Policy Discussion-Is healthcare a right?

[and 99 others]

I figure this is an important topic for pre-meds to have informed opinions about and I could see it coming up in an interview. I realize this is a potentially controversial topic so let's make sure to keep it civil. I know this is a topic for discussion in the sociopolitical forum but frankly, I would much rather have a tame, level-headed discussion here with peers and professionals.

I (and I'm sure the majority of those reading this) believe health is a human right. But honestly if asked why, I have a hard time formulating a response beyond, "the good of the individual translates to the good of the society" and even that could be questioned with "so what".

Also there is a lot of gray area in this issue that I would love to discuss, i.e. sure, healthcare is a right, but should the government be involved, what arenas (public sanitation, water, and housing to actual clinical care) should the gov be in charge of, to what extent is it the individuals responsibility vs. the government's, how much should providing welfare for the elderly and poor be prioritized,

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[electropartyogram]

Interestingly, about half of physicians do not support single-payer healthcare. I wonder why? (sarcasm).

The summary of my opinions on the matter:
1. Healthcare is a right. Everyone should be entitled to some basic level of care. (Goverment-subsidized/Taxpayer-funded based on income)
1a. If you can pay, you deserve the best care (and proportionate wait times) you can afford. If you are on a government-subdizied plan, you will have to wait to be taken care of by government-run facilities (or closest if an emergency).
2. The government should be minimally involved. (Setting restrictions, covering portion of low-income patient costs, regulating insurance and pharmaceutical companies to some degree)
3. Elderly already have Medicare. Low-income has Medicaid. These systems are already being paid into; they need to be optimized.

Essentially a blended system. VA-like insurance and health care (not a copy because it is a mess) for low-income with some cases going to private/academic centers because they will be subdizied (hospitals need to take X% subsidized patients per year to receive incentive funding). Private insurance and health care are more or less unchanged.

Thoughts:

1. Hospitals should be subsidized for taking low-income/free patients for average market value; physicians taking these patients should be incentivized.
2. Tax breaks (or some form of discount) for yearly health check ups, blood work, proof of good health. Things like weight loss, improvements to blood work by medication adherence etc. should be rewarded (discount in insurance).
3. While it is unfair to charge sick/pre-existing conditions people more for insurance, they should have to pay full price as they utilize the majority of health care costs. Many of these patients are low-income so it does not matter since the government is subsidizing these costs.
4. Stratified costs for health care. Insurance through employment, free market, or government. Low-income = reduced cost. Median-income = "normal cost". High to Very high income = "normal cost + marginal tax i.e. 1%.

 

[ChymeofPassion]

I think there are circumstances where healthcare is a right, and circumstances where its a privilege. Perhaps healthcare is a right when the person would otherwise have fatal or extremely negative consequences if they did not receive that healthcare. Perhaps its a privilege in cases of QoL, cosmetics, etc applications of healthcare. But one could make the argument, is preventative care a right, because then it will reduce the risk of fatal/extremely negative consequences. But one could also point out, how much of this is on the onus of the individual? If one is making poor health decisions, smoking, obesity, etc, do they continue to have a right for critical care, over those who didn't abuse this right? Lots of really interesting arguments.

 

[kingdomheart]

*Bernie Sanders has entered the chat*

 

[init2020]

Health is an individual right, up until you infringe on others individual rights.

 

[and 99 others]

I think there are circumstances where healthcare is a right, and circumstances where its a privilege. Perhaps healthcare is a right when the person would otherwise have fatal or extremely negative consequences if they did not receive that healthcare. Perhaps its a privilege in cases of QoL, cosmetics, etc applications of healthcare. But one could make the argument, is preventative care a right, because then it will reduce the risk of fatal/extremely negative consequences. But one could also point out, how much of this is on the onus of the individual? If one is making poor health decisions, smoking, obesity, etc, do they continue to have a right for critical care, over those who didn't abuse this right? Lots of really interesting arguments.

Yes I agree, very multifaceted which is why I think it's great to talk about this on such a forum!
Regarding your point about people making poor health decisions, should they bear blame and suffer the consequences? I think that is the wrong question to ask and should not even be considered. Rather, the focus should be on HOW can we make it so that they do not continue these bad habits, going along with what electropartyogram listed about positive reinforcement to prevent these bad practices i.e. tax breaks for healthy living etc. Of course we also need to consider WHY they are obese/smoke/drink, etc. and address those (often) societal issues. That, in my opinion, is the hardest issue to tackle and likewise the most important.

