What you are saying is that the health care system would be bad for a number of reasons. However, - feel free to show evidence, or even merely suggest the possibility, that it isn't the case, because as I said I don't know shit about this - it would save more lives than the current one does, allowing a great number of poor and/or lazy people in your country to survive. From your posts, I gather that this advantage is outweighted mainly by the competition created, which makes better health care for those who can pay for it, the riddance of unresponsible people abusing the system, and the general unefficiency of the new one.
I'm almost certain that it would save more lives in the short term to implement UHC in the United States.
It also isn't the government's job to do so. The government is not Mommy and should not be expected to act as such.
Now, from a selfless standpoint, the only way you could think the current one to be better would be by considering "Some rich people live, unresponsible and unlucky people die, the economy goes well" superior to "A lot of people live". I could almost understand if you did, but I think you should have said so before starting to argue : obviously, debating pros and cons with someone who doesn't agree on the objective is pointless.
I assumed my intention was clear; your post seems to have grokked it, so I figure it was enough of a clue.
If you only want your own benefit and not your country's, and if you admit that, were you lazy and unscrupulous enough to exploit the system, you wouldn't oppose it, then okay. But you should also mention it outright : it makes for an entirely different debate, because you wouldn't have any reason to use any argument besides "this benefits me, so I like it". And nobody would disagree.
So, your opinion could possibly make sense to me either because there are things you value more than the life and happiness of human beings, or because you are arguing from a totally selfish point of view, in which case nothing of what you said actually pointed to what you think.
... but I may have missed the point about a thing or two. Anyway, the text above is what comes to my mind every time someone talks about anything resembling this. I hope you will have an unexpected answer.
Yeah, I think you did miss something. Me? I'll be fine whether or not UHC passes in this country. I won't stop planning for the worst because of it. I won't assume it'll take care of me, because I don't expect the government to
ever do so. The nominal safety net won't factor in for me, because I don't expect it to
work.
I most certainly do what what's best for my country. UHC isn't it. UHC will almost certainly save lives and improve quality-of-life now. That is, as with many aspects of modern civilization,
missing the goddamn point. UHC tends to do two things really well: balloon the governmental budget and put price ceilings on what the medical industry can profit from. Neither are good; the former because you're gonna have to find
some way to pay for it (which never ends well) and the latter because you're mortgaging the future to make now more comfortable.
Medical R&D is funded in very large part by the increased amount Americans pay, because we're the only ones willing to pay for it. And I am
entirely okay with paying for it, because that's how progress happens. Progress doesn't happen when the buying market is controlled by a single purchaser that will use that leverage to lower prices to silly levels (and in some countries it happens--I forget which pharmaceutical I read this about, I think it was Glaxo-Smith-Kline, that makes a marginal profit in their European division).
Innovation costs money. But you know what the thing is? That innovation is how you make health care cheaper
for everyone. Innovation doesn't just create new things, it makes existing ones easier and cheaper and better. That is how things become practical for Joe Public: by being funded by the people who have money.
The United States' expenditures on medical stuff is high. Way high. And this market isn't a segmented one. I said it before and I'll say it again: if
we begin putting in price ceilings, if
we started to say "we'll pay what the rest of the G8 pays," what do you think is going to happen to that oh-so-"affordable" health care everywhere else? Where's the innovation money going to come from when we won't pay it?
(The price-fixing done by the insurance industry in this country is a separate issue from forcing the pharmaceuticals/medical manufacturers over a barrel by force of law, and can be addressed much more easily than giving the government control lock, stock, and barrel.)
"The economy will work better" argument has always seemed a bit erroneous to me. There are plenty of ways of incentivising people to work without murdering them if they don't.
There are plenty of ways to indulge your transitory, short-sighted feel-good gimme-gimme wants without putting your children and mine into debtor's prison.
See? Two can play at that game! Isn't it fun?
How's that play for you? Good? No? Don't like it? Then don't try to trot out that tired fail-train. Thanks in advance.
Yeah I really cannot stand how Blacken writes. It isn't that he is offensive (which is bad in it of itself), it is that he is antagonistic as well meaning his writting is an attempt to draw hostility out of the reader he is responding to.
You should probably try getting used to it. He isn't actually looking for fight (I don't think he is yet), but this is his basic discussion style. I can vouch for the fact that he's generally like this in any debate, and he's not really going to change in any way. Things will go a lot more smoothly if you treat every single one of his posts as if he was speaking in the most calm, rational voice possible, and you will get along with him fine enough.
Of course I'm not looking for a fight. There isn't a fight to be had. But I never pass up the opportunity to point out when the emperor has no clothes and I expect people to actually do their research and know what they're talking about; if they don't--well, pointing out the obvious ain't usually tactful.
Neonivek can not-stand how I write all he wants, because he who lives in glass houses looks really silly when he starts throwing stones. It's nearly impossible to understand what he writes (dude needs a
Warriner's like Bush Sr. needed a puke-bib) and he is bound and determined never to actually research what he's talking about before he tries to talk about it. (The latter being really, really funny. There's nothing to take seriously there, but he gets upset when he isn't taken seriously. It's almost like there's something obvious there that can fix the issue...!)
Edit: Oh God, I sound like one of the crazy Blacken apologists now. I feel dirty. 
It's okay, man. It's okay. It's just the natural progression of things. Everybody gets there someday.
Do you need a hug?
Author
Topic: Why did President Barack Obama receive the Nobel Peace Prize? (Read 7173 times)