5 ms·

I disagree strongly with pretty much all of your points. You acknowledge that the vast majority of the evidence points towards universal healthcare systems bei

by lyudmil 14y ago

I disagree strongly with pretty much all of your points. You acknowledge that the vast majority of the evidence points towards universal healthcare systems being more economically efficient in your first sentence. You then proceed to make an argument that basically asserts the US is a special case and that a universal care system wouldn't "behave" as it does everywhere else and reduce costs, but instead increase them. I see no basis for this assumption and I want to challenge you to demonstrate why you should be granted it. I also want to challenge you on your implied definition of "useful" or "efficient". You say you would favor a universal system if you were to see convincing evidence that it would reduce costs. In your argument, I at least, read an implicit assumption that cost ought to be the deciding factor. I find that point of view detestable. For corporations, whose sole purpose is profits, it makes sense to think of efficiency that way. You and I, however, are people, and shouldn't have values that put resource acquisition higher than human well-being. You're free to disagree, but doing so would convince me that we have very little common basis for dialog. In the last part of your comment you give France as an example of a country that will suffer dire economic repercussions for having run an unsustainable universal healthcare system. I haven't double-checked your references, but I'm happy to grant you, for the sake of argument, that the data is on your side. You've chosen to ignore the vast majority of strong economies with universal healthcare. You've also failed to mention that whatever problems France may have in the future, they pale in comparison to the budgetary problems the US is facing due to the privatized healthcare system it is currently running. References forthcoming should you ask...

guylhem 14y ago
I'm sorry if I seem to be making a special case of the US - what I wanted to say is universal healthcare is not a good idea in general, and even more in the US which is like a worst case for trying to implement it. Universal healthcare reduce individual costs, ie is "more efficient", but raise the demand. Even if it makes each act 50% less expansive, if the demand is 4x more, that'll still be 2x as much in total - it is less efficient on society as a whole, because it's not a productive use for money. My point is not that resource acquisition is the highest goal of human beings, it is just that money spend of such thing can not be put to a better use. It's good to spend money on feeling good (healthcare), as long as the other way the money is spend provide growth. I would favor universal system if I saw convincing evidence that people would not overclaim (ie seek treatment for minor ailments), and if they were respectful of the regulation system which has to exist if they can't self regulate with their own money. I see just the opposite, except maybe for the UK, but I don't have any experience with their system, and I don't know if they run a deficit. Anyway, if there is a special case, it certainly is the UK. Even worse - I've noticed a troubling trend. Apparently "generosity" or "social spending" is correlated with group identification - i.e. people who self categorize as different groups (based on religion, ethnicity - anything) are less likely to favor social spending, maybe because it could favor the other group. I don't have evidence for this - it's just something I noticed when people are debating about social systems. It is troubling, because most of the countries implementing universal healthcare are also running active immigration programs, which helps balance the cost of their social system. But if the trend is real, this countries will voluntary reduce their social spending after the initial period where immigrants footed the bill - leaving them resentful. My hypothesis is that countries where diversity increases (such as countries in the western EU) will reduce their social systems, while countries where diversity plunge (don't know if there is any at the moment - but the province of Quebec in the 1970 is the closest example) will increase their social spending. Please give some references for the US, but from quick calculations adding a trillion of deficit every 5 years looks like a bad idea (and I'm only talking about public healthcare in France- many people pay on top of that private insurance since the public system doesn't fully cover all the costs - money spent to purchase service from such for profit companies should certainly be added if you want to compare healthcare systems)
- vacri 14y ago
  I would favor universal system if I saw convincing evidence that people would not overclaim (ie seek treatment for minor ailments) What a strange position to take: "Don't use healthcare unless it's really serious". Good healthcare is about a high quality of life. it is just that money spend of such thing can not be put to a better use. Such as? There are few things better than "being healthy".
  - guylhem 14y ago
    Such as increasing our level of technology so that the next generation will be better off, which is what every generation did until we got the idea that putting a bigger and bigger chuck of the GDP on healthcare each year was a bright idea. Over 10% it is not sustainable. It has to stop growing. If it was used to develop life changing technologies for the whole human species such as whole brain emulation, space colonization etc- why not. At the moment is it just about making us more comfortable. A temporary high quality of life indeed, at the expense of the future. Not a bright idea.
    - Volpe 14y ago
      You aren't consistent in the point you are trying to make, which lends me to believe you believe in your side beyond reason. People have stated that universal health care has and does work in other countries. Check out Australia's economy, and it's healthcare system. Admittedly it's scale is tiny in comparison to a U.S and there is a valid discussion of how universal health care scales (i.e is it linear, etc). But evidence already shows it works, so I don't see any point in further trying to convince you. You might want to check out this though: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ It seems that is what is happening here.
      - guylhem 14y ago
        > you believe in your side beyond reason I don't believe in anything. Maybe universal healthcare will be possible some day, and even a good thing. Presently, in the US, it's a really bad idea. Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants, to which some bright bulbs think removing coverage would be another bright idea. The best solution to reduce costs? Remove all the legal cruft - including medical boards which create monopolies in labor. Leave maybe only the FDA to evaluate drugs. Let the market sort out the rest - ie deregulate.
crusso 14y ago
> the budgetary problems the US is facing due to the privatized healthcare system Wait, the what? Did you really just try to pin the blame of US budgetary stupidity on the PRIVATE healthcare system? So, wars, enormous unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (both public healthcare systems), and the general welfare state don't dominate the "budgetary problems the US is facing"?

