Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

"It's a business, not a right" is a pretty strange way to look at the survival and fundamental well-being of your citizenry.

[GlyphGryph]

Though I'm a bigger fan of the well-being bit myself - I think this country has a rather unhealthy infatuation with survival.

[kaijyuu]

It's not free, but top-tier if you can afford it.

The secret is that you can't afford it.

Hell even six digit incomes can be significantly dented by some medical and insurance bills.

"It's a business, not a right" is a pretty strange way to look at the survival and fundamental well-being of your citizenry.

Living healthily a right? Pish posh!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Though I'm a bigger fan of the well-being bit myself - I think this country has a rather unhealthy infatuation with survival.

An unhealthy infatuation with survival? What?

[kaijyuu]

I believe he meant self sufficiency.

[MaximumZero]

Apple pie was invented before the US was settled by colonists.

Also, no, I don't think that the government being conservative is a good thing. I also don't believe that it would be very stable if it were as comically left-leaning as my own ideology.

[Mrhappyface]

Glorious 1% master race reporting in.
But yeah. There are lucrative and innovative markets that sell weaponry (death) so why not for healthcare (life). After all, doesn't marketplace competition encourage R&D, without government expense?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No. Funding R&D labs encourages R&D. They do not care where they are getting the money. Their job is to research things and then develop the things they research. The military R&D labs produce the most powerful weapons in the world by far, and they are government funded. Government funded medical R&D labs will do the same.

Furthermore, hospitals are not R&D. They are providing the actual healthcare. Very few breakthroughs are being made there, none intentional.

[kaijyuu]

There are lucrative and innovative markets that sell weaponry (death)

Some would argue that's a bad thing. I know I'd give up toys like the internet if it meant no more wars. It's not a fair trade.

so why not for healthcare (life).

People's lives aren't to be bought and sold.

After all, doesn't marketplace competition encourage R&D, without government expense?

"Without government expense" isn't a positive thing. It's neutral. Someone has to pay for it; that funding doesn't just magically appear from nowhere. We can have everyone foot the bill equally, or give the bill solely to those that desperately need it (plus lining the pockets of those who profit from it).

[MaximumZero]

Furthermore, holding out healthcare (as well as dental, vision, etc) simply widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country. There are people who are too poor to get themselves healthy so that they can work properly, and don't qualify for what little government assistance is doled out.

[alway]

No, survival is over-emphasized in our healthcare system as it relates to terminal and end-of-life care. Huge sums are spent to prolong life, even if the resulting treatments end up giving them a much lower standard of living. Things along the lines of '4 months in bed unable to move with tubes sticking out everywhere' vs '2 weeks at home with friends & family.' It's extremely expensive and wasteful, as it results in much longer hospitalization/treatment while often simultaneously reducing the patient's standard of living.

Related to that, resources which are available for healthcare are finite. There are many cases in which it is better to let someone go without tests/treatment because those resources would do more good if used on other patients. It sounds terrible, of course, but that's only the emotional 'only the best!' reasoning which results in massively overspending on healthcare. Universal healthcare's goal is to allocate the available resources in the way which maximizes the good they do; for-profit healthcare's goal is to allocate resources to those who can pay the most.

[Mrhappyface]

And that's America's sad burden for a free market halthcare system: There are those that fall through the cracks. But we are so big, absolute coverage would be extremely difficult to implement.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There are many cases in which it is better to let someone go without tests/treatment because those resources would do more good if used on other patients. It sounds terrible, of course, but that's only the emotional 'only the best!' reasoning which results in massively overspending on healthcare. Universal healthcare's goal is to allocate the available resources in the way which maximizes the good they do; for-profit healthcare's goal is to allocate resources to those who can pay the most.

You know, we could just treat everyone, costs be damned. We're already damning the costs, so we might as well.

[Mrhappyface]

But Europe needs our med stuff!

[kaijyuu]

But we are so big, absolute coverage would be extremely difficult to implement.

It's difficult to implement because we're so headstrong about keeping it privatized.


Universal healthcare would bring the average cost down significantly. It's not an issue of cost. It's an issue of not wanting it because paying for it via taxes is somehow horrible while paying for it via bills is a-ok, despite the price difference.

But Europe needs our med stuff!

The US is not the only place with R&D. Hell, we're pretty far behind in some fields (most notably stem cells).