Health is an individual right, up until you infringe on others individual rights.

Right, but this is a VERY blurred line. What constitutes infringement on others' rights is extremely subjective. "I shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay for this lady's dialysis just because she chose to drink herself silly" is an easy claim to make, but one could just as easily counter that ensuring the welfare of all citizens would ultimately lead to more social prosperity and thus individual benefit.

Of course, I'm not saying this is the claim you're making but it's just meant to be illustrative that the issue isn't so black and white.

 

[On_The_Way_Up]

Yes I agree, very multifaceted which is why I think it's great to talk about this on such a forum!
Regarding your point about people making poor health decisions, should they bear blame and suffer the consequences? I think that is the wrong question to ask and should not even be considered. Rather, the focus should be on HOW can we make it so that they do not continue these bad habits, going along with what electropartyogram listed about positive reinforcement to prevent these bad practices i.e. tax breaks for healthy living etc. Of course we also need to consider WHY they are obese/smoke/drink, etc. and address those (often) societal issues. That, in my opinion, is the hardest issue to tackle and likewise the most important.


Right, but this is a VERY blurred line. What constitutes infringement on others' rights is extremely subjective. "I shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay for this lady's dialysis just because she chose to drink herself silly" is an easy claim to make, but one could just as easily counter that ensuring the welfare of all citizens would ultimately lead to more social prosperity and thus individual benefit.

Of course, I'm not saying this is the claim you're making but it's just meant to be illustrative that the issue isn't so black and white.

Pretty sure their point wasn’t withholding care from people who already have these conditions and to never try and help them. But if people continue to make bad choices even with access to healthcare and preventive services what happens then? You can only extend a helping hand so much.

 

[lull]

Tax breaks for healthy living and regular check ups is nice in theory, but having the government dictate what is considered “healthy living” is problematic.

 

[electropartyogram]

Tax breaks for healthy living and regular check ups is nice in theory, but having the government dictate what is considered “healthy living” is problematic.

These things have already been decided. We already have recommendations for BP, LDL, HDL, cholesterol, BMI etc. The government will just adopt them to determine who would receive these healthy living incentives.

 

[beattheprocess]

 

[ChymeofPassion]

Yes I agree, very multifaceted which is why I think it's great to talk about this on such a forum!
Regarding your point about people making poor health decisions, should they bear blame and suffer the consequences? I think that is the wrong question to ask and should not even be considered. Rather, the focus should be on HOW can we make it so that they do not continue these bad habits, going along with what electropartyogram listed about positive reinforcement to prevent these bad practices i.e. tax breaks for healthy living etc. Of course we also need to consider WHY they are obese/smoke/drink, etc. and address those (often) societal issues. That, in my opinion, is the hardest issue to tackle and likewise the most important.

Not saying they should be blamed or suffer consequences, but you asked in terms of what is a right vs privilege. A huge portion of our healthcare debt is due to largely preventable issues resulting from personal neglect of health, where do we draw the line? What right does the government have to force people who have made fantastic health decisions to pick up the bill for those who have not? Is it possible to quantify the environmental and social influence to affect assistance benefits (no, it's not). @On_The_Way_Up summed up the gist of my point nicely. I'm thinking more in terms of actual policy, rather than theoretical sociology. You can only post so many academic papers on the social determinants of health before it stops becoming useful if nothing is put into effect.

 

[lull]

These things have already been decided. We already have recommendations for BP, LDL, HDL, cholesterol, BMI etc. The government will just adopt them to determine who would receive these healthy living incentives.

Okay so if we're basing tax breaks on BP, LDL, HDL, BMI (lol)... what about those genetically predisposed to HTN, HLD, obesity etc? Are they ineligible for tax breaks?

 

[and 99 others]

Pretty sure their point wasn’t withholding care from people who already have these conditions and to never try and help them. But if people continue to make bad choices even with access to healthcare and preventive services what happens then? You can only extend a helping hand so much.

Not saying they should be blamed or suffer consequences, but you asked in terms of what is a right vs privilege. A huge portion of our healthcare debt is due to largely preventable issues resulting from personal neglect of health, where do we draw the line? What right does the government have to force people who have made fantastic health decisions to pick up the bill for those who have not? Is it possible to quantify the environmental and social influence to affect assistance benefits (no, it's not). @On_The_Way_Up summed up the gist of my point nicely. I'm thinking more in terms of actual policy, rather than theoretical sociology. You can only post so many academic papers on the social determinants of health before it stops becoming useful if nothing is put into effect.

