Thread: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

Originally Posted by Makedde

Taxpayers are not the government. The taxpayer takes care of you, the government distributes the money.

First off, I have never had the taxpayer taking care of me or my family. Second, I do not WANT to give up my health care so I can get sub-level service just so I can pay for somebody elses health care they didn't take the time, effort, or energy to plan for.

Let me add 2 words to this, they are strange words only whispered in certain circles, usually around the water cooler, or in a bar. You never hear these 2 words spoken about on TV, the press, and you get funny looks if anyone hears you utter such nonsense. What are these 2 words ?

Personal Responsability................ .'nuff said.

Originally Posted by constructionguy

Let me add 2 words to this, they are strange words only whispered in certain circles, usually around the water cooler, or in a bar. You never hear these 2 words spoken about on TV, the press, and you get funny looks if anyone hears you utter such nonsense. What are these 2 words ?

Personal Responsability................ .'nuff said.

The problem is that health care has public good characteristics. Just leaving it to the individual is therefore assuredly irrational

Originally Posted by Reiver

The problem is that health care has public good characteristics. Just leaving it to the individual is therefore assuredly irrational

So does free sex, maybe government can pimp out a few million.

The so called "public good" is what the "public" deems it to be. It's your health, not the governments. If a person wants to be fat and lazy, he can. Eat twinkies all day, cool, gobble 'em up. You may die sooner, but I think you'll have already realized and expected that to happen.

I remember a long time ago when smokers were demonized as the reason healthcare costs were going up. They still are, but anyway, we were told if x amount quit, costs would come down. I think it's pretty safe to say a good 40-50% less people smoke today and not once did I see a reduction in HC costs.

The only thing I see as "irrational", is expecting someone else to be in charge of/take care of, me from cradle to grave. "Irrational", is believing your body, your life, belongs to the "public" that is run by an elite few.

Originally Posted by constructionguy

So does free sex, maybe government can pimp out a few million.

The so called "public good" is what the "public" deems it to be. It's your health, not the governments. If a person wants to be fat and lazy, he can. Eat twinkies all day, cool, gobble 'em up. You may die sooner, but I think you'll have already realized and expected that to happen.

I remember a long time ago when smokers were demonized as the reason healthcare costs were going up. They still are, but anyway, we were told if x amount quit, costs would come down. I think it's pretty safe to say a good 40-50% less people smoke today and not once did I see a reduction in HC costs.

The only thing I see as "irrational", is expecting someone else to be in charge of/take care of, me from cradle to grave. "Irrational", is believing your body, your life, belongs to the "public" that is run by an elite few.

You haven't understood the point. A public good, due to its non-rivalry and non-excludability characteristics, wiill certainly be underprovided by the market. Leaving it to individual decidsion making is therefore, without doubt, inconsistent with economic rationality. Now it would be true to note that there is no such thing as a 'pure' public good. However, those against universal health care are ignoring the social benefits achieved and therefore are attempting to enforce a result that guarantees deadweight loss on us all (I.e. We are not talking about redistribution within a zero sum game context).

Originally Posted by Makedde

Its funny that our government can supply UHC to 22 million people, but the US governement (which is richer than ours) cannot afford to supply UHC to its people.

What? Do you mean our individual governments own different amounts of wealth??? No government is giving anyone anything. There is no such thing as free, as in somehow all medical services for everyone are provided at no cost. With UHC, government merely determines who pays for what, how, and how much, and where the money comes from. Every dime paid to service providers can ultimately be traced back to some extra-governmental source. If the source happens to be a government mandated and controlled pool - so be it - but that pool is still funded by a subset of its citizens in the final analysis. That is, unless some government has a tree that produces real wealth somewhere in its "backyard" that nobody know about.

The real issue is this - if there is one very large medical pool, and government manages that pool efficiently, and dictates the conditions of payment in and out of the pool in a non-counterproductive/non-politically motivated manner (big "ifs", but not impossible), it can POTENTIALLY manage medical costs and quality of service in ways that tend to reduce price gauging, reduce overall costs, and work towards eliminating various discriminatory medical issues. A particular UHC design may work better for some nations than others - depending on such things as government efficiency, specific HC system structural design, productivity of the nation's people, political divisiveness (and esp. wisdom) within the governmental body - plus a zillion other characteristics of the particular nation. To say that what works for one nation must also work for another, is to overlook a huge assortment of factors that will ultimately determine how well that system will actually work for that nation.

.

Originally Posted by Reiver

You haven't understood the point. A public good, due to its non-rivalry and non-excludability characteristics, wiill certainly be underprovided by the market. Leaving it to individual decidsion making is therefore, without doubt, inconsistent with economic rationality. Now it would be true to note that there is no such thing as a 'pure' public good. However, those against universal health care are ignoring the social benefits achieved and therefore are attempting to enforce a result that guarantees deadweight loss on us all (I.e. We are not talking about redistribution within a zero sum game context).

Maybe true in a Utopian society, but humans will never reach such status. You also forget, as well as individuals are "inconsistant" and without "economic rationality", so is the government. All your doing is putting those same faults from one persons hands to 500+ in Washington.

Intersting concept you have though, having a central government manage individual faults.

Originally Posted by constructionguy

Maybe true in a Utopian society, but humans will never reach such status.

Not a cunning reply. The whole approach is based on the premise of market failure. Its this failure that you're ignoring. You're the one being utopian, you just don't realise it.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Not a cunning reply. The whole approach is based on the premise of market failure. Its this failure that you're ignoring. You're the one being utopian, you just don't realise it.

Not really, because I somewhat agree. If you identify the problem, then fix it. In your case, market failure, as you say, which is pretty broad. Nobody is addressing the real problems of why healthcare costs so much. Instead, you are championing a plan to spread out coverage, reduce benefits, and raise the cost. To use your terminolgy, "irrational" at best.

Your sole premiss is that those who have should pay for those who have not. Not a winning proposition when you start to run out of those who have.

Originally Posted by Reiver

You haven't understood the point. A public good, due to its non-rivalry and non-excludability characteristics, wiill certainly be underprovided by the market. Leaving it to individual decidsion making is therefore, without doubt, inconsistent with economic rationality. Now it would be true to note that there is no such thing as a 'pure' public good. However, those against universal health care are ignoring the social benefits achieved and therefore are attempting to enforce a result that guarantees deadweight loss on us all (I.e. We are not talking about redistribution within a zero sum game context).

Let's see, Medicare turns thums down on more medical procedures than all the Medical insurance companies combined and you say it's for our own good??? My Medical insurance pays for all procedures, medication, ect., my doctor prescribes where if we had UHC if they said no, it cost to much or we think your to old, then I would be out of luck. So let me determine what I want and need and you do the same for yourself and family