• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Best argument for UHC

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
(Source unknown)

Why We Need Publicly Financed​ Guaranteed ​Health Care

The FINANCIAL​ argument: It’s the smart, responsible​ thing to do.

1) We are wasting money ​by paying billions of dollars above what is spent on health
care. ​We pay high costs for ​unnecessary administrative overhead (for thousands of
private and myriad public programs), corporate profits, high salaries, marketing, and
lobbying.

2) There is a way to control costs and channel more of our money into actual health
care​. A single payer system replaces skyrocketing costs to individuals and employers with affordable income and payroll taxes. Expenses are controlled through streamlined
administration​, negotiation​ with service providers, bulk purchase​ of pharmaceuticals
and supplies, use of evidence-based best practices​ (eliminating unnecessary tests and
treatments), and needs-based planning for capital expenses​. A cost-efficient, all-inclusivesystem saves money now spent on determining eligibility, adjusting individual
contributions, and excluding people from care. It’s cheaper to cover everyone.

3) Individuals benefit financially. ​Most people will pay less for health care than they
currently pay in premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. No one will
be left uninsured and having to pay unaffordable medical bills when illness and
emergencies strike. No one will go bankrupt because of medical expenses.

4) Taxpayers get more for their money. ​What do taxpayers get now in exchange for
spending billions on private insurance for public employees? Cuts in public sector jobs
and services. As insurance plans have gotten more expensive, schools have had to cut
teachers, aides, counselors and nurses. High insurance costs have forced similar cuts
in other public agencies, from parks to the DMV. With a single-payer system, we would
be saving on health care expenses and getting more services from every public agency.

5) Employers have more money to invest in their businesses. ​The employer
contribution to the single-payer system will be less than the cost of private plans for
individual employees. With health benefits no longer tied to jobs, employers are spared
the time and expense of shopping for insurance and bargaining with unions over health benefits. Also, guaranteed health care encourages​ entrepreneurship and growth of small businesses.

6) A single-payer system strengthens the economy​. Businesses will compete better
with countries that have universal health care. With less money spent on health care
benefits, employers can price products more competitively and hire more workers.
Expanded healthcare will require new jobs that cannot be outsourced​.
 
But people getting "free stuff", that conservatives think (or feel, rightly or wrongly), that somone besides them is getting, infuriates them, so can't have that. Sense be damned, Libs want it, NO COMPROMISE!:roll:
 
But people getting "free stuff", that conservatives think (or feel, rightly or wrongly), that somone besides them is getting, infuriates them, so can't have that. Sense be damned, Libs want it, NO COMPROMISE!:roll:

Yes Republicans must really hate Santa Claus all that free stuff
 
Yes Republicans must really hate Santa Claus all that free stuff

Maybe the key would be knowing Russia's puny economy has had them with universal care since 1996. Even Putin takes better care of his people than Trump, but is it really surprising? Trump probably couldn't feed himself without help.
 
But if we stop protecting the other countries that rely on us to do national defense so they can provide UHC, they will have to stop. Not to mention the fact that capitalism is the only reason we provide all the best hospitals and major medical breakthroughs in the last half century. But if you want to condemn the entire world to poorer healthcare, starting with us, that's your call. You can vote how you want. I personally like having the best and think that our ability to provide protection for those who don't defend themselves isn't such a bad thing.
 
But if we stop protecting the other countries that rely on us to do national defense so they can provide UHC, they will have to stop. Not to mention the fact that capitalism is the only reason we provide all the best hospitals and major medical breakthroughs in the last half century. But if you want to condemn the entire world to poorer healthcare, starting with us, that's your call. You can vote how you want. I personally like having the best and think that our ability to provide protection for those who don't defend themselves isn't such a bad thing.

What the hell does defense have to do with this? Do you realize that every other system in the world costs dramatically less per capita than ours, right? Your claim that the American military is what makes everyone else's healthcare affordable just makes you look stupid.