I was referring to the statement of "how much of this is on the onus of the individual" in regards to the wrong question being asked. But yeah I see your point of how is it even actionable. That's what I am struggling with thinking of a good solution for as well!

 

[and 99 others]

Also I think we veered pretty quickly off the topic of WHY is healthcare a right, lol. Not that the current discussion isn't productive, but would love to get views on that point.

 

[electropartyogram]

Okay so if we're basing tax breaks on BP, LDL, HDL, BMI (lol)... what about those genetically predisposed to HTN, HLD, obesity etc? Are they ineligible for tax breaks?

Obesity can be controlled by anyone regardless of a genetic predisposition. Caloric intake is not controlled by genetics, it is controlled by willpower.

 

[electropartyogram]

Also I think we veered pretty quickly off the topic of WHY is healthcare a right, lol. Not that the current discussion isn't productive, but would love to get views on that point.

What are some of your specific thoughts on the matter? I was fortunately not asked many questions about this during my interview but I was able to (voluntarily) discuss some of my thoughts listed about, and I was complimented by my interviewer. Don't be afraid to pick a side or even to stand in the middle ground. Just be able to speak about your thoughts clearly and defend your position, and how you can advocate for that change in the future as a physician.

 

[lull]

Obesity can be controlled by anyone regardless of a genetic predisposition. Caloric intake is not controlled by genetics, it is controlled by willpower.

You could make the same argument for drug addiction or alcoholism. Ideally, all it takes is will power to stop popping pills, yet we have an opioid crisis. The point is, dictating how healthy someone is based on lab results is faulty, and it is particularly faulty with people who are predisposed to certain diseases. Also, you do know the labs aren't perfect readings right? Someone who always comes into clinic anxious could just regularly have an elevated BP, or someone who gets their lipids checked and they're not fasting could have faulty labs.

There are already incentives set in place to encourage healthy living that take into account people who come from lower-income status. Many insurance companies (both public and private) will pay for gym memberships as long as people are going regularly. For those of lower-income, there are subsidized food programs like WIC that set requirements that encourage healthy eating.

 

[lull]

I (and I'm sure the majority of those reading this) believe health is a human right. But honestly if asked why, I have a hard time formulating a response beyond, "the good of the individual translates to the good of the society" and even that could be questioned with "so what".

When you consider health care a right in the u.s., it implies that the government is obligated to force health care providers to provide health care services and determine the amount and cost of these service.

 

[and 99 others]

When you consider health care a right in the u.s., it implies that the government is obligated to force health care providers to provide health care services and determine the amount and cost of these service.

That is, to an extent, what I'm saying. I believe that the whole point of a government is to provide welfare for its citizens. Health is obviously a key player there.

Also I don't understand why that is particular to the US. The way you phrase it makes it seem as though in other countries where Healthcare may be considered a right, the government has nothing to do with it.

 

[lull]

That is, to an extent, what I'm saying. I believe that the whole point of a government is to provide welfare for its citizens. Health is obviously a key player there.

Also I don't understand why that is particular to the US. The way you phrase it makes it seem as though in other countries where Healthcare may be considered a right, the government has nothing to do with it.

Health care as a right can be implemented differently in other countries. Some countries implement a single-payer system like Canada and some countries have a universal health care system that is not single-payer, as seen in some European countries (e.g., Netherland, Switzerland).

Edit: Of course, we’ve attempted a mandated form of health care that won’t restrict an individual to a single payer system so that everyone has equal access to healthcare, but with the number of democratic candidates supporting a single payer system this election, “health care as a right” tends to be equated to a single payer “medicare for all” system in the u.s., which is different for other countries.

 

[Gyuji]

Not going philosophical with the question but universal healthcare is much needed in the U.S. Everyone knows, even the ones who against it, it's the solution for our healthcare and economics woes.

But corporations has a stranglehold on politicians, media and the economy. Until then, the Millennials will come in and start voting for what they want since they suffered the consequences of the right-wing economic ideology that we had for the last 40 years.

 

[GH253]

I figure this is an important topic for pre-meds to have informed opinions about and I could see it coming up in an interview. I realize this is a potentially controversial topic so let's make sure to keep it civil. I know this is a topic for discussion in the sociopolitical forum but frankly, I would much rather have a tame, level-headed discussion here with peers and professionals.

