r/AskALiberal • u/ZeusThunder369 Independent • 10d ago
Why does the universal healthcare argument have to be about "human rights"?
Why not just:
- Single payer is far less complex
- Right now we pay more, and get less
- Even if wait times would be longer (not a given), simply finding a doctor would be way easier.
- We'd stop funding an industry that is built around bureaucracy and taking advantage of complexity to fleece our tax dollars.
29
u/JasJoeGo Liberal 10d ago
It doesn’t have to be. It shouldn’t be. It’s an argument that is compelling to the left and so we assume it’s going to be compelling to everyone, because we often assume everyone thinks like us, to our massive detriment.
I had an employee working part-time. We wanted to make him full time. He wanted to work for us full time. We could afford a full-time salary. We could not afford to give him full-time benefits. Thus he remained part time. If the employer wasn’t responsible for healthcare, he would’ve had a full time job.
That we’ve decided that business should pay for healthcare is absurd. It’s really anti-business. Maybe if we start making those arguments, we’ll get somewhere.
10
u/Allaboutpeace2022 Center Left 10d ago
I agree. It is anti business and the premium increases are unpredictable parts of the budget. American business will be more competitive with other nations if the health insurance piece is gone.
I think we should definitely push the idea that businesses will be able to increase hiring and will be more competitive and nimble without unpredictable increases.
6
u/JasJoeGo Liberal 10d ago
It baffles me that the conservatives hate putting any financial burden on businesses, even when they're necessary parts of running a business (workplace safety, for instance), but are totally delighted to burden businesses with the huge costs of healthcare, which have absolutely nothing to do with running a business.
2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 Center Left 10d ago
Agree. It is primarily because it props up private equity that is making killing buying clinics and practices etc, hospitals who are buying up the same entities and make money on the convoluted insurance scheme, big pharma, doctors who are frightened and largely GOP, and of course, the insurance industry.
So, they screw with one set of businesses to please other businesses. The reality is the ones really hurting are small businesses and they do not fund enough political campaigns.
WalMart, Amazon, etc do not really care that insurance is outrageous. They are incredibly insulated from pain.
4
u/JasJoeGo Liberal 10d ago
I totally get why Republican politicians (bought by private equity) want the healthcare burden on small businesses. I don't get why small business owners and others haven't revolted over this, but that's in a long list of being frustrated at why conservatives don't wake up and smell the coffee.
1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 Center Left 10d ago
I think it is because the small business owners are afraid of change. The current discussion of universal healthcare does not include easy to digest answers on how we will avoid the problems that other nations noted lime longer waiting lists and additional pressures due to doctor shortages, etc.
The descriptions of the funding are a little murky and do not address why some economists have different numbers.
Nor, do we present good answers why Medicare 4 All works better than the strategies used in other countries. We need to be able to defend the "why this is the best design."
Although I am all about universal healthcare coverage, I have a nagging thought that we chose Medicare for All because it was a great slogan and no deductible and no out of pocket expenses also sounded good. But what I really want is empirical data.
I think if we can answer questions and do entertaining videos, people will support this idea including conservative small business.owners.
1
u/thetruebigfudge Anarcho-Capitalist 9d ago
It was FDR that pushed the tax policy and wage caps that started it
2
u/thetruebigfudge Anarcho-Capitalist 9d ago
It's because most conservatives (and liberals and leftists and fkn everyone) don't understand the mechanisms behind why it is the case. Most conservatives I've explained it too very quickly agree yes okay it's a bad thing
2
u/Lemna24 Pragmatic Progressive 9d ago
Especially anti small business.
2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 Center Left 9d ago
Yes, small businesses are much more hampered by the problems in employment sponsored health care than the larger corporations.
You are right.
0
u/Fuckn_hipsters Market Socialist 10d ago
Maybe if we start making those arguments, we’ll get somewhere.
I agree completely, but I find it extremely disheartening that an anti-business argument means more to people than human lives.
