Since universal/single payer healthcare has proved to reduce healthcare costs, why isn't the insurance industry in general (home, auto, etc.) nationalized to save money?
Since universal/single payer healthcare has proved to reduce healthcare costs...
Aaron Edwards
Other urls found in this thread:
who.int
who.int
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
pnhp.org
smith.edu
muse.jhu.edu
economix.blogs.nytimes.com
twitter.com
Carson Hughes
>Since universal/single payer healthcare has proved to reduce healthcare costs
Source? Doubt you have one since that's never be implemented
>why isn't the insurance industry in general (home, auto, etc.) nationalized to save money?
Because insurance companies are private businesses and you can't force them or the people to do anything because that would infringe on our freedoms. If you don't like it, move to North Korea.
Adam Green
"Because insurance companies are private"
Can't the government offer up a public alternative?
Asher Wilson
There are tons of sources about how much more expensive American healthcare and private healthcare in general are compared to public systems.
who.int
> Can't the government offer up a public alternative?
Yes, that would also be interesting to try out.
Gavin Adams
The government butting into free market only causes problems which eventually hurt our economy and then the people. Also, why should they anyway, and who's going to pay for it?
Jeremiah Allen
Whoops, forgot image
Robert Harris
>There are tons of sources about how much more expensive American healthcare and private healthcare in general are compared to public systems.
"Tons"; posts one unrelated to his initial claim. In your own words;
>Since universal/single payer healthcare has proved to reduce healthcare costs
Prove that universal healthcare is more "affordable", and convince me that we should implement it. Keep in mind, at any point you suggest we use the government to force anything that would infringe upon our American freedoms, you will lose my favor.
Christian Myers
>The government butting into free market only causes problems which eventually hurt our economy and then the people
This is a very elementary understanding of the matter. Numerous economists have weighed in on the market of healthcare. It doesn't function like a normal market for several reasons like inelastic demand among others. Check out the economist Kenneth Arrow's take on it. Basically healthcare is most efficient as a collective large service with alternative private providers.
who.int
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
pnhp.org
> why should they anyway
Drastically decreased costs means more economic efficiency and people spending less money, meaning more money, a better quality of life, etc.
> who's going to pay for it?
Everybody through taxes which as stands would be cheaper than paying for the current system.
Kayden Lee
I never really understood why the hell US federal healthcare spending is so damn high
Where exactly does the money go?
Andrew Turner
Andrew Ortiz
>This is a very elementary understanding of the matter
I think quite the opposite my friend. You may think that government intervention--If proven more beneficial (Hypothetical for the argument; I still disagree that it is)-- is without any drawbacks, but in your thought you failed to understand that your initial standing point is flawed. Any government forced intervention is held up by government, and not the people nor the economy. "Free market" may seem like a meme, but in entirety it is absolutely true, that is, that with pure freedom to fluctuate the means of production and worth will balance themselves.
Your universal healthcare would never be without drawbacks, and would arguably create more through time and differences of nations with different markets, populations, and principles (Such as the freedoms you would have to infringe upon in America to put your system into efffect).
Cooper Ramirez
Read the stuff I've cited. Market failure is a feature of healthcare. The Free Market can't adequately account for information assymetry in healthcare without some centralizing assistance in many cases.
Eli Cox
>Read the stuff I've cited
That's a lot of reading; I'll get to it in the morning. For now, why don't you refute my statement?
>Market failure is a feature of healthcare
?
>The Free Market can't adequately account for information assymetry in healthcare without some centralizing assistance in many cases.
"Centralizing assistance" seems pretty broad. This isn't a euphemism for government intervention, is it? If it is, you've lost the argument since that would infringe upon our freedoms. Also, the free market has held up healthcare without government intervention just fine. What you're observing is the effects of the economy on healthcare. Remember, the economy effects everything in a capitalistic society. Your intervention is misguided and will only cause more harm.
Jaxon Johnson
>Trump wants to deport this
Why??
Brandon Torres
> "Centralizing assistance" seems pretty broad. This isn't a euphemism for government intervention, is it? If it is, you've lost the argument since that would infringe upon our freedoms. Also, the free market has held up healthcare without government intervention just fine. What you're observing is the effects of the economy on healthcare. Remember, the economy effects everything in a capitalistic society. Your intervention is misguided and will only cause more harm.
The government literally needs to intervene in the economy all the time. It enforces property rights, contracts, etc. and crafts legislation to reach desired outcomes. The government is broadly in charge of infrastructure and I doubt you have a problem with that. If there was evidence that government intervention in a certain market would actually decrease costs for everyone involved would therefore benefit from it, how could you deny that that would be superior and preferable for everyone since decreased costs for consumers would decrease bankruptcies, increase economic health, etc.?
Julian Harris
Into the pockets of the Govt protected Monopolists and their lobbyists
Jose Bell
>irrelevant pic
>spam reposted verbatim
>no logic
>no source
>no argument
>writing prompt
>one-post
Samuel Bailey
Hey bro. Look at flag. Single-payer is fucking hell. I had some mysterious issue, and got dicked
around with for 10 years. They never figured it out and I'm still suffering.
Single-payer is broken. If we weren't taxed 78% (about the same for Canada & USA) once
hidden taxes are considered, we could afford shit ourselves, including hospital visits.
The answer is to realize that government is fucking us, and to not take it anymore.