I (and I'm sure the majority of those reading this) believe health is a human right. But honestly if asked why, I have a hard time formulating a response beyond, "the good of the individual translates to the good of the society" and even that could be questioned with "so what".

Also there is a lot of gray area in this issue that I would love to discuss, i.e. sure, healthcare is a right, but should the government be involved, what arenas (public sanitation, water, and housing to actual clinical care) should the gov be in charge of, to what extent is it the individuals responsibility vs. the government's, how much should providing welfare for the elderly and poor be prioritized,

"Health is a human right?"

If you're stranded on an island alone and break your leg, is nature violating your human rights?

If you're stranded on an island with a dozen other people, but none of them have any medical skills, are your rights violated?

Rights apply to social interactions only. An organism's health status is a product of the laws of chemistry and physics acting on its body. Rights are not applicable to health. They apply to how people interact with each other in the context of trading for health-related products and services.

The question is: do you have a right to force someone else to pay for your healthcare? Which means, do you have a right to send the police to peoples' houses to kill them if they refuse to pay the taxes necessary to finance your government-provided healthcare?

If your answer to that question is yes, prove it objectively. Point to any objective fact that proves you have a right to kill people who refuse to pay for your healthcare. If you can't point to any such fact, admit that there's no factual basis for considering healthcare a right.

 

[deleted480308]

Also I think we veered pretty quickly off the topic of WHY is healthcare a right, lol. Not that the current discussion isn't productive, but would love to get views on that point.

It’s not a right. Not at all. The services of others cannot be made a natural right

 

[deleted480308]

Not going philosophical with the question but universal healthcare is much needed in the U.S. Everyone knows, even the ones who against it, it's the solution for our healthcare and economics woes.

But corporations has a stranglehold on politicians, media and the economy. Until then, the Millennials will come in and start voting for what they want since they suffered the consequences of the right-wing economic ideology that we had for the last 40 years.

No, we don’t “know” universal care is needed

 

[deleted927028]

“do you have a right to send the police to peoples' houses to kill them if they refuse to pay the taxes necessary to finance your government-provided healthcare?”

This is exactly the problem with more than half of the population. They either makes things up or exaggerate everything to the levels of paranoia. When did anyone propose to send the police and kill the people?

“Is healthcare a human right?”, here we are taking the word “right” literally. The question should be “Is affordable healthcare at the lowest possible cost and an assurance that no one will get bankrupted in the event of an unfortunate illness, a right for all citizens?”. My answer is, you bet.

It should not be the right of rich individuals and corporations to ride the wallets of helpless, vulnerable sick population and take away everything they can and suck their blood. Who can and should ensure that? Only the government. Countries all around the world understand that.

But we have let those blood suckers to brainwash the population that it is socialism, communism, etc. This drama will continue forever. WE NEED NOT GIVE THEM FREE HEALTHCARE, AT LEAST STOP SUCKING THEIR BLOOD LIKE VULTURES WHEN THEY FALL SICK and fool them to believe that IT IS CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

“do you have a right to send the police to peoples' houses to kill them if they refuse to pay the taxes necessary to finance your government-provided healthcare?”

This is exactly the problem with more than half of the population. They either makes things up or exaggerate everything to the levels of paranoia. When did anyone propose to send the police and kill the people?

“Is healthcare a human right?”, here we are taking the word “right” literally. The question should be “Is affordable healthcare at the lowest possible cost and an assurance that no one will get bankrupted in the event of an unfortunate illness, a right for all citizens?”. My answer is, you bet.

It should not be the right of rich individuals and corporations to ride the wallets of helpless, vulnerable sick population and take away everything they can and suck their blood. Who can and should ensure that? Only the government. Countries all around the world understand that.

But we have let those blood suckers to brainwash the population that it is socialism, communism, etc. This drama will continue forever. WE NEED NOT GIVE THEM FREE HEALTHCARE, AT LEAST STOP SUCKING THEIR BLOOD LIKE VULTURES WHEN THEY FALL SICK and fool them to believe that IT IS CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM.

Oh well if its free...

 

[deleted480308]

“do you have a right to send the police to peoples' houses to kill them if they refuse to pay the taxes necessary to finance your government-provided healthcare?”

This is exactly the problem with more than half of the population. They either makes things up or exaggerate everything to the levels of paranoia. When did anyone propose to send the police and kill the people?