And no, we consistently rank nowhere near the top in quality of care, percentage insured, or healthcare outcomes. We're ranked 37th in performance, 1st in cost, and near dead last in percentage covered. [link]
 
But if we stop protecting the other countries that rely on us to do national defense so they can provide UHC, they will have to stop. Not to mention the fact that capitalism is the only reason we provide all the best hospitals and major medical breakthroughs in the last half century. But if you want to condemn the entire world to poorer healthcare, starting with us, that's your call. You can vote how you want. I personally like having the best and think that our ability to provide protection for those who don't defend themselves isn't such a bad thing.

I disagree that capitalism, or the promise of riches, drives innovation and breakthroughs in medical science. It factors in, but it won't disappear with UHC. Scientists don't often have the same motives as more business-like people. The quest for answers is a bigger motivating factor than money.

As for protecting other countries: the one thing about which I agree with Trump (and trust me, I hate to admit that!) is that we have been paying far more than our fair share for the defense of our European allies. They really do need to pony up a bit more, and not just in money but in soldiers, equipment, and weapons.
 
What the hell does defense have to do with this? Do you realize that every other system in the world costs dramatically less per capita than ours, right? Your claim that the American military is what makes everyone else's healthcare affordable just makes you look stupid.

And no, we consistently rank nowhere near the top in quality of care, percentage insured, or healthcare outcomes. We're ranked 37th in performance, 1st in cost, and near dead last in percentage covered. [link]

Thanks for the link.

Interesting to note that nearly all of the top 10 countries have UHC.
 
What the hell does defense have to do with this? Do you realize that every other system in the world costs dramatically less per capita than ours, right? Your claim that the American military is what makes everyone else's healthcare affordable just makes you look stupid.

And no, we consistently rank nowhere near the top in quality of care, percentage insured, or healthcare outcomes. We're ranked 37th in performance, 1st in cost, and near dead last in percentage covered. [link]

The only thing the profit motive adds to medical innovation is "treatment", rather than cures. Most wetern medicine encologists, if faced with cancer, opt for non treatment. They know this is about keeping the disease, easing the symptoms and prolonging life to maximize the profit cycle. Take that away and they will start pursuing cures. Medicines themselves will always be profitable items, but when the profit incentive is removed, medicine looks at solutions rather than symptom management. Curese will sell fine, may not be as profitable as "treatments", but there will always be a way to make money off medicine, even with a more ethical single payer system.
 
IMO the best argument, is, was and always has been, that our system, such as it is, is wholly incompatible with the Hippocratic oath. It doesn't say, "first, check the patient's insurance or ability to pay, then, do no harm".:roll:
 
(Source unknown)

Why We Need Publicly Financed​ Guaranteed ​Health Care

The FINANCIAL​ argument: It’s the smart, responsible​ thing to do.

1) We are wasting money ​by paying billions of dollars above what is spent on health
care. ​We pay high costs for ​unnecessary administrative overhead (for thousands of
private and myriad public programs), corporate profits, high salaries, marketing, and
lobbying.

2) There is a way to control costs and channel more of our money into actual health
care​. A single payer system replaces skyrocketing costs to individuals and employers with affordable income and payroll taxes. Expenses are controlled through streamlined
administration​, negotiation​ with service providers, bulk purchase​ of pharmaceuticals
and supplies, use of evidence-based best practices​ (eliminating unnecessary tests and
treatments), and needs-based planning for capital expenses​. A cost-efficient, all-inclusivesystem saves money now spent on determining eligibility, adjusting individual
contributions, and excluding people from care. It’s cheaper to cover everyone.

3) Individuals benefit financially. ​Most people will pay less for health care than they
currently pay in premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. No one will
be left uninsured and having to pay unaffordable medical bills when illness and
emergencies strike. No one will go bankrupt because of medical expenses.

4) Taxpayers get more for their money. ​What do taxpayers get now in exchange for
spending billions on private insurance for public employees? Cuts in public sector jobs
and services. As insurance plans have gotten more expensive, schools have had to cut
teachers, aides, counselors and nurses. High insurance costs have forced similar cuts
in other public agencies, from parks to the DMV. With a single-payer system, we would
be saving on health care expenses and getting more services from every public agency.