Noah Russell
Please note that this guy is an obvious shill. We had another guy (probably same employers, or even the same person) here yesterday doing the same thing, just with Obamacare instead of "single payer healthcare systems".
You can tell he's a shill because he claims to have little to no understanding of the subject matter in the OP (), but then quickly starts spewing out links with studies and starts posting a bunch of charts, while also providing "counter-arguments" filled with logical fallacies (appeal to authority, "Numerous economists have weighed in", the black/white fallacy "Market failure is a feature of healthcare" "would be cheaper than paying for the current system", hasty generalizations, etc).
It's also worth noting that he posted an irrelevant picture that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. He did this in the last thread with a John Oliver picture for his OP. The point is to attract people who will fall for these baits reflexively, bait them into an argument, then post from a "superior" position.
He's not here to argue with you, or to learn anything, he's here to appeal to the crowd of lurkers who aren't posting here for his employers.
Remember to put sage in the options field and tell people how these cunts work.
Parker Morgan
>why isn't the insurance industry in general (home, auto, etc.) nationalized to save money?
I go one step further, why isn't retailed banking nationalized? Essentially, governments set the interest rates which retail banks then use to not pay any interest on deposits. Even further, governments guarantee deposits of normal people on retail banks.
Or in other words, retail banks have no risks on deposits. I say, create a "public option" retail bank, i.e. every single citizen should get a free account with the central bank for his or her deposits and checking stuff and an ATM card and if required a credit card (European style credit cards which are not really about "credit").
I am pretty sure this would be a lot more cost effective than guaranteeing hundreds of billions of deposits and bailing out failing retail banks.
Connor Powell
newfags need to learn I guess
but they wont
Jaxon James
Since universal/single payer healthcare has proved to reduce healthcare outcomes, why isn't the insurance industry in general (home, auto, etc.) completely privatized to save lives?
Landon Harris
roastie ass sluts
I may be single but at least im not a whore like OP
Levi Moore
>Can't the government offer up a public alternative?
Whenever the government does this, it runs deficits via the program to undercut the market and drives private companies out of business while using taxpayer money to cover the losses.
The government can run a "company" at a loss in perpetuity so long as tax dollars exist to cover the difference. A private company cannot do such a thing because they lack the legal authority to seize everyone's income.
Isaac Thomas
Most European countries to my knowledge allow private competitors to compete freely with a universal/single-payer system and they generally do fine financially so they aren't being undercut by the government. It's not just pricing, they have other advantages like potentially quality and time taken to receive treatment, etc.
Lucas Myers
If our government is already spending more per capita on health care than nearly every other country in the world, why do private citizens still have to pay anything?
It can't possibly be the result of better treatments, unnecessary and costly paperwork regulations, covering decades of FDA approval costs for new medicines, and so on, can it?
James Kelly
>The government literally needs to intervene in the economy all the time.
No, it actually doesn't "need" to, and not everything that you think "government intervention" is can be defined as intervention.
>The government is broadly in charge of infrastructure and I doubt you would have a problem with that
Not true, and yes I would have a problem with that. Also do not involve me personally into your argument, that is a fallacy.
>If there was evidence that government intervention.....increase economic health, etc.?
This will be my last response. I have fairly discussed with you your propositions, yet you have used fallacies against me and still refuse to refute my main argument; I will leave you with one final thought on your last remark which I don't believe you understand the extent of.
>If x is superior to x, then why don't we do x?
Just because something is superior does not mean that humanity performs it. Believe it or not, the form in which you are and exist is through a course progression of morals, civics, survival of the fittest,god, and religion. A human does not have a definite purpose, and is not supposed to be anything. That is essentially what free will is, and that is why humans perform both good and bad, effectively and ineffectively, time and time again. What you are discussing are inhumane rules of logic, that is, basically how a computer would operate. Computers are programmed and do exactly what we instruct them to do; they have no freedom, intellect, need to perform the un-instructed, and therefor no free will.
Why should people with inheritable disabilities be allowed to breed? How about anyone with inferior genes? Why was slavery abolished? Why should any of us even work? Wouldn't it be better for the government to force these superior options onto us all?
And that is, behind your euphemisms and skewered arguments, your logic. You think humans must not be free for the good of us all.
Benjamin Baker
Here's my take:
In pure forms, there are two better systems than we have now.
One is like you mention, and grants government complete control. This can be beneficial as long as government is in control, and not raping us to get more money to preferred individuals and companies who in turn give politicians more money.
We don't have and haven't had free market health insurance for a long time. Government's job is to bust that shit up when it reaches monopoly status, or when it betrays its contracts.
In the past, whenever I have heard about "bipartisan compromise," it has always been a key phrase that means the people are fucked in exchange for politicians gaining more power and money.
Again, either full government control with no lobbying, or no government control or lobbying with monopoly busting powers are both far superior than what we have.
Adrian Gutierrez
>to my knowledge
Your knowledge is incorrect. The UK allows private healthcare, and doctors in private practice make their money by servicing upper and upper-middle class people who don't want to wait 6 months for a hip or knee replacement from the NHS. Those doctors make significantly less money than doctors in the US as well, leading to a doctor shortage.
Most EU countries do not allow private healthcare or private health insurance.
Brody Sanders
govt as the only provider causes the people to suffer from lesser quality and no other options
Zachary Hill
Both the Netherlands and Switzerland have predominantly private healthcare systems with a universal coverage mandate and yet both outperform the US in most medical rankings and have much cheaper healthcare overall.