• 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!

How to argue for universal health care

jaeger19 said:
BWAAAHHHH...that's a pipe dream.

Actually unlikely. At best it will be a wash and for many of them..they will end up with worse coverage if its a wash. IF its cheaper..they will have less coverage.

Well since most of the premiums are paid by employers.. its going to be real hard for her to decide what is cost to the middle class. Particularly since the employer premiums cover the poorest worker to the richest.
Click to expand...



Even it's an even trade, or taxes are modestly higher than premiums, the fact that all citizens will have health care, once all the kinks are ironed out ( no doubt righties will kick and scream all the way ) it is worth if from a civillized society standpoint if everyone is covered.


All dems hear from the right is "you can't get there from here, so we are not going to even try".



Pragmatically speaking, I'm for the public option, which will allow the millions who are not covered by an employer plan to be covered

I'd be for M4A, if there were enough people supporting it, and note that if that were the law of the land, employers would no longer have to be health care providers, and wouldn't that be a boon to business?
 
RE: why we force each other to pay for fire and police departments
jaeger19 said:
Because it protects you to.
Click to expand...

So does a system of healthcare. No matter how smart, hardworking, or good looking we think we are, we are all vulnerable to losing our jobs and businesses and healthcare coverage. It's OK if our neighbor can't afford a large screen TV if that happens. But it's not OK to watch their 4-year-old die of some easily treated condition when they hit such hard times. Healthcare is not just another commodity. It's about life and death.

So why is forcing each other to pay for police cars and firetrucks OK, but when it comes to an ambulance it's socialist tyranny? It makes no sense.
 
OscarLevant said:
you are just throwing up reasons not to do anything about anything. Let's get the health care problem solved, first, then we'll talk about what to do with those who do not have housing or food. There is foodstamps, so housing the homeless, that's another problem.




I"ve talked to over 100 people from Canada, Scandinavia, and France. The question I always ask people from these countries is this:

Would you trade your country's health care system for that of America's?


I'd say out of that 100, 99 said no, and not just no, but "hell no!".

The World Happiness Report, which surveys happiness levels of citizens in countries world wide, which country in 2019 was the happiest?

Finland,

World Happiness Report - Wikipedia


If you go back to prior years, Norway, Iceland, etc.

Never America.


It's not just about money, it's about feeling good about your country, your life, being happy. There are other factors beyond the bottom line.

You repubs and Trump got to break out of the transactional box you guys live in
Click to expand...

If this is your goal, why did the democrats design a system that was as horrible as the ACA? There was no universal coverage about it, even for the poor and the working poor.
 
Drawdown said:
If this is your goal, why did the democrats design a system that was as horrible as the ACA? There was no universal coverage about it, even for the poor and the working poor.
Click to expand...

Because of Republican resistance. The dems were trying to "compromise". Even with that though, they still managed to drop the uninsured rate in this country to below 10% for the first time in its history.

Now they are being faulted for not going far enough? Well I guess next time they will remember not to do so. There is clearly no good faith effort by the Republicans to meet them in the middle. They should just be ignored completely and a decent real system set up as soon as possible.
 
ataraxia said:
Because of Republican resistance. The dems were trying to "compromise". Even with that though, they still managed to drop the uninsured rate in this country to below 10% for the first time in its history.

Now they are being faulted for not going far enough? Well I guess next time they will remember not to do so. There is clearly no good faith effort by the Republicans to meet them in the middle. They should just be ignored completely and a decent real system set up as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

There was no good faith effort by the dems to negotiate with the GOP on the ACA. McCain warned that what they were doing was bad because geography shouldn't matter in the level of coverage but the ACA was going to make that a problem. He was right. If the dems had not imposed the mandate, a lot less litigation would have been involved and if they had fully funded medicaid expansion there would have been no basis to not do it.
 
Drawdown said:
There was no good faith effort by the dems to negotiate with the GOP on the ACA. McCain warned that what they were doing was bad because geography shouldn't matter in the level of coverage but the ACA was going to make that a problem. He was right. If the dems had not imposed the mandate, a lot less litigation would have been involved and if they had fully funded medicaid expansion there would have been no basis to not do it.
Click to expand...