by lyudmil 14y ago

guylhem 14y ago

I'm sorry if I seem to be making a special case of the US - what I wanted to say is universal healthcare is not a good idea in general, and even more in the US which is like a worst case for trying to implement it. Universal healthcare reduce individual costs, ie is "more efficient", but raise the demand. Even if it makes each act 50% less expansive, if the demand is 4x more, that'll still be 2x as much in total - it is less efficient on society as a whole, because it's not a productive use for money. My point is not that resource acquisition is the highest goal of human beings, it is just that money spend of such thing can not be put to a better use. It's good to spend money on feeling good (healthcare), as long as the other way the money is spend provide growth. I would favor universal system if I saw convincing evidence that people would not overclaim (ie seek treatment for minor ailments), and if they were respectful of the regulation system which has to exist if they can't self regulate with their own money. I see just the opposite, except maybe for the UK, but I don't have any experience with their system, and I don't know if they run a deficit. Anyway, if there is a special case, it certainly is the UK. Even worse - I've noticed a troubling trend. Apparently "generosity" or "social spending" is correlated with group identification - i.e. people who self categorize as different groups (based on religion, ethnicity - anything) are less likely to favor social spending, maybe because it could favor the other group. I don't have evidence for this - it's just something I noticed when people are debating about social systems. It is troubling, because most of the countries implementing universal healthcare are also running active immigration programs, which helps balance the cost of their social system. But if the trend is real, this countries will voluntary reduce their social spending after the initial period where immigrants footed the bill - leaving them resentful. My hypothesis is that countries where diversity increases (such as countries in the western EU) will reduce their social systems, while countries where diversity plunge (don't know if there is any at the moment - but the province of Quebec in the 1970 is the closest example) will increase their social spending. Please give some references for the US, but from quick calculations adding a trillion of deficit every 5 years looks like a bad idea (and I'm only talking about public healthcare in France- many people pay on top of that private insurance since the public system doesn't fully cover all the costs - money spent to purchase service from such for profit companies should certainly be added if you want to compare healthcare systems)

vacri 14y ago
I would favor universal system if I saw convincing evidence that people would not overclaim (ie seek treatment for minor ailments) What a strange position to take: "Don't use healthcare unless it's really serious". Good healthcare is about a high quality of life. it is just that money spend of such thing can not be put to a better use. Such as? There are few things better than "being healthy".
- guylhem 14y ago
  Such as increasing our level of technology so that the next generation will be better off, which is what every generation did until we got the idea that putting a bigger and bigger chuck of the GDP on healthcare each year was a bright idea. Over 10% it is not sustainable. It has to stop growing. If it was used to develop life changing technologies for the whole human species such as whole brain emulation, space colonization etc- why not. At the moment is it just about making us more comfortable. A temporary high quality of life indeed, at the expense of the future. Not a bright idea.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    You aren't consistent in the point you are trying to make, which lends me to believe you believe in your side beyond reason. People have stated that universal health care has and does work in other countries. Check out Australia's economy, and it's healthcare system. Admittedly it's scale is tiny in comparison to a U.S and there is a valid discussion of how universal health care scales (i.e is it linear, etc). But evidence already shows it works, so I don't see any point in further trying to convince you. You might want to check out this though: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ It seems that is what is happening here.
    - guylhem 14y ago
      > you believe in your side beyond reason I don't believe in anything. Maybe universal healthcare will be possible some day, and even a good thing. Presently, in the US, it's a really bad idea. Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants, to which some bright bulbs think removing coverage would be another bright idea. The best solution to reduce costs? Remove all the legal cruft - including medical boards which create monopolies in labor. Leave maybe only the FDA to evaluate drugs. Let the market sort out the rest - ie deregulate.

crusso 14y ago

> the budgetary problems the US is facing due to the privatized healthcare system Wait, the what? Did you really just try to pin the blame of US budgetary stupidity on the PRIVATE healthcare system? So, wars, enormous unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (both public healthcare systems), and the general welfare state don't dominate the "budgetary problems the US is facing"?