“Is healthcare a human right?”, here we are taking the word “right” literally. The question should be “Is affordable healthcare at the lowest possible cost and an assurance that no one will get bankrupted in the event of an unfortunate illness, a right for all citizens?”. My answer is, you bet.

It should not be the right of rich individuals and corporations to ride the wallets of helpless, vulnerable sick population and take away everything they can and suck their blood. Who can and should ensure that? Only the government. Countries all around the world understand that.

But we have let those blood suckers to brainwash the population that it is socialism, communism, etc. This drama will continue forever. WE NEED NOT GIVE THEM FREE HEALTHCARE, AT LEAST STOP SUCKING THEIR BLOOD LIKE VULTURES WHEN THEY FALL SICK and fool them to believe that IT IS CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM.

You need to stop pretending laws aren’t enforced at gun point. The reason they have guns is because if you refuse to comply long enough, the govt is willing to shoot you

 

[Gyuji]

No, we don’t “know” universal care is needed

Tell that to the voters. You know being against it is the losing side.

 

[deleted480308]

Tell that to the voters. You know being against it is the losing side.

Which isn’t at all what was said. You said even those of us who don’t like it “know” it’s the best. That is a lie

 

[GH253]

“do you have a right to send the police to peoples' houses to kill them if they refuse to pay the taxes necessary to finance your government-provided healthcare?”

This is exactly the problem with more than half of the population. They either makes things up or exaggerate everything to the levels of paranoia. When did anyone propose to send the police and kill the people?

“Is healthcare a human right?”, here we are taking the word “right” literally. The question should be “Is affordable healthcare at the lowest possible cost and an assurance that no one will get bankrupted in the event of an unfortunate illness, a right for all citizens?”. My answer is, you bet.

It should not be the right of rich individuals and corporations to ride the wallets of helpless, vulnerable sick population and take away everything they can and suck their blood. Who can and should ensure that? Only the government. Countries all around the world understand that.

But we have let those blood suckers to brainwash the population that it is socialism, communism, etc. This drama will continue forever. WE NEED NOT GIVE THEM FREE HEALTHCARE, AT LEAST STOP SUCKING THEIR BLOOD LIKE VULTURES WHEN THEY FALL SICK and fool them to believe that IT IS CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM.

If you don't pay your taxes, armed men from the government will come to your house and apprehend you forcibly. Resist that force and you will be killed.

Tell that to the voters. You know being against it is the losing side.

There are worse things than being on the losing side, like being stupid.

 

[and 99 others]

It should not be the right of rich individuals and corporations to ride the wallets of helpless, vulnerable sick population and take away everything they can and suck their blood. Who can and should ensure that? Only the government. Countries all around the world understand that

How do rich individuals and corporations ride the wallets of the poor?

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Tell that to the voters. You know being against it is the losing side.

You say that but the moment voters are told that they can have universal healthcare if taxes increase then their support goes way down...

People will always want free stuff. When they are told that the stuff, in fact, isn't all that free then they tend to want it much much less..

“do you have a right to send the police to peoples' houses to kill them if they refuse to pay the taxes necessary to finance your government-provided healthcare?”

This is exactly the problem with more than half of the population. They either makes things up or exaggerate everything to the levels of paranoia. When did anyone propose to send the police and kill the people?

“Is healthcare a human right?”, here we are taking the word “right” literally. The question should be “Is affordable healthcare at the lowest possible cost and an assurance that no one will get bankrupted in the event of an unfortunate illness, a right for all citizens?”. My answer is, you bet.

It should not be the right of rich individuals and corporations to ride the wallets of helpless, vulnerable sick population and take away everything they can and suck their blood. Who can and should ensure that? Only the government. Countries all around the world understand that.

But we have let those blood suckers to brainwash the population that it is socialism, communism, etc. This drama will continue forever. WE NEED NOT GIVE THEM FREE HEALTHCARE, AT LEAST STOP SUCKING THEIR BLOOD LIKE VULTURES WHEN THEY FALL SICK and fool them to believe that IT IS CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM.

Oh look it's you again with your delusional fantasies...

 

[deleted927028]

How do rich individuals and corporations ride the wallets of the poor?

