaster of ww2 that anything was done about it.

Now that isnt to say the nhs is without its drawbacks- its a massively expensive monolith which suffers from government meddling. If one is a staunch individualist then it is an ideological horror. That said as i mentioned elsewhere other countries have universal healthcare while not nationalising the industry via making health insurance mandatory and the state covering the poorest.

 

[Joan Nyan]

You're not rich. You'll probably never be rich. So why worry about what some fat cat who makes billions a year thinks of this?

It's ridiculous to imply that you can't care about a group of people you aren't a part of.

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

It's ridiculous to imply that you can't care about a group of people you aren't a part of.

And it's ridiculous to say that the rich are put up and burdened with personally paying for the health care of poor people. But @autisticdragonkin said something along those lines.

Democracy is violence where the rich are forced to submit to collective will via violence or the threat of violence

This was in reference to an earlier line:

If they want other people to be healthy then they should do it by their own will as opposed to being forced to with the threat of violence

That was all I was responding to. Personally I say fuck the rich. They don't pay their fair share of taxes and in effect control the government through political grants. But that's another thing for another time.

 

[AnOminous]

Now that isnt to say the nhs is without its drawbacks- its a massively expensive monolith which suffers from government meddling. If one is a staunch individualist then it is an ideological horror. That said as i mentioned elsewhere other countries have universal healthcare while not nationalising the industry via making health insurance mandatory and the state covering the poorest.

These "staunch individualists" should get the fuck out of the country and provide their own security and national defense, then. Clearly they have better ideas about it than any currently existing government and we can look forward to their new nation becoming a shining beacon of liberty in no time at all.

Snap snap, get to it, individualists.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

They don't pay their fair share of taxes.

They actually pay far more than their fair share of taxes which would be a regressive tax because the only things present in the social contract are public goods which only need a small amount paid and constitute a small minority of federal spending (municipal spending is a different thing)

In theory a head tax would be the best option where each person pays a few thousand dollars to the government for being a citizen and that's it but in practice probably a regressive tax would be better (taxation would be performed by the following formula T=clnI with T being the amount of tax you pay, c being a constant that is adjusted by the government to account for revenue needs, and I being income)

Everyone should pay a relatively equal amount for government services and the rich pay way more but I am OK with them paying slightly more for the practical purposes of allowing the government to run

If they explicitly entered into a contract binding their bloodline to progressive taxation in exchange for the creation of an exclusive nation state which would be best for all citizens and not allow immigrants in (at least without them paying a massive headtax in order to compensate for having not been subject to progressive taxation for the past few centuries, maybe a million dollars being generous to the immigrants) then I would think more positively of progressive taxation but they would have needed to have explicitly agreed upon the rates that they bound their bloodlines to

 

[AnOminous]

If they explicitly entered into a contract binding their bloodline to progressive taxation in exchange for the creation of an exclusive nation state which would be best for all citizens and not allow immigrants in (at least without them paying a massive headtax in order to compensate for having not been subject to progressive taxation for the past few centuries, maybe a million dollars being generous to the immigrants) then I would think more positively of progressive taxation but they would have needed to have explicitly agreed upon the rates that they bound their bloodlines to

I have only one head and one desk.

 

[Ruin]

The problem is most countries with successful universal healthcare programs have 70+% tax rates and very low unemployment. The United States has a lot of political pressure to keep taxes as low as possible as well as a massive welfare/underclass. Any universal healthcare program would quickly collapse into bankruptcy unless we reformed our entire society.

If they explicitly entered into a contract binding their bloodline to progressive taxation in exchange for the creation of an exclusive nation state which would be best for all citizens and not allow immigrants in (at least without them paying a massive headtax in order to compensate for having not been subject to progressive taxation for the past few centuries, maybe a million dollars being generous to the immigrants) then I would think more positively of progressive taxation but they would have needed to have explicitly agreed upon the rates that they bound their bloodlines to

This may very well be the dumbest thing I've read all month and I read Breitbart.

 

[DZ 305]

I have only one head and one desk.

@autisticdragonkin has been reading Rousseau and thinks butchering the idea of social contract makes him sound smart. It doesn't.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

@autisticdragonkin has been reading Rousseau and thinks butchering the idea of social contract makes him sound smart. It doesn't.

I am not trying to sound smart. I am trying to be right.

What is the problem with this version of contract theory?

 

[Ruin]

What is the problem with this version of contract theory?

Because it's the antithesis of not only human nature but also the social constructs of every major civilization since ancient Greece?

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Because it's the antithesis of not only human nature but also the social constructs of every major civilization since ancient Greece?

What I am promoting is pretty much just standard aristocratic republicanism and thus is very similar to the Roman Republic, the Polish commonwealth, and pre Jacksonian America and to a lesser extent monarchism in general (although I don't advocate a monarch) I only differ in that I acknowledge that this is not socially optimal

 

[DZ 305]

What I am promoting is pretty much just standard aristocratic republicanism and thus is very similar to the Roman Republic, the Polish commonwealth, and pre Jacksonian America and to a lesser extent monarchism in general (although I don't advocate a monarch) I only differ in that I acknowledge that this is not socially optimal

Late 18th century France is proof that aristocracy is a terrible idea. In fact, all your examples ended terribly for most parties

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Late 18th century France is proof that aristocracy is a terrible idea. In fact, all your examples ended terribly for most parties

I did not give the bourbons as an example because they were more inegalitarian than I am advocating. I completely acknowledge that what I advocate is going to make most people worse off but I think with the advent of modern information technology revolution will be impossible and an organic collapse will also be impossible as long as there is no attempt to colonize other planets in the immediate future.

I think that modern technology makes life near zero sum now. My point is that the way I am thinking is far from new and we cannot justify an idea of social progress

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

They actually pay far more than their fair share of taxes which would be a regressive tax because the only things present in the social contract are public goods which only need a small amount paid and constitute a small minority of federal spending (municipal spending is a different thing)

You keep going on about a "social contract" but this is not applicable here no matter how much you want it to be. It's a philosophical theory which a lot of Libertarians seem to want but it's not something that is currently in effect. If it is, I'd love you to point out to me where it's written into our constitution. Until then, it's a pipe dream and has no validity so stop bringing it up.

Secondly, the rich do not pay their fair share. They pay a lot of money but it's not proportionally higher than most of the middle class in part due to things like loopholes and the like. I'm sure you've heard of Warren Buffet? One of the wealthiest Americans and possibly one of the most philanthropic. He revealed that he only paid 17.4% in income tax. His staff on the other hand were paying somewhere around 23%. Now 23% of let's say $75,000 is going to be lower than 17.4% of one million or whatever he gets paid in a year but we're talking percentages here. That 23% is a lot more onerous than the 17.4% even if the total amount being paid on the 17.4% is going to be higher. And the billionaire is going to have more money left over at the end of the year than the employee even though he's paying a higher amount.

But with this, you're either trolling hard or really don't get it.

If they explicitly entered into a contract binding their bloodline to progressive taxation in exchange for the creation of an exclusive nation state which would be best for all citizens and not allow immigrants in (at least without them paying a massive headtax in order to compensate for having not been subject to progressive taxation for the past few centuries, maybe a million dollars being generous to the immigrants) then I would think more positively of progressive taxation but they would have needed to have explicitly agreed upon the rates that they bound their bloodlines to

Are you serious or just trolling?