Medicaid was a system designed for the very poor and the disabled...

Medicaid was a system designed for the very poor and the disabled, both groups whom would be unable to attain any sort of healthcare at all. These people, who would have no way of paying their premiums or deductibles, were covered by this system as a way for the government to provide this help.

Obamacare, when it was introduced, expanded the demographic of Medicaid from the very poor and disabled to the very poor, poor, lower middle class, certain portions of the middle class, and the disabled. The effects of this were that those who found themselves with Obamacare were paying extremely high premiums and deductibles compared to what they were on Medicaid which placed strain on the very poor and disabled, who were supposed to be the ones benefiting from Medicaid originally. Couple this switch with those who found out that they could just stay on welfare and have healthcare as well and the prices rose further. For the past couple years all I heard about was how high the deductible was on everyone's plans.

Take into account the fact that many insurance companies sat out of Obamacare and could remove themselves whenever they wanted. One might say that it was due to profit, and they would be completely correct, but instead of looking at it through a lens of greed, consider it through and economic viewpoint:
>If all insurance companies joined Obamacare, there would be no need for all insurance companies but just one. This would create a monopoly.
>Insurance companies need competition to keep prices low for consumers and whether or not they make a large profit does not matter.

Now how does this relate to universal government run healthcare and why is the notion of healthcare being universal a bad thing?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/epSeg).
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12545600.
archive.fo/BNDlv
youtu.be/orL6wrjRi4k
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>(cont.)
1. This would likely remove all forms of insurance companies or drastically rupture them causing the closure of companies and the loss of an estimated 2.54 million jobs through private companies (archive.fo/epSeg).
2. While most of these people would likely be rehired by the government, since the government keeps things cheap there will still be layoffs.
3. With a loss of insurance companies, again, competition will become nonexistent. This means that prices will rise for healthcare. Research done on this topic (for those without a basic understanding of economics) has actually showed that increased competition will lower prices across the board ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12545600.
4. Healthcare now becomes part of the taxation one contributes to. So in addition to the added high price through taxation, this means that being uninsured is a thing of the past and you become shackled into paying for healthcare that you may or may not want.
5. A side effect of this is that because healthcare is now taxable, you are also required to pay into the same healthcare pool for everyone. Think for example about the fattest person you have ever seen, or a tranny. You are not fat, and you are most definitely not a tranny, rather, you spend most of your off time lifting weights and eating healthy foods for your meals because you care about your personal health. Under universal healthcare, you would be paying for fatty's heart attacks and the retard's cosmetic surgery.
6. Government run healthcare would be the shittiest healthcare ever. Seriously, have you ever seen how government programs are run? There is so much waste and there's no quality.

>(cont.)
7. Under universal healthcare, there would need to be a massive surplus of doctors (whose salaries would most likely decrease) or there will be very long waits. Look at Canada for examples of this.
>From the consultation with a specialist to the point at which the patient receives treatment. The waiting time in this segment increased from 9.8 weeks in 2015 to 10.6 weeks this year. This wait time is 88% longer than in 1993 when it was 5.6 weeks, and more than three weeks longer than what physicians consider to be clinically “reasonable”. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits are found in Saskatchewan (7.9 weeks), while the longest are in Nova Scotia (17.7 weeks). archive.fo/BNDlv
8. As a result of these long wait times, there will be an increase in black market doctors. Not like Sambo Jim, the cough syrup dispensing nigger from the shady side of town, but regular doctors who want to provide healthcare and make money. Once again, look to Canada's healthcare and how black markets are springing up for health care.

With these reasons, and I'm sure there are more things that I could not think about, why would anyone still support universal healthcare? Are they just retarded and don't care? Are they unable to educate themselves and rely on places like CNN to tell them what to do?

please respond ;_;

Are there anymore reasons I could have put as well?

good posts user.

still, i disagree with the conclusions because the problems with insurance are only symptomatic of the healthcare industry itself. accepting obamacare, medicaid, or any other as a cure is merely using it as a panacea.

with the exception of arguments stating that all of government is the boogeyman, why would we not wish to treat healthcare like a public good, like we do with physical infrastructure?