Eric Cantor and numerous other House Republicans had already made it crystal clear that they were not cooperating under any circumstances. Boehner just flat out said "we will not compromise". And McConnell in the senate did not say "hopefully we will figure out a way to negotiate something we can all be happy with." He just said "our only goal is to make Obama a one-term president." Yeah that's real constructive and helpful there. Those dems really dropped the ball on negotiating with a willing negotiating partner there, huh?

Well, don't worry. They learned their lesson now and will do better next time.
 
Masterhawk said:
I don't think that's how economies of scale works. Economies of scale typically results from lots of the same thing being produced whereas healthcare meets all sorts of different needs. Also, I'm not sure that public schools spend less per student than private schools.



Look at this picture
View attachment 67266791

It's often used to argue in favor of universal healthcare as the countries with universal healthcare are lower than the US. The problem is with the other countries. Can you list a single one of those countries where spending per capita has gone down? I'm not talking about the US, we both know that it's plagued by problems. I'm talking about the alternative that is used by the other countries.

As for taxes, at least you acknowledge that UHC would cost more taxpayer money. It's worth asking whether the tax system can be completely progressive or whether taxes will have to rise for the middle class as well. The scandinavian countries which Sanders points to as proof that his policies will work actually have rather high value added taxes (similar to sales tax except it taxes every point where the value rises rather than just the final product).
Click to expand...

The USA spends more than 5% of GDP more than the mean of the others. They must know something you don't, there's a massive saving right there.
 
OscarLevant said:
It's really lazy to throw up a video that is 15 minutes long an ask forum members to debate what is spoken.


If you want me or anyone, to debate the points type the salient points you are suggesting, so we can respond to each without having to retype them, so can respond point by point.

Otherwise, I can't say you have suggested anything.


When I put up a video, I usually try and put up a video that has a single premise or just a few, hopefully it's not 15 minutes ( or longer ), so it's easy to respond to it, your video has a laundry list of things and is 15 minutes long. That's just too cumbersome.


Help us out, eh?
Click to expand...

Here are the points:

1. Don't compare UHC to the American healthcare system

He says that America's healthcare system is broken because of overregulation (even before the ACA) and thus should not be used to argue in favor of UHC.

2. stop calling healthcare a right

He basically calls it slavery

3. Acknowledge the problems with UHC

Here, he talks about rationing and how whether you get to see a doctor in Canada depends on whether you win a lottery and some bureaucrat in Sweden decides whether you get an ambulance.

4. Explain why politicians keep promising to fix it and keep exempting themselves from it.

He shows these videos as proof that Canadian health care may not be perfect as UHC proponents are making it out to be:
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube

He also said that Obama exempted his "cronies" from the ACA.

5. Stop playing the blame game

He chides leftists for blaming conservatives for the long waiting times when the NHS still covers boob jobs. He also said that these problems seem to happen regardless of who is in charge. When Tony Blair was PM, a lady pulled out her teeth in protest of waiting so long to which he told her, "I simply cannot produce more dentists".

6. Learn some economics

Says that the solution to rationing is the price mechanism. Basically, high prices are a signal to build more hospitals or for more people to become nurses or doctors. Talks about the defibrillator and how for years, it could only be used by a licensed physician. After the regulation was removed (at the plea of nurses and rescue workers), the price went down.

7. Don't act like profits are bad or that profit seeking doesn't exist in your system

Talks about how government control over healthcare has stifled medical innovation. Compares the MRI to smartphones, the latter was allowed to go down in price but the government started price controlling the former pretty early on. Also talks about the selling of organs and how making it illegal has created long waitlists.

8. Either justify rationing or come up with a solution for it

self explanatory

9. Answer the questions in this video

It's this video (maybe you already saw it before). It was posted on this thread awhile back
YouTube

The question is why UHC proponents aren't pushing for the solutions in the video.

10. Acknowledge the gun in the room

Him being a libertarian, he's of course gonna say that UHC is an initiation of force

11. Explain how the end justifies the means

Asks whether UHC is really worth it, considering the downsides. Also goes into selective dorsal rhizotomy, a procedure done in children with cerebral palsy which has been successful in the US but is only being considered in the UK.


