Should the United States of America adopt a universal healthcare system?

I knew you were a foreign plant all along. @Joeseph Your ignorance of our system gave you away. What is an hmo again? You said you have no clue. You agree with the op, (?) then detail how we would convert. Where is the affordable health care act in all this? What would you tell the working poor? Who already been taxed to death by people with pie in the sky dreams like obama care. And they know your system in your country doesn't supply the same access equally between the privileged and the poor. Go ahead. Pose to us all what universal health care is and it's benefits. Tell us all about your universal health care and expose it to scrutiny. Then you might be able to persuade or hear alternatives. That's what you called an "exchange". You offer, we counter. Reciprocation promotes good debate. Care to try? 

Universal healthcare is complex here in America. Other countries may be able to offer it due to strong support from the public and from officials inside government campaigning for it. What universal healthcare systems mostly function off from is a single budget government controlled facilities with government employees. However each government decides to run its healthcare system it would be mainly funded through taxation. Offering free healthcare for free to its population. However, the downfall of this is that all liability will fall on government hands. If a relative dies from malpractice this means the government is sued and will have to answer for it. It brings tremendous effort for a government to offer free healthcare and to keep it functioning. So my hats off to that. Ofcourse many other factors are in play but im not going to get into that. Universal healthcare takes tremendous effort to run for any government.

In America where there is no universal free healthcare. A similar system exists. You have private hospitals setting up shop like Kaiser Permanente (excellent well organized patient system) which offer services for a premium. All liability falls on these private hospitals which are covered by their own insurance that handle liability claims. The United States Government plays a much smaller but effective role in this with every state implenting their own laws and regulations. In California and specific counties if you suffer great bodily injury and need care now but cannot afford it. US government steps in and their service is called "medical". Medical steps in and foots your medical bills meanwhile insurance companies close any open claims and provide liability payment. This payment is made first to medical to cover their coverage to you and then the rest is paid out to you in the form of compensation. The problem is this process takes time and it is not a favorite among many people including me.


So to wrap this up. If America were to offer free healthcare and run the system off a single government funded service to all its citizens. It would potentially loose more money while adding more stress to its own government system. In addition the US economy would see a fraction of the labor force drops by a small margin that include the middle to higher income brackets. US would assume all liability in court meaning even more pressure and stress in this sector of government that can turn into a nightmare pretty fast. I think the system in place now is sufficient and with a few more reforms it wouldnt be great but everyone would be able to receive proper care and not place stress on government or be liable for it.

@Joeseph All I can say is that you are so mentally challenged it’s not funny coming out with such contrary crap . Your totally off the planet and should take your Ritalin when they give it to you because your only kidding your self.

Barnardot said:

@Joeseph All I can say is that you are so mentally challenged it’s not funny coming out with such contrary crap . Your totally off the planet and should take your Ritalin when they give it to you because your only kidding your self.

Joeseph said:

@Barnardot

Fabulous argument by you which makes so many excellent points on healthcare.

@Joeseph ;

@Barnardot made 100% more excellent points on healthcare than you. Bet you don't know what Ritalin is either, along with hmos. I was going to tell you to put your parents laptop down and go back to your tiddlywinks he is closer to what the cause of your disorder is.

@Barnardot

@Joeseph said this on January 8: I haven't a clue what HMO's are. 

He went back and edited it on the 9th to say this "I know what HMO'S are" 

I captured his response and I did no editing. The guy's a clown. Busted Joeseph!

@Factfinder

Ah got ya I'm the one with the disorder yet you're the one who claims affordable healthcare is only for the well off.

The only clown here is you ,says it all when you kiss a-s the sites resident troll B.

I know all about HMO's you don't which is why you're swerving and deflecting.

Tell me you d- mmy why you think the poor are not entitled to affordable healthcare.....Watch factfalisifier flee for the 12th time after refusing to answer this question.

Joeseph said:

@Factfinder

You should apologise to your mother for raising a raging imbecile.

Why do you say the poor shouldn't get affordable healthcare?

Busted Factfalsifier.

I sure falsified your false facts. What's a hmo again? Please, no malicious editing, prove your claim "you say the poor shouldn't get affordable healthcare". Remember, you can only edit your posts to support your lies. And I'll have mine to debunk your nonsense. And I don't have to edit mine cause I know what I'm talking about. 

Factfinder said:

Just curious @just-saying Why the fallacy vote here I proved Joeseph tried to change what he said by editing. And do you now support universal healthcare? If so why?