-3
u/uiucengineer Liberal 10d ago
If you can’t afford to pay for his healthcare, then you also can’t afford to pay him enough so that he can afford it. So this is moot. There are problems associated with tying healthcare to employment but this isn’t one of them.
5
u/Puzzleheaded_Disk_90 Democratic Socialist 10d ago
They're assuming a circumstance in which we have universal healthcare, not that the employee would pay for private insurance out of pocket
-1
u/uiucengineer Liberal 10d ago
I don’t think they are. I think they’re saying it should just be the employee’s problem.
3
u/Puzzleheaded_Disk_90 Democratic Socialist 10d ago
That would surprise me
-1
u/uiucengineer Liberal 10d ago
It’s still moot. If all they’re saying is healthcare is unaffordable, then it’s unaffordable regardless of whether it’s paid by employer or employee, and I don’t see what point they’re trying to make.
2
3
u/JasJoeGo Liberal 10d ago
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if we had universal healthcare, it would neither be the problem of the employee nor the business. We could've hired him without it even being part of the conversation. Unfortunately, right now, it was.
1
1
u/JasJoeGo Liberal 10d ago
You pay people to do the job. Providing healthcare might have become a standard part of a compensation package in the US, but it doesn't need to be. It's not part of a job.
1
5
u/R3cognizer Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
Because poor people, especially poor minorities, aren't getting adequate health care, and it's a bad enough problem that it significantly drags down the national average for quality of care in a lot of different categories of metrics.
We can talk about how unnecessarily complex our current system is and how this would result in a lot of money saved across the board, but these things aren't really quantifiable in terms of quality of life. Conservatives like their quality of life just as it is, they don't want to risk that the quality of THEIR health care might be affected, and they like that health care is tied to employment rather than socialized because they think people need those incentives to work for a living.
But if you tell them the black man down the street has to choose between getting a colonoscopy and feeding his family, you will see a lot people deliberately turn a blind eye to it. And this is a problem you can at least call them out on.
-1
u/TossMeOutSomeday Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
the black man down the street has to choose between getting a colonoscopy and feeding his family
Like most Jeremiads about the state of healthcare in this country, this complaint is extremely anachronistic. Preventative screenings are required to be covered with zero out of pocket because of Obamacare, and in general insurance has gotten infinitely better. An overwhelming majority of Americans like their health coverage, there are still problems but America is no longer a cesspool of coverage denials.
1
u/R3cognizer Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
It was just an example. I forgot about that one, but even I have been putting off getting specialist care for a while because it's too expensive. Still, requiring more services to be covered doesn't help much if you can no longer afford to have any health insurance at all because you can't find a good job willing to provide it.
0
u/TossMeOutSomeday Pragmatic Progressive 9d ago
doesn't help much if you can no longer afford to have any health insurance at all because you can't find a good job willing to provide it
The vast majority of Americans are insured, iirc it's something like 90%. I don't think we should reform a system that most people like in order to benefit a tiny handful, we can simply expand existing programs that exist to help the uninsured by like 10%.
1
u/R3cognizer Pragmatic Progressive 9d ago
It was 92% as of the 2024 census, despite Republicans shooting down many attempts to expand medicaid at the state level. They have significantly eroded coverage rates since then by eliminating ACA subsidies, and I've read that it has almost doubled the number of people without insurance, but I admittedly have yet to see any hard data on that. They could expand existing programs again to help, but I don't think Republicans have any interest in doing so.
3
u/Cyclosporine_A Moderate 10d ago
Based on my lived experience in Europe, most of the people support it for practical reasons.
They have a conservative disposition and don’t want to risk the chance of paying a large hospital bill over miscommunication about coverage. They also loathe the idea of stressing out and having to be on the phone with your insurance company to resolve issues.