He has a transcript with all the sources right here:
https://www.deviantart.com/shanedk/journal/How-to-Argue-for-Universal-Health-Care-474635164
 
Manc Skipper said:
The USA spends more than 5% of GDP more than the mean of the others. They must know something you don't, there's a massive saving right there.
Click to expand...

My point was that it's still rising in the other countries.
 
ataraxia said:
Eric Cantor and numerous other House Republicans had already made it crystal clear that they were not cooperating under any circumstances. Boehner just flat out said "we will not compromise". And McConnell in the senate did not say "hopefully we will figure out a way to negotiate something we can all be happy with." He just said "our only goal is to make Obama a one-term president." Yeah that's real constructive and helpful there. Those dems really dropped the ball on negotiating with a willing negotiating partner there, huh?

Well, don't worry. They learned their lesson now and will do better next time.
Click to expand...

So you named 3 of the otherwise hundreds of republicans that could have been won over had the democrats negotiated, but nope the Kenyan declared that the election was over and it had consequences. A highly defective stab at a real problem in which millions of working poor were left out completely so women making $75K could get free birth control sure made a difference, well at least to the women too cheap to pay a copay for some birth control.
 
Masterhawk said:
Here are the points:

1. Don't compare UHC to the American healthcare system

He says that America's healthcare system is broken because of overregulation (even before the ACA) and thus should not be used to argue in favor of UHC.

2. stop calling healthcare a right

He basically calls it slavery

3. Acknowledge the problems with UHC

Here, he talks about rationing and how whether you get to see a doctor in Canada depends on whether you win a lottery and some bureaucrat in Sweden decides whether you get an ambulance.

4. Explain why politicians keep promising to fix it and keep exempting themselves from it.

He shows these videos as proof that Canadian health care may not be perfect as UHC proponents are making it out to be:
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube

He also said that Obama exempted his "cronies" from the ACA.

5. Stop playing the blame game

He chides leftists for blaming conservatives for the long waiting times when the NHS still covers boob jobs. He also said that these problems seem to happen regardless of who is in charge. When Tony Blair was PM, a lady pulled out her teeth in protest of waiting so long to which he told her, "I simply cannot produce more dentists".

6. Learn some economics

Says that the solution to rationing is the price mechanism. Basically, high prices are a signal to build more hospitals or for more people to become nurses or doctors. Talks about the defibrillator and how for years, it could only be used by a licensed physician. After the regulation was removed (at the plea of nurses and rescue workers), the price went down.

7. Don't act like profits are bad or that profit seeking doesn't exist in your system

Talks about how government control over healthcare has stifled medical innovation. Compares the MRI to smartphones, the latter was allowed to go down in price but the government started price controlling the former pretty early on. Also talks about the selling of organs and how making it illegal has created long waitlists.

8. Either justify rationing or come up with a solution for it

self explanatory

9. Answer the questions in this video

It's this video (maybe you already saw it before). It was posted on this thread awhile back
YouTube

The question is why UHC proponents aren't pushing for the solutions in the video.

10. Acknowledge the gun in the room

Him being a libertarian, he's of course gonna say that UHC is an initiation of force

11. Explain how the end justifies the means

Asks whether UHC is really worth it, considering the downsides. Also goes into selective dorsal rhizotomy, a procedure done in children with cerebral palsy which has been successful in the US but is only being considered in the UK.


He has a transcript with all the sources right here:


https://www.deviantart.com/shanedk/journal/How-to-Argue-for-Universal-Health-Care-474635164
Click to expand...

There's UHC, and then there's UHC< so I'm not going down any anecdotal rabbit hole, not for now, anyway.



There are logical fallacies in the libertarian view.

Even in a free society, there are limitations placed on freedom. There is freedom, yes, it can never be absolute. Absolute freedom becomes chaos.


What libertarians are calling "slavery" are taxes they don't want to pay. If that is true, then there's a fallacy there, and I will explain it in another reply, but first......


Either you believe ALL taxes are slavery, and oppose ALL taxes, or you believe taxes are not slavery, in principle.

There is no shade of grey on this, so I need to know where you stand on that point.
 