Very simple. Take the insurance premium a typical family pays per year, add deductibles, add copays etc, compare it with what a typical family pays for healthcare in countries like UK, Canada etc. Mind you, they don’t have copays and deductibles. Compare how much our citizens pay for drugs compared to UK and Canada. On top of it, find out how many go bankrupt because of unexpected illness here in US, compare it with UK and Canada. No one go bankrupt there. Compare how much hospitals charge here for procedures and others . Have you heard about $30 charge for one Tylenol pill? Have you heard about bill of $70000 compared to $4000 in other countries? You have think independently to understand all of it.

 

[deleted480308]

Very simple. Take the insurance premium a typical family pays per year, add deductibles, add copays etc, compare it with what a typical family pays for healthcare in countries like UK, Canada etc. Mind you, they don’t have copays and deductibles. Compare how much our citizens pay for drugs compared to UK and Canada. On top of it, find out how many go bankrupt because of unexpected illness here in US, compare it with UK and Canada. No one go bankrupt there. Compare how much hospitals charge here for procedures and others . Have you heard about $30 charge for one Tylenol pill? Have you heard about bill of $70000 compared to $4000 in other countries? You have think independently to understand all of it.

but you aren't accounting for the taxes paid to cover health care

 

[deleted927028]

You say that but the moment voters are told that they can have universal healthcare if taxes increase then their support goes way down...

People will always want free stuff. When they are told that the stuff, in fact, isn't all that free then they tend to want it much much less..



Oh look it's you again with your delusional fantasies...

yes, I kind of agree with you here. But the blame lie with Sanders, warren, Harris etc. They should not be saying that the taxes will go up. Because the majority of the population are brainwashed, gullible, innocent and actually ignorant. They will pay even $25k in premiums but won’t accept even $2K raise in taxes. They have been brainwashed to believe that TAX IS BAD.

So, Sanders, Warren etc should just simply say “ we are not going to raise your tax. You and your employer will continue to pay the premiums (to govt) but only 40-50% of what you are paying now . There will not be any copays or deductibles for anything including the drugs. “. They should use raw numbers every single time. Then everyone will beg for single payer. But of course the mouthpieces of the health insurance companies like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC will try their best to confuse and scare the population by lying about things like wait time, socialism, communism etc.

But if you tell them, “Tax will go up but when you factor in healthcare premiums, you will save money”, it is too complex for them and they get terrified.

 

[deleted480308]

yes, I kind of agree with you here. But the blame lie with Sanders, warren, Harris etc. They should not be saying that the taxes will go up. Because the majority of the population are brainwashed, gullible, innocent and actually ignorant. They will pay even $25k in premiums but won’t accept even $2K raise in taxes. They have been brainwashed to believe that TAX IS BAD.

So, Sanders, Warren etc should just simply say “ we are not going to raise your tax. You and your employer will continue to pay the premiums (to govt) but only 40-50% of what you are paying now . There will not be any copays or deductibles for anything including the drugs. “. They should use raw numbers every single time. Then everyone will beg for single payer. But of course the mouthpieces of the health insurance companies like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC will try their best to confuse and scare the population by lying about things like wait time, socialism, communism etc.

But if you tell them, “Tax will go up but when you factor in healthcare premiums, you will save money”, it is too complex for them and they get terrified.

except you keep leaving out the fact half the country won't actually pay $2k in taxes, they are on a free ride in terms of income tax

 

[deleted927028]

but you aren't accounting for the taxes paid to cover health care

In UK, Canada they pay taxes but not premiums. Here we pay premiums but no taxes. No one pays both. Where is the confusion coming from?

 

[deleted927028]

except you keep leaving out the fact half the country won't actually pay $2k in taxes, they are on a free ride in terms of income tax

Those people don’t pay any premiums even now but get free healthcare. It is called Medicaid

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Those people don’t pay any premiums even now but get free healthcare. It is called Medicaid

Medicaid has co-pays and fairly restrictive formularies and rules for imaging that most Americans wouldn't tolerate.

 

[deleted480308]

In UK, Canada they pay taxes but not premiums. Here we pay premiums but no taxes. No one pays both. Where is the confusion coming from?

you keep refusing to acknowledge how high the taxes are elsewhere and the fact that a solid half of househoulds in the US pay no federal income tax

And that's before addressing the fact that it's wrong to make citizen A pay the way for citizen B

Those people don’t pay any premiums even now but get free healthcare. It is called Medicaid

or just roll to the ED and don't pay (thus creating the $30 tylenol he/she hates

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

yes, I kind of agree with you here. But the blame lie with Sanders, warren, Harris etc. They should not be saying that the taxes will go up. Because the majority of the population are brainwashed, gullible, innocent and actually ignorant. They will pay even $25k in premiums but won’t accept even $2K raise in taxes. They have been brainwashed to believe that TAX IS BAD.