I hit the wrong button.  I don't support universal healthcare and think it will reduce innovation and new medicines, and reduce the overall quality of care.  

Joeseph said:

Why do you say the poor shouldn't get affordable healthcare?

This seems self-evident: someone who cannot afford healthcare, cannot get affordable healthcare, by the very definition of the word. If someone is so poor that they cannot afford healthcare, the result follows.

I have never quite understood this mentality: that people should get things just like that, without earning them first. This does not work like this in almost any other area of life - for example, you do not get fit by not putting enough effort into exercising and eating healthy - but when it comes to certain types of economical processes, for some reason people suddenly must have their desires funded. Why, exactly?

Welfare systems originated in Germany in the late 19-th century, when Bismark faced a strong pressure from the newly emerged socialist groups and appeased them by introducing the first in history government-provided "safety net" as we know it today. It was a fundamentally totalitarian formation, and if you read the thinkers of that time who carried the German political philosophy there (Marx and Engels among them), you will see very clearly that the intention was to subdue the population and to make them dependent on the government for fulfilling their basic needs. Prior to that worldwide welfare services were provided by charity organizations, philantropists and volunteers. Even in the most authoritarian nations people were expected to either work for fulfilling their needs, or count on individual generosity.

Government-funded welfare has nothing to do with compassion. Compassion cannot involve being held at a gunpoint. This is basic instrument of control. The more areas of human life the government controls, the fewer incentive individuals have to keep it accountable, and the less freedom they have in their lives. In the most extreme examples, such as in Soviet Union, where even the job market was fully nationalized and the government guaranteed everyone a job (in fact, one was obliged by law to have a job - being unemployed was a punishable offence), people were practically slaves. Oh yes, they had free healthcare and education... They wish they did not though, given the quality - but they were never given a choice.

This idea that government providing services is somehow a reflection of societal benevolence needs to go. It is as irrational - and harmful - as it gets.

@Factfinder


Argument Topic : you're now on mute so knock yourself out and rant away to your hearts content.

I sure falsified your false facts.

A statement of fact cannot be false.

 What's a hmo again?

If tou want a debate on HMO''s post it up , it's nothing to do with the debate.

Please, no malicious editing,

So you feel harm from my posts? Wow! You really need to lighten up.


prove your claim "you say the poor shouldn't get affordable healthcare

No thats your claim  not mine,  , so yes tell us why they shouldn't be entitled to affordable healthcare care.?


". Remember, you can only edit your posts to support your lies

Yet I haven't posted one lie , that's something else you cannot prove.


. And I'll have mine to debunk your nonsense

This is what you're still running from......so yes tell us why they shouldn't be entitled to affordable healthcare care?.


. And I don't have to edit mine cause I know what I'm talking about. 

If that's the case then answer.......so yes tell us why they shouldn't be entitled to affordable healthcare care?

17 times now you refuse to answer.

@Openminded

Universal health care is much like the Medicare system.

Take my problem for instants.

I have one medication I have to inject once a week or I start getting so sick that I feel like death would be a welcomed alternative than to continue living feeling that way.

The problem is that the injections cost $3500 a month which my husband's group insurance covers with a simple $35 co-pay.   

I also have Medicare which is secondary to my husband's group insurance.  It is suppose to cover anything that my primary insurance does not pay.  The only problem is that, although my doctor has been trying for years, Medicare will not approve the medication that has no alternatives.

So, now if my something were to happen with my husband's employment, I am basically screwed.

That is what I imagine Universal Health Care would be like and is in some countries.

They pick and choose which treatments that they consider affordable and leave out the rest.

A fremarket health care system is why our country has people from countries with Universal Health Care coming here for treatments and paying cash rather than getting it for free through their own Country.

@MayCaesar

Well, whether the poor should die in misery is a completely separate question from whether the government providing services is a reflection of societal benevolence.

Well one follows the other because is the government don't its pretty obvious that poor people will die in misery.

The gap seems to be that we are talking about different things.

Can you not see the relationship? 

Joeseph said:

@all4actt ;

I have one medication I have to inject once a week or I start getting so sick that I feel like death would be a welcomed alternative than to continue living feeling that way.

The problem is that the injections cost $3500 a month which my husband's group insurance covers with a simple $35 co-pay.   

I'm the very same as in my injections cost around 4, 000 euro a month the cost to me.

Why would I go to your country to pay for something I get for free?

That was an informative post. I would guess most people in the US have medical and prescription insurance through their companies too.  I'm curious, why would companies in a country with socialized medicine bother offering health insurance if it is covered by the country already?