Drawdown said:
If this is your goal, why did the democrats design a system that was as horrible as the ACA? There was no universal coverage about it, even for the poor and the working poor.
Click to expand...


Many dems saw Obama caving on this, and ACA was a compromise. Obama offered it because the idea was originated by a conservative think thank, and he had the mistaken belief that, because it was something he thought dems would accept and repubs would accept.

How wrong he was.


I don't know about ACA for others, but it worked beautifully for me.
 
OscarLevant said:
There's UHC, and then there's UHC< so I'm not going down any anecdotal rabbit hole, not for now, anyway.



There are logical fallacies in the libertarian view.

Even in a free society, there are limitations placed on freedom. There is freedom, yes, it can never be absolute. Absolute freedom becomes chaos.


What libertarians are calling "slavery" are taxes they don't want to pay. If that is true, then there's a fallacy there, and I will explain it in another reply, but first......


Either you believe ALL taxes are slavery, and oppose ALL taxes, or you believe taxes are not slavery, in principle.

There is no shade of grey on this, so I need to know where you stand on that point.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly the "taxation is theft" type. Though, the other points are worth considering.
 
Neomalthusian said:
But let's have this libertarian explain how he expects to convince the country to repeal Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. How do we sell the idea of amenable mortality as a means of cost control to the masses? I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

very simple.

1) We make all existing health care payments illegal, have all the money flow to the govt and then sent back to each American in the form of a check for $10,000 each year, or.

2) install medicare for all and then slowly raise co pay until people are paying 100% or about $3000 per year for a saving of $7000 per person. Do you understand?
 
OscarLevant said:
Either you believe ALL taxes are slavery, and oppose ALL taxes, or you believe taxes are not slavery, in principle.
Click to expand...

dear we have to put up with lots of things we don't like, like death and and taxes. We have to accept some things and try to minimize them to the greatest extent possible. NOw do you understand?
 
OscarLevant said:
There's UHC, and then there's UHC< so I'm not going down any anecdotal rabbit hole, not for now, anyway.



There are logical fallacies in the libertarian view.

Even in a free society, there are limitations placed on freedom. There is freedom, yes, it can never be absolute. Absolute freedom becomes chaos.


What libertarians are calling "slavery" are taxes they don't want to pay. If that is true, then there's a fallacy there, and I will explain it in another reply, but first......


Either you believe ALL taxes are slavery, and oppose ALL taxes, or you believe taxes are not slavery, in principle.

There is no shade of grey on this, so I need to know where you stand on that point.
Click to expand...

Shane Killian is an ancap so he likely views all forms of taxation as theft, not just UHC.
 
Drawdown said:
So you named 3 of the otherwise hundreds of republicans that could have been won over had the democrats negotiated, but nope the Kenyan declared that the election was over and it had consequences. A highly defective stab at a real problem in which millions of working poor were left out completely so women making $75K could get free birth control sure made a difference, well at least to the women too cheap to pay a copay for some birth control.
Click to expand...

First, I am republican.. and am involved in politics to a degree.

There were no republicans that could have been "won over if the democrats were willing to negotiate". The democrats were willing to negotiate. They tried everything to make it bipartisan. Republicans absolutely refused to having anything to do with Obamacare. Heck.. they chastised and called Rino; the republicans that voted to even get it out of committee.

The idea that the democrats would not negotiate was pure bunk.
 
Drawdown said:
So you named 3 of the otherwise hundreds of republicans that could have been won over had the democrats negotiated, but nope the Kenyan declared that the election was over and it had consequences. A highly defective stab at a real problem in which millions of working poor were left out completely so women making $75K could get free birth control sure made a difference, well at least to the women too cheap to pay a copay for some birth control.
Click to expand...

Those 3 were the party leadership.
 
Under our market based economy, we should be solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources to the extent possible and increase market based participation.
 
Pareto Optimal public policies, please! The left should be about promoting and providing for the general welfare, at the expense of the general warfare.
 
jaeger19 said:
The idea that the democrats would not negotiate was pure bunk.
Click to expand...

they would negotiate but only in the communist direction which was opposite of what Republicans wanted; so there was in effect no negotiation. Do you understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom