Current Events > Do any of the arguments against single payer healthcare even hold up

(+) Yeah! (+)

"We're not a homogenous nation so it'll never work."

"Nation is too big."

"Nothing's free."
---

Single payer = liberal idea

Liberals = Bad

Therefore,

Single payer = bad idea



gg libs
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Single payer = liberal idea

Liberals = Bad

Therefore,

Single payer = bad idea



gg libs

xD
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Single payer = liberal idea

Liberals = Bad

Therefore,

Single payer = bad idea



gg libs

Wow this thread is done.
---

Why should I have to pay for somebody else's healthcare?

Yes, all of them, including the hundreds you didn't list.

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Why should I have to pay for somebody else's healthcare?

Because built-up medical debt causes a weak economy by reducing the amount of money people have to spend, reducing profits and wages. One large issue effecting a large number of individuals will eventually result in collective economic problems. Whether or not it should be their responsibility alone by your logic is irrelevant to the reality that society is not purely individualist and collective issues affect everybody.

I don't even need a pro-UHC argument on this. You're paying for other people's healthcare by getting health insurance, which you will require at some point in your life. You're also already paying through it because of public programs - public hospitals, for example, without which debt issues would potentially get even worse.
---

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Why should I have to pay for somebody else's healthcare?

You already do.
---

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Why should I have to pay for somebody else's healthcare?

This argument always makes me laugh. Always good to know who doesn't understand how insurance works.
---

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Why should I have to pay for somebody else's healthcare?

Why should I have to pay for roads if I don't drive?

Why should I have to pay for wars I don't believe in?

Why should I have to pay salaries of leaders I didn't vote for?

Why should I pay for the courts if I never use them?
---

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Why should I have to pay for somebody else's healthcare?

You already pay for things for other people already with taxes. Why should healthcare be any different?
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Why should I have to pay for roads if I don't drive?

Why should I have to pay for wars I don't believe in?

pretty good questions imho
---

Balrog0 posted...

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Why should I have to pay for roads if I don't drive?

Why should I have to pay for wars I don't believe in?

pretty good questions imho

I never hear any complaints from anyone from other nations that have it in place about it. Americans are afraid of it because it's change, but I'm personally convinced it's change for the better.
---

Healthcare spending in the US is the highest in the world. Single payer would have to be accompanied by rigorous regulations to manage costs. That's my layman's opinion.
---

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Why should I have to pay for somebody else's healthcare?

Spoiler - the money you pay your insurance company is not reserved in a special pot just for you. You already pay for a portion of the healthcare of everyone on the same plan as you.

P4wn4g3 posted...

I never hear any complaints from anyone from other nations that have it in place about it. Americans are afraid of it because it's change, but I'm personally convinced it's change for the better.

There are plenty of complaints, because every system has their pros and cons.
---

Really, the only problem with trying to implement single payer in America right now is the absurdly high prices of medical care. We need to fix that problem before we can seriously discuss single payer.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

Really, the only problem with trying to implement single payer in America right now is the absurdly high prices of medical care. We need to fix that problem before we can seriously discuss single payer.

The argument is that a larger, national pool of patients would allow the government (the "single payer") more leverage and ability to negotiate down costs than existing private insurers.
---

I think single-payer is a bit of a distraction myself

clearly the issue with health care in the US is the lack of social support spending we have relative to other countries

the social determinants of health, if you will
---

Balrog0 posted...

clearly the issue with health care in the US is the lack of social support spending we have relative to other countries

Clearly there is more than one issue with healthcare in the US?
---

scar the 1 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

I never hear any complaints from anyone from other nations that have it in place about it. Americans are afraid of it because it's change, but I'm personally convinced it's change for the better.

There are plenty of complaints, because every system has their pros and cons.

I didn't say otherwise. But it seems to be the best system in today's world.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Clearly there is more than one issue with healthcare in the US?

if you want to be pedantic, there is more than one issue with health care everywhere
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

I didn't say otherwise. But it seems to be the best system in today's world.

Maybe. I live in a country with socialized healthcare and while ideologically I'm all for it, it's a very broken system in its own right.
---

Balrog0 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Clearly there is more than one issue with healthcare in the US?

if you want to be pedantic, there is more than one issue with health care everywhere

Nobody knew how complicated it is.
---

pretty good questions imho

The road one is pretty simple, really. You don't drive but you still benefit from other people driving, including those that ship your groceries and countless others. But the war one is a legit question.
---

Hillary Clinton's argument was

"well it would be too hard to do it all over, therefore we should just marginally improve the current system because then at least everyone will be covered* "

* = by covered she means in a situation where they still have to fork out huge amounts of money and struggle to pay for their basic healthcare, but now they are at least "covered"

Oh and another thing, everyone then gets forced to pay money to the health insurance corporations that donated to her campaign.... hmmm I wonder why?
---

DevsBro posted...

pretty good questions imho

The road one is pretty simple, really. You don't drive but you still benefit from other people driving, including those that ship your groceries and countless others. But the war one is a legit question.

Same argument could be made. America's military might is a big factor in all the favorable trade deals they make, which citizens benefit from. Not to mention that the military industrial complex in itself generates a lot of jobs, technology, etc.
---

DevsBro posted...