>1. This would likely remove all forms of insurance companies or drastically rupture them causing the closure of companies and the loss of an estimated 2.54 million jobs through private companies
Why is this an argument? When the model T was made all those horse makers lost their job

There is no reason to be blatantly inefficient and predatorily corrupt, just because its good for lots of jobs and stealing peoples money. That would be like wanting to keep weed illegal just because it gets the cops and prisons lots of money.

>3. With a loss of insurance companies, again, competition will become nonexistent. This means that prices will rise for healthcare. Research done on this topic (for those without a basic understanding of economics) has actually showed that increased competition will lower prices across the board
How would competition lower the price, how would government run monopoly make health insurance more expensive?

Imagine if all the insurance companies in America a,b,c,d,e,f,g..... z,z1,z2, 9,9,9999 however many there are (like you know how companies buy other companies, and companies merge, consolidation, and efficiency?)

they are all one insurance company now: A

Instead of seeking to get as much profits as possible, and CEO of a,b,c,d,e,f,g siphoning off whatever million a year paycheck each: there is CEO of insurance company A: (are there shareholders, of insurance companies? getting divdends? are there stocks, idk?)
We the people now own Thee insurance company

There are different tiers of plans. people pay in, they get the plan.

Your argument is: If there is not: Company A: we will cover you for 10! Company B: we will cover you for 9.99! Company C: we will cover you for 9.75!

If there is only one company: What determines the """appropriate""" value of coverage?... there is no free market to determine :O

But... if all the insurance companies that exist,, can exist... and continuously exist... meaning they profit.. meaning there is supply and demand... what would be needed to be known is (is this called overhead cost?) how much it costs for like, renting building, electricity, computers, data storage, employee salary, + the total cost of actual health care needed from the total population - the weekly payment for coverage of plan?

Can I get all this on a screencap

>4. Healthcare now becomes part of the taxation one contributes to. So in addition to the added high price through taxation, this means that being uninsured is a thing of the past and you become shackled into paying for healthcare that you may or may not want.
There was a time when a citizen of America could live their life without paying into a health insurance pool?

What of cases when healthcare is provided by employer? Could and should, an individual ask their employer to not cover their healthcare, but add that instead to their paycheck?

If a person does not want health insurance at all, in this situation in relation to your statement about taxes: they should be able to pay that much less tax (that would be taken out to go towards their health insurance)

This then begs the question: what when this person who decides they dont want to pay health insurance, gets into a car accident, or very sick, and cant pay the bill?

>5. A side effect of this is that because healthcare is now taxable, you are also required to pay into the same healthcare pool for everyone. Think for example about the fattest person you have ever seen, or a tranny. You are not fat, and you are most definitely not a tranny, rather, you spend most of your off time lifting weights and eating healthy foods for your meals because you care about your personal health. Under universal healthcare, you would be paying for fatty's heart attacks and the retard's cosmetic surgery.
this is one of the best points against it: tranny surgery absolutely should not be covered in government funded healthcare.

All I can ask is: when a fat person, or any person has a heart attack and cant pay for the hospital bill, what happens, they take out loans? (im asking for current, or historical cases)

>Seriously, have you ever seen how government programs are run? There is so much waste and there's no quality.
Watch what you say about the military industrial complex boy

Well I imagine when you look at the amount of taxes those people will no longer be paying, you'll see a bit of a problem

I personally think that prices are high already because people view healthcare (when they have it) as free. If you broke your arm and a doctor "finds something", would you question how much it would cost to get that something checked out? I wouldn't. In addition, I'd have them perform everything possible until they completely rule out that something because I pay for insurance and everything they do to me (xrays, MRIs, tests, etc) is all covered by insurance. If everyone is ordering everything they possibly can, then the insurance company needs to adjust prices to meet their profit margins. If everyone questioned whether or not they need that full body scan for something unrelated to what they came in for and ended up not doing all those extra options, then prices would naturally drop. I doubt this will ever happen though.

Julian Edney's psychology experiments were featured on ABC a while a go and show the greedy nature of humans taking money from a bowl. If you couple that psychology with fear of "something", then you can expect the results to be the same unfortunately.
youtu.be/orL6wrjRi4k

The Model T was an advance in technology and a benefit to society. Universal healthcare isn't an advance, it's just spreading what already exists around. It's sideways movement and detrimental.