So, Sanders, Warren etc should just simply say “ we are not going to raise your tax. You and your employer will continue to pay the premiums (to govt) but only 40-50% of what you are paying now . There will not be any copays or deductibles for anything including the drugs. “. They should use raw numbers every single time. Then everyone will beg for single payer. But of course the mouthpieces of the health insurance companies like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC will try their best to confuse and scare the population by lying about things like wait time, socialism, communism etc.

But if you tell them, “Tax will go up but when you factor in healthcare premiums, you will save money”, it is too complex for them and they get terrified.

At this point it’s just intentional ignorance and stupidity.

 

[GH253]

yes, I kind of agree with you here. But the blame lie with Sanders, warren, Harris etc. They should not be saying that the taxes will go up. Because the majority of the population are brainwashed, gullible, innocent and actually ignorant. They will pay even $25k in premiums but won’t accept even $2K raise in taxes. They have been brainwashed to believe that TAX IS BAD.

So, Sanders, Warren etc should just simply say “ we are not going to raise your tax. You and your employer will continue to pay the premiums (to govt) but only 40-50% of what you are paying now . There will not be any copays or deductibles for anything including the drugs. “. They should use raw numbers every single time. Then everyone will beg for single payer. But of course the mouthpieces of the health insurance companies like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC will try their best to confuse and scare the population by lying about things like wait time, socialism, communism etc.

But if you tell them, “Tax will go up but when you factor in healthcare premiums, you will save money”, it is too complex for them and they get terrified.

If you put single-payer healthcare on a referendum, I think most Americans would go for it today. If someone like Bernie Sanders came to respectability and said "you don't have to worry about insurance premiums anymore, the goverment will take care you from now on!" more than half the country would bite. Most people are completely indifferent to the immorality of taking money from some people to give to others, and ignorant of the practical consequences of doing so. They have never heard of free market reform, and have no awareness of how 80 years of government interference in healthcare brought about the status quo. Most people cannot fathom a world without institutions like the FDA, professional licensing, EMTALA, and reliance on third parties (either government or insurance) to pay for medical care. Most people see nothing wrong with the goverment dictating every aspect of what constitutes standard medical care. Yes, people are brainwashed... not with anti-socialism, but with your lethally ignorant ideas.

 

[Gyuji]

yes, I kind of agree with you here. But the blame lie with Sanders, warren, Harris etc. They should not be saying that the taxes will go up. Because the majority of the population are brainwashed, gullible, innocent and actually ignorant. They will pay even $25k in premiums but won’t accept even $2K raise in taxes. They have been brainwashed to believe that TAX IS BAD.

So, Sanders, Warren etc should just simply say “ we are not going to raise you

But if you tell them, “Tax will go up but when you factor in healthcare premiums, you will save money”, it is too complex for them and they get terrified.

It's only a measly 3-4% tax increase per paycheck for those making under $40k/year. A lot of middle-class Americans would love to ditch the "private tax" of health insurance for a single-payer system. Mind you, that's only Bernie Sanders' bill which is much a centerist approach on the healthcare reform that only expands more healthcare for senior citizens(dental, vision, drugs, etc). There's another bill that is more "far-left" than Bernie's.

 

[deleted480308]

It's only a measly 3-4% tax increase per paycheck for those making under $40k/year. A lot of middle-class Americans would love to ditch the "private tax" of health insurance for a single-payer system. Mind you, that's only Bernie Sanders' bill which is much a centerist approach on the healthcare reform that only expands more healthcare for senior citizens(dental, vision, drugs, etc). There's another bill that is more "far-left" than Bernie's.

There is nothing centrist about medicare for all

 

[deleted927028]

“Yes, people are brainwashed... not with anti-socialism, but with your lethally ignorant ideas”

My ideas are lethal and ignorant? May be to you, but the rest of the world would agree with me and it is just a common sense for them.

 

[GH253]

“Yes, people are brainwashed... not with anti-socialism, but with your lethally ignorant ideas”

My ideas are lethal and ignorant? May be to you, but the rest of the world would agree with me and it is just a common sense for them.

It's horrifying how representatives of a supposedly scientific field can flaunt logical fallacies so shamelessly.