The road one is pretty simple, really. You don't drive but you still benefit from other people driving, including those that ship your groceries and countless others.

But I also suffer the consequences of those roads, like the risk of death due to cars, pollution from emissions, and a style of development that necessitates longer travels distances than might be socially optimal if non-drivers didn't pay for roads.
---

Same argument could be made. America's military might is a big factor in all the favorable trade deals they make, which citizens benefit from. Not to mention that the military industrial complex in itself generates a lot of jobs, technology, etc.

Could be made but would serve no purpose. Nobody can deny that they benefit from roads (unless they're just stupid), but people can definitely deny that any given war will benefit them, which is likely the reason or at least a reason they don't believe in it.

I suppose you could ask why people should have to pay for particular roads they don't benefit from but that kind of thing is so fine-grain that proving they don't benefit from a particular road would be a really tedious task and likely wouldn't result in enough of a tax cut to be worth it. So I guess that one wouldn't be a bad question either, just one that wouldn't really be worth following up on.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Why should I have to pay for roads if I don't drive?

Ever buy something from a store? It got there via roads.

Ever buy something online? It was transported via roads at one point or another.
---

Try it out in big states like California, New York, and Illinois

If it doesn't work there it won't work nationally.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Try it out in big states like California, New York, and Illinois

If it doesn't work there it won't work nationally.

It will never work in those states.

But I also suffer the consequences of those roads, like the risk of death due to cars, pollution from emissions, and a style of development that necessitates longer travels distances than might be socially optimal if non-drivers didn't pay for roads.

Hm, good point.
---

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Try it out in big states like California, New York, and Illinois

If it doesn't work there it won't work nationally.

It will never work in those states.

You seem to be against the idea entirely, but the fact is that if it doesn't work in those states then it literally cannot work nationally.
---

Everyone could have cheap healthcare if we took away from the military budget just saiyan

Damn_Underscore posted...

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Try it out in big states like California, New York, and Illinois

If it doesn't work there it won't work nationally.

It will never work in those states.

You seem to be against the idea entirely, but the fact is that if it doesn't work in those states then it literally cannot work nationally.

Exactly.

BlackDruidLOL posted...

Everyone could have cheap healthcare if we took away from the military budget just saiyan

Not even close.

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Try it out in big states like California, New York, and Illinois

If it doesn't work there it won't work nationally.

It will never work in those states.

You seem to be against the idea entirely, but the fact is that if it doesn't work in those states then it literally cannot work nationally.

Exactly.

Well you can't just say it won't work, you have to try it. And no one who currently supports universal health care in the US will agree with you unless you try it.
---

The only US Right Wing merits that have any legitimacy at all are all Muslim related. And they're still partially wrong, but the left is even more wrong when it comes to that.
---

The only sustainable and effective solution is to invest heavily in automating healthcare so that procedures and diagnoses are a fraction of their current cost. There's no feasible way to pay for everyone's healthcare through taxation - it can't last because there's not enough money to do it.

And if we try to pay for more people to become doctors and nurses and hospital technicians and the like, we'll need far too many people and resources to be tied up in an inefficient and deprecated system that relies on human labor. This puts us in a position where we have too much invested to actually want a healthier population rather than a population that is merely treating away symptoms.

Because if we are heavily invested in having the government pay people to provide healthcare, what happens when people get healthier over time as medicine progresses? We lose a major sector of employment. So this introduces incentives to treat symptoms rather than illnesses and diseases.

That's not a sane and safe strategy for an advanced species. We need to invest in infrastructure that can attend to human medical needs without the need for human labor. IE machines and software.

Why do we have to try something we know won't work?

Alaska can try it if they want. Probably one of the most RINO states in the nation and they barely have any people anyway.

I'd say Hawaii could try it too, but they have way too many homeless people. I think Hawaii might be the worst states to try it in actually, even worse than California or Texas.

A more apt question would be do any of the argument for single payer hold up.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

A more apt question would be do any of the argument for single payer hold up.

Most of them don't tend to be grounded in reality.

shockthemonkey posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

A more apt question would be do any of the argument for single payer hold up.

Yes. Next question.

What arguments are those?

If a state like Illinois tried to do universal health care then I agree it would have a 99% chance of failure

But if it was a national program such as Medicare for all tried in one of those states it might work and it might not
---

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Why should I have to pay for somebody else's healthcare?

Because its cheaper to buy everyone's + yours than paying "just" for yours right now. It's the difference between you buying a soda at a gas station for $2.00, or someone else buying the bulk pack at Costco and selling/splitting it to everyone interested for $0.60.

But really, that's overly simplistic, because you already do pay for other's healthcare. When someone defaults on their medical debt, the cost gets shifted to the rest. The product of today's healthcare is the sheer number of defaults that keep shifting onto this fucked up Jenga tower.
---

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

A more apt question would be do any of the argument for single payer hold up.

Yes. Next question.

What arguments are those?

*Looks at other countries that successfully implemented single payer healthcare.*
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Try it out in big states like California, New York, and Illinois

The problem with this is that state budgets have more constraints than the federal budget. It's harder for states to deficit spend, and sometimes conflicts with state constitutions.
---