>Under universal healthcare, there would need to be a massive surplus of doctors
Why?
>(whose salaries would most likely decrease)
Because health insurance is a lottery you dont want to win. People spend a lot of money hoping they dont get sick, some people pay into health insurance their whole life and hardly use it (hopefully), so that is where the profit comes from, it is russian roulette, every time the gun is passed around and you live you put some money in the pot: less people need the money in the pot than people that do; an amount of money is left in the pot incase people need it, an amount of money is taken from the pot and given to the doctors and health insurance workers

maybe in universal the hope is that, everyone can pay a little less, or a lot less, because so many pay a lot, and rarely use it (thankfully) so when someone does need it, there is still a big pot of money there

>or there will be very long waits
why wouldnt things tend towards that goldilocks zone, and how are things so absolutely perfect right now, that there are not too many doctors, and not long waits?

payment plan or default

STFU watch this movie then apologize you retarded pinhead.

economic scarcity

Sorry, I was masturbating.

Government run healthcare would increase the price through taxation. If insurance companies use a pool of money that is refilled via those who buy health insurance, then that pool of money is a scarce resource. At the same time as this, insurance companies also deny insurance to those with preexisting conditions or those with high risk.

Let's say that there's an estimated 3% of those who apply for health insurance that get denied for these reasons. If there are 100,000 people paying for health insurance at 1,000 dollars a month, that's a total generation of 100,000,000 dollars a month. Let's also say that Cancer drugs cost about 10,000 dollars a month. If that 3% is 3,000 people who have cancer, that is around 30,000,000 dollars a month minus the 3,000,000 dollars a month from those patients leaving 27,000,000 dollars a month spent on those 3,000 people.

Now, let's further this math and say that 60,000,000 dollars are spent a month on the rest of the 97% of that population. This means that the insurance companies have a profit of 40,000,000 dollars for the insurance companies. If we take away the 3%'s payouts, then that leaves the company with 13,000,000 dollars left over, which is 32.5% of their original profit margin. To make this difference up, they then have to raise the price for everyone to keep their profit margin normal due to the 3%.

Obviously these numbers are made up and the percentages vary, but apply that to everyone in the United States. And with an increasing population, there will be more with these horrible afflictions. Imagine the 3,000 rising to 6,000, and then 12,000, etc. The cost goes up even if the percentage doesn't.

what does default entail?

>There was a time when a citizen of America could live their life without paying into a health insurance pool?
Yes, but economies change and it's no longer viable. The cost of the new technologies vastly outweighs what a regular person can pay. The average cost of an MRI for example is around 2600 dollars. That's a lot to pay for one small scan. Plus, you have to pay for the iodine, the hospital time, the check up, etc.

>What of cases when healthcare is provided by employer? Could and should, an individual ask their employer to not cover their healthcare, but add that instead to their paycheck?
This is a thing already.

>If a person does not want health insurance at all, in this situation in relation to your statement about taxes: they should be able to pay that much less tax
Ideally this would be the case, however I doubt that would make a difference. The cost on government would be enormous, especially since our current healthcare is 1/6th of our GOP. I feel like everyone would have to pay it.

>what when this person who decides they dont want to pay health insurance, gets into a car accident, or very sick, and cant pay the bill?
Hypothetically under the previous line you stated, nothing would change from today and they would have to pay out of pocket.

Look at construction instead.

>Why?
Higher queue times due to less doctors. If there were more doctors there would be less queue times. That is to run it efficiently though. I can't imagine people in Canada are happy to wait 6 months to see a doctor.

>why wouldnt things tend towards that goldilocks zone, and how are things so absolutely perfect right now, that there are not too many doctors, and not long waits?
Not really sure, but if I had to guess I'd assume that since a fair portion of people go to the doctor when needed and don't have to make appointments in a queue system of the sort. Another point is that the uninsured individuals have to ration how often they go to the doctor so there's a natural "shortage" of people not crowding the lines. If give them the ability to go to the doctor whenever, then they will which will cause scarce available time.

I enjoy talking about this. I welcome everyone to the discussion. We all learn more from each other after all.