 

[managedcarefin]

Very simple. Take the insurance premium a typical family pays per year, add deductibles, add copays etc, compare it with what a typical family pays for healthcare in countries like UK, Canada etc. Mind you, they don’t have copays and deductibles. Compare how much our citizens pay for drugs compared to UK and Canada. On top of it, find out how many go bankrupt because of unexpected illness here in US, compare it with UK and Canada. No one go bankrupt there. Compare how much hospitals charge here for procedures and others . Have you heard about $30 charge for one Tylenol pill? Have you heard about bill of $70000 compared to $4000 in other countries? You have think independently to understand all of it.

Few things here. Hospitals are fleecing their patients 95 times out of 100. The issue is who should be the one to stop them from doing it. Should it be doctors who decide what level of care an individual gets? Should it be an administrator saying " Hey patient xyz, is past the point of no return according to xyz data you can't provide this level of care?" Should it be the insurance company deciding we wont cover any services above "x" amount? Should it be the patient patient taking better care of themselves?

I ask all of these questions to say, comparing the American system of care to any of system of care around the world is dumb and pointless. It's pointless because it doesn't account for why all these other countries are so much cheaper. In 2014, there were 920,000+ active hospital beds in the USA (Source: AHA) in Canada there are 57,000 hospital beds as of 2011 (source: CIHI). How exactly do you keep a system a system that size alive with prices of other countries? Some will say "But the largest hospitals/hospital systems take all the money" yes of course they do they provide the most acute care and have the clout to demand payers pay more. What you've left out is how these other countries spend their money.. How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker there is a graph that shows public and private spending as a % of GDP and you'll find that the public spending of the US is really not that much different than other countries. What is different is how we spend the money, the USA perdominately spends money on delivering care, every other country spends money on social determinate of health, fancy way of saying... keeping people healthy.

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2019-Social-Expenditure-Update.pdf : Figure 2 on this graph explains my point here.

I say all of this to say, look at the bigger picture, don't just look at what it costs to get services int he US but look at why the costs are the way they are and what would happen to the system if we went around cutting reimbursement. Either people who live in rural areas would get even less care than they get now or poor people wouldn't get care at all...

 

[doctalaughs]

There are three reasons why US healthcare is 2x more expensive than other industrialized nations:

1) we have way more govt regulation and silly rules
2) the American people cannot stand the idea of rationing anything healthcare related - more is better and we need it NOW
3) the US malpractice system has trained a whole generation of doctors to practice CYA medicine.

Meanwhile the answer (on the left) seems to be increased government regulation, “free” healthcare as a basic right for all and no change in malpractice.... hmmm. Even the dems admit this would skyrocket our prices. Are we aiming for 3x the next country in healthcare GDP?

What about fixing our cost problem BEFORE pouring trillions more into a broken system?

1) direct payment to doctors with catastrophic insurance only
2) ration care and admit you are doing so... bring on those death panels and approve only drugs that are proven to extend/improve life by X% for Y dollars.
3) get rid of malpractice/lottery law altogether and setup a system of compensation for injured patients not adversarial to doctors... medical boards can deal patterns of gross negligence.

 

[managedcarefin]

There are three reasons why US healthcare is 2x more expensive than other industrialized nations:

1) we have way more govt regulation and silly rules
2) the American people cannot stand the idea of rationing anything healthcare related - more is better and we need it NOW
3) the US malpractice system has trained a whole generation of doctors to practice CYA medicine.

Meanwhile the answer (on the left) seems to be increased government regulation, “free” healthcare as a basic right for all and no change in malpractice.... hmmm. Even the dems admit this would skyrocket our prices. Are we aiming for 3x the next country in healthcare GDP?

What about fixing our cost problem BEFORE pouring trillions more into a broken system?

1) direct payment to doctors with catastrophic insurance only
2) ration care and admit you are doing so... bring on those death panels and approve only drugs that are proven to extend/improve life by X% for Y dollars.
3) get rid of malpractice/lottery law altogether and setup a system of compensation for injured patients not adversarial to doctors... medical boards can deal patterns of gross negligence.

Sure let’s do this. Then what happens to all the people who work in healthcare? Who is going to pay for this? Americans barely have $500 in their bank account

 

[wamcp]

If you believe healthcare is a right, doesn’t that mean you believe illegals who come in the country deserve the same care as any US citizen?

If care is only restricted to taxpaying citizens. Sounds like a privilege