@MayCaesar

It is obvious that if the government does not take money from people at the gunpoint and maintain a central-planned healthcare system, then the poor people will die in misery? You and me seem to understand "obvious" differently.

Well public healthcare is covered by tax take where I live, if you call taxation extortion at gunpoint i cannot say anything to sway you .We certainly do understand the term " obvious" differently.

And I fail to see, again, how the question of whether the government providing services is a reflection of societal benevolence is related to this.

Well then we also have a different understanding of the term benevolence also it seems.

@Joeseph
I didn't know that , is it a legal requirement for companies in the US to provide such? How much would a company deduct in salary to cover this?

I don't think it is required, but it is very common for companies to pay health insurance (really you are paying the fee and they just deduct it from your salary).  As I understand it, companies have largely done this since WW2 in order to get better quality employees.  How much depends on which plans the company covers and if it is covering just you or your family.  According to Complete Payroll Solutions    - in 2022 were $7,911 for single coverage and $22,463 for family coverage.

Good question, paid for insurance gives one choice as in time slots for appointments that are picked by the patient , private rooms in hospital basically it gives you a lot more choice.

So private insurance is better to have than government insurance?

How many people die in your country waiting on actual services? What is the process that the poor have to go through just to get on a list to see doctors and have procedures done if they are able to wait? @Joeseph Btw, your husband is in what we commonly refer to as a hmo. Group insurance. Like the link I gave you early on explained. Why didn't you just ask your husband instead going through all that deceitful editing and putting words in my mouth nonsense? And per the topic, you remember what that is, right? As per the topic, why should we go through the agony of a large scale overhaul when we have something in place that's similar to your healthcare; according to your latest, brief revelations? 

@just_sayin


That's odd that her healthcare is covered by herself and not the company - I would say that is not the norm in the US, at least for white collar types of jobs and large companies.

That's the norm here healthcare is up to the individual. Any company I ever worked for before being self employed never had a healthcare plan paid for by the employer.



Sorry to hear about your condition.  Glad you were able to get the medicines you needed.

Thank you I appreciate your kind thoughts.

Now I would support a government plan that covered catastrophic health care issues that would prevent people from being financially devastated  from bills they can't pay.

I agree totally, I really feel for individuals and families  financially ruined from such costs.

  For general healthcare, I think people are better paying for it themselves.  

Yes for the choices and options available its a good plan. 

@MayCaesar

Do you disagree that taxation is extortion at a gunpoint?

Yes.


What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes and negotiate with the government trying to get you to pay them? What is the end outcome of this course of action?

When I paid taxes my taxes were deducred by my employer so me not paying never came into it. Part of your employment contract required agreement.



This is precisely what I said in my first comment in this thread: people get a very distorted view of the nature of government-provided services because of the wall of abstraction erected by the government

Well the charge of distortion can be equally laid with your view point.. what wall of abstraction exactly? 

. When you go to a store and buy something, you get a receipt; and if you try to steal something, a guard will apprehend you. When you get robbed by a thug, you get a gun/knife shoved in your face and part with your wallet right there. When you go to a public hospital, you do not get a receipt, and if you do not pay your taxes, you will not get apprehended a minute after the deadline - the cost of your actions is hidden and delayed. But it is there.

That is a very strange way of seeing things , taxes pay for roads , military , public services etc, etc if you don't pay there are consequences , you know this and you go along with it right? 



In Australia people have recognized the problem, so the government there is now obliged to send reports to all voters explaining how much tax was collected over the last period and what is the split of the spending across multiple categories. It is still very vague - it is, at best, like your credit card account that might show you what fraction of your spending went into education, entertainment, travel, et cetera - but, at least, people explicitly see how much in direct costs they inflict. That is a start.

A start for what exactly? Overthrow governments and start your own version of such?


s for benevolence... In my perception, anything that involves coercion is not benevolent. "I am so benevolent, I will break into your house, take everything out of it and donate everything to a charity organization" - that is a twisted outlook.

So why do you choose to live in a society that engages in such?  It's not in the least bit twisted to support benevolence, if that was the case we would as nations refuse to aid and assist those from war ravaged / famine stricken lands , now that to me is truly twisted.

Incidentally @just_sayin ; was the first on here to inform me .....

I don't think it is required, but it is very common for companies to pay health insurance (really you are paying the fee and they just deduct it from your salary)........

No American told me before that that common practice in the US  involved healthcare being deducted from your salary that being the case I have no axe to grind with the American system except just the one remaining regards the poorest in society being covered for basic healthcare if required. 