5) Employers have more money to invest in their businesses. ​The employer
contribution to the single-payer system will be less than the cost of private plans for
individual employees. With health benefits no longer tied to jobs, employers are spared
the time and expense of shopping for insurance and bargaining with unions over health benefits. Also, guaranteed health care encourages​ entrepreneurship and growth of small businesses.

6) A single-payer system strengthens the economy​. Businesses will compete better
with countries that have universal health care. With less money spent on health care
benefits, employers can price products more competitively and hire more workers.
Expanded healthcare will require new jobs that cannot be outsourced​.

Good points. I'll say it here once more, I am all for UHC, single payer, but...NO EXCEPTIONS!!!. Every single citizens of this here U.S. of A. must partake, the rich, the poor, the peasants, politicians, elite and Hollywood. All. No private add ons, no extras. If...and that is a big IF...we are equal in all regards, we should be treated as such.
 
To play Devil's Advocate on a few points:

1) We are wasting money ​by paying billions of dollars above what is spent on health
care. ​We pay high costs for ​unnecessary administrative overhead (for thousands of
private and myriad public programs), corporate profits, high salaries, marketing, and
lobbying.

Much of the time, the rhetoric around what constitutes "unnecessary" costs is based on a poorly defined line. If the sweet spot for health costs is arbitrarily identified as other OECD nations, you could say we have too many hospitals, have wages that are too high, deliver too many services and have too much care capacity, and use too many new medicines and technologies or at least get them too quickly. Others might disagree with those characterizations.

Similarly, deciding wages in a particular employment sector (one that employs about 12% of the workforce) are too high and justify creating a monopsony buyer of labor with the explicit goal of pushing them down gets at pretty fundamental questions about the appropriate role and use of government.

Regardless, it's not credible to claim that concentrating more decision-making and health dollars in the public sector is going to lead to less lobbying. Observe the current feeding frenzy whenever a new CMS rule drops today. Then up that by an order of magnitude.

4) Taxpayers get more for their money. ​What do taxpayers get now in exchange for
spending billions on private insurance for public employees?
5) Employers have more money to invest in their businesses. ​The employer
contribution to the single-payer system will be less than the cost of private plans for
individual employees.

Health benefits are part of employee compensation, public sector or private. Reducing the value of those should result in correspondingly higher wages or other fringe benefits for employees (which is good!), not savings for taxpayers or employers. The only way the latter happens is if everyone takes a compensation cut.

6) A single-payer system strengthens the economy​.

What's the economy's largest industry?
 
One contributor to this thread has cited Russia's health system as a way to criticize our current health care system.


From what I have read, you would not want yourself or loved ones to be treated in the Russian health system. For one thing, be sure to bring some cash, for I understand that medical personnel expect some special consideration before rendering services.


I hear that the health system in the United Kingdom is in a mess. People who can afford to are going to private practitioners.


And we all know that not a few Canadians come here, for their health system is not so great as they tell us.


*****


Does the American health care system need improvement? Of course!


*****


Would it be a good idea to make all doctors and nurses paid employees of the federal government? Well, would you like the kind of health system that is responsible for the health of veterans?
 
To play Devil's Advocate on a few points:



Much of the time, the rhetoric around what constitutes "unnecessary" costs is based on a poorly defined line. If the sweet spot for health costs is arbitrarily identified as other OECD nations, you could say we have too many hospitals, have wages that are too high, deliver too many services and have too much care capacity, and use too many new medicines and technologies or at least get them too quickly. Others might disagree with those characterizations.

Similarly, deciding wages in a particular employment sector (one that employs about 12% of the workforce) are too high and justify creating a monopsony buyer of labor with the explicit goal of pushing them down gets at pretty fundamental questions about the appropriate role and use of government.

Regardless, it's not credible to claim that concentrating more decision-making and health dollars in the public sector is going to lead to less lobbying. Observe the current feeding frenzy whenever a new CMS rule drops today. Then up that by an order of magnitude.




Health benefits are part of employee compensation, public sector or private. Reducing the value of those should result in correspondingly higher wages or other fringe benefits for employees (which is good!), not savings for taxpayers or employers. The only way the latter happens is if everyone takes a compensation cut.