@Joeseph

Agreement with whom? Who told the employer to either take away taxes from my salary, or lose their business and go to jail? It is like me putting a gun to your wife's head and telling you to give me your wallet or I will blow her brains out, you give me your wallet, and I tell you, "Well, I did not point the gun at you, so no robbery at a gunpoint occurred! Your wife gave me nothing, and your life was not threatened". Would you buy this argument?
And income tax is only one of the multitude of taxes.

What taxes pay for is irrelevant to the nature of the process in which they are obtained. If I rob your house and then donate the goodies to the Red Cross, I will still be a robber, no matter to what use I put your property.

A start of people getting the facts about the nature of these processes in their face.

My choice of where to live involves accounting for many different variables. I do not like many elements of the American system, but I struggle to think of a place I would rather live right now. "If you do not like it here, why don't you leave?" is a pretty old and pointless question. 
"Hey, honey, could you wash the dishes please?"
"No."
"But... I washed dishes the last 5 times!"
"If you do not like it, why are you with me?"

@Joeseph

My point is, ultimately it is enforced at a gunpoint. I may not be the one the gun is pointing to at the moment - but it is pointing at one of the parties in the exchange. Without the gun, me and the employer would be free to negotiate an exchange that does not involve paying anything to a third party. The gun is involved in paying taxes, however you try to spin it. No one pays taxes voluntarily.

How what should be taken? Your goods? I do not think they should be taken by anyone but you, unless you explicitly permit someone to take them.

Pal, we do a lot of things in life that we would rather not have to do. That does not imply that we should not have or express our opinions on some of those things, especially on a debate website - which is, you know, all about expressing opinions.

@Joeseph

Eh, which system am I proposing here? I am simply making a statement about the nature of taxation, and how it is connected to the question of whether the US should adopt a universal healthcare system and the alleged benevolence of such a system.

What would happen had you not permitted them to be taken and then refused to pay them?

In what way am I intolerant of different opinions? Have I ever expressed a desire to silence them?
I have no clue what you are missing because I do not know what is in your mind.

@MayCaesar

I'm asking what are these facts I'm missing?

@MayCaesar

Yeah and I understand the temptation of falling back on, well I call it "lazy" arguments. Think we all do at times but soon realize it ourselves.

@Joeseph

I have not said that you are missing facts, from what I remember. And I am not accusing you of any claims you have not made; I have not mentioned you at all in my previous comment.

My argument has nothing to do with what I personally want. My argument is that taxation is coercive, which makes it incompatible with benevolence. Taxation is exertion of force and power by an organization that has subdued the society, much like a mafia would. In fact, this is how I classify governments: as mafia organizations. There is no difference between them in their essence, the difference is only in the extent to which people see their rule as legitimate.
Pablo Escobar used to control large territories in Latin America, and people loved him. He provided them with cheap housing, food and healthcare. He paid for it with their "protection money", plus with his drug-dealing income. There was even a voting-like mechanism where they could file complaints over unfair treatment of them by the de-facto authorities, and when enough of those complaints were received, the higher-ups would take action and make changes in the management.
What is the difference between Pablo Escobar's empire and the Colombian government? Good question to ponder, I think. Perhaps Pablo Escobar was not as much of a violent drug lord, as he was a benevolent soul, if we are to reason along the same lines as people reason in favor of benevolence of the government-provided welfare?

What I want does not enter my argument anywhere. I am not as self-centered as to assume that everyone should live the way I want them to. Something that differentiates me from those who want to take more of my money in order to fund their pet projects... I do not want to take anything from anyone.

Joeseph said:

@MayCaesar


I have not said that you are missing facts, from what I remember.

You actually said........

A start of people getting the facts about the nature of these processes in their face.

What " facts " do you mean by that? Also  " in their face " comes across as being very aggressive in tone.

Where in that sentence do you see the claim that you are missing some facts? As to what the "facts about the nature..." are... that is what my entire comment sequence has been about.

I say what I mean. You do not need to overthink my comments, look for hidden meanings and tonalities. This is not a poetry contest, but a debate, and in debates I do my best to express my thoughts as clearly and directly as possible.

@Joeseph

"Neutral". Its meaning is "in a way that cannot be dismissed/ignored". When I get drunk and wake up next morning with a horrible headache, with a job interview coming up, reality hits me in the face: my drinking has serious consequences.

"That's your opinion" is where any conversation ends... You can say that about anything and there is no reasonable response that can be given to it. 2+2=4 is also an opinion.