What's the economy's largest industry?


The objective is to get everyone healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. If that is more expensive that depriving those who cannot afford it, so be it. But, funny thing, in almost every western developed nation that has UHC, or some variant, the per capita costs are roughly half of what it is in the USA. Now then, I know Americans are not as stingy with health care dollars as other countries, but it sure doesn't prove that UHC is more costly. If it is not more costly, then we should do it because it is the moral thing to do.
 
The objective is to get everyone healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. If that is more expensive that depriving those who cannot afford it, so be it.

And that's a good argument. But the OP is about the financial case and that's not nearly as much a slam dunk as often portrayed, in that it's underpinned by assumptions that are worth questioning. The single-payer entity will inherit most of the costs of our health care system, which is something we're all going to need to grapple with.

And we have to deal with the paradox of making care more affordable without inadvertently hurting the very people we're trying to help. E.g.,

The Plight of America's Overlooked Industrial Cities
These lesser factory towns, scattered throughout the Northeast and Midwest, have endured the trauma of massive job losses without being able to invest the resources that even a Detroit can bring to bear against the indignities of deindustrialization.
Despite all that has happened, the unemployment numbers for most of these small cities don’t look as bad as you might expect them to. They are a bit higher than the numbers for the rest of the nation. . . Health care and social services made up the largest employment sector in all but two of the Lincoln Institute’s 24 cities; in some of them, they accounted for nearly half of all the jobs.

Watch the U.S. transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, in one gif
In place of those missing manufacturing jobs, the health-care and social assistance industries have nearly doubled in size, from 9.1 million in 1990 to just over 18 million today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Today, the health care and social assistance industries are the largest employers in 34 states.

As workforce bleeds men, health care jobs could be key to keeping them employed
Manufacturing, agriculture and utilities, all of which employ mostly men, are projected to lose jobs over the next decade, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Meanwhile, nine of the 12 fastest-growing jobs in the U.S. are in health care, topped by occupational therapy assistants, physical therapy assistants and nurse practitioners, all positions that are held mostly by women.

OscarLevant said:
But, funny thing, in almost every western developed nation that has UHC, or some variant, the per capita costs are roughly half of what it is in the USA. Now then, I know Americans are not as stingy with health care dollars as other countries, but it sure doesn't prove that UHC is more costly. If it is not more costly, then we should do it because it is the moral thing to do.

You don't need to convince me of that, I'm all for universal health care.
 
But if we stop protecting the other countries that rely on us to do national defense so they can provide UHC, they will have to stop. Not to mention the fact that capitalism is the only reason we provide all the best hospitals and major medical breakthroughs in the last half century. But if you want to condemn the entire world to poorer healthcare, starting with us, that's your call. You can vote how you want. I personally like having the best and think that our ability to provide protection for those who don't defend themselves isn't such a bad thing.

‘We can’t afford it’ makes no sense because it’s cheaper than what we have now.
 
‘We can’t afford it’ makes no sense because it’s cheaper than what we have now.

Afford what? Sanders' Medicare For All proposal? Or something else?

Whether it ends up being cheaper depends on what specifically is done within the new structure that cuts or controls cost. Those are questions that have not been figured out.

And whether it ends up being "afforded" depends critically on whether Congress will decide to pass the associated tax increases that would be necessary to do so. The political challenges to this involve convincing Congressional Democrats to pass single payer, which by the time the vote took place they will have had a chance to figure out the predicted effects/downsides and so some may chicken out, for reasons some Democrats are already advising against single payer. But even if you assume we have the votes to pass single payer, there also have to be the votes, not just once, but ongoing, to maintain the high tax structure that would be required to "afford" it. It's not hard to imagine Republicans passing tax cuts that underfund single payer, because (1) we know how committed they are to cutting taxes, and (2) they'll probably remain opposed to single payer indefinitely. In other words, it's not hard to imagine us being unable to afford it even if for no other reason than we cannot politically maintain high taxes.
 
Back
Top Bottom