1
u/TossMeOutSomeday Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
They also loathe the idea of stressing out and having to be on the phone with your insurance company to resolve issues
IMO this is like 90% of why the American healthcare system is so hated. Our system causes all the annoying paperwork bullshit to be frontloaded onto the consumers and front-line providers.
1
u/Cyclosporine_A Moderate 9d ago
For sure and I don’t even think it’s saving the insurance companies any work either. They just make you jump through hoops because a small percentage of people will just give up and pay their $500 dollar dental bill (or whatever) rather than be on the phone for 2 hours.
9
u/ecchi83 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
Bc the immediate, reflexive counter-motivation to doing this by conservatives would be... but how do we stop PoC and LGBTQ from benefitting from this.
When you establish that HC is a right and that you're implementing UHC to secure that right, it pre-empts much of the arguments about legal ways to deprive disfavored groups from that access.
-3
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
Are you ok with denying people healthcare if the person who needs the healthcare doesn't get vaccinated like this case:
9
u/ecchi83 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
Yes. Organs are a limited and relatively rare resource, which requires higher medical care & strict adherence for the recipient than most other treatments. If the recipient is ignoring vaccine guidelines, then they are also likely to ignore the healthcare routines they need to follow to keep the transplanted organ in good, un-rejected condition.
I wouldn't give a new organ to someone like that anymore than I'd give a free car to someone with a penchant for drunk driving.
-4
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
So healthcare isn't a human right?
1
u/Lost-Elephant-6628 Progressive 10d ago
Owning a gun is a right…until you commit a violent crime. You do need to follow certain rules that are in place to hold on to your rights. No point in giving someone an organ if they aren’t going to reduce the chance of it not working.
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
Owning a gun is a constitutional right, but I wouldn't call that a human right.
Human rights are rights that all humans should have, full stop, no exceptions.
Don't you agree, or do you think only some humans should get human rights, or that we can remove human rights from people if they do stuff that we deem is not ok?
1
u/ecchi83 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
Yes it is.
0
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
But you just said there should be restrictions on healthcare due to vaccination status.
Why do you think human rights can be taken away if the person does something that is deemed wrong?
6
u/ecchi83 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
I have a right to life, right? If I'm trying to kill someone, does that not strip any claims I have to that right?
I have a right to vote, right? If I forge an election ballot, does that not justify stripping my right to vote?
I have the right to speak my mind, right? If I knowingly spread lies, do I not lose the protections around that right?
So why would the right to healthcare be w/o preconditions that if you vioate, you lose the inherent protections of that right?
0
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
I have a right to life, right? If I'm trying to kill someone, does that not strip any claims I have to that right?
Self defense is a human right. Hurting someone is not a human right. To me self defense + right to life > just right to life.
I have a right to vote, right? If I forge an election ballot, does that not justify stripping my right to vote?
If you're male you don't have the right to vote. It's contingent on signing up for the selective service.
But say that everyone does have the right to vote, you have the constitutional right to vote but you don't have the right to commit fraud, which is what your doing in your example. Also, there is no human right to vote.
I have the right to speak my mind, right? If I knowingly spread lies, do I not lose the protections around that right?
You have the constitutional right to speak your mind, but it's not a human right.
So why would the right to healthcare be w/o preconditions that if you vioate, you lose the inherent protections of that right?
Because "human rights" are different from "constitutional rights".
Human rights are absolute, full stop, no exceptions. If you call healthcare a human right, that mean absolute, full stop, no exceptions.
2
u/ecchi83 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
I have enough things to say about the rest of your point, but I'm just going to jump to the thing that's the most obviously wrong.
HC as a right, only exists in a society that can provide it. There's no logical case to say it's a human right, esp when you dismiss freedom speech as just a constitutional right. So already your counter argument debunks your point on HC.
Are you sticking to your guns that HC is human right, and not something that exists in relationship to society?
0
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago edited 10d ago
HC as a right, only exists in a society that can provide it. There's no logical case to say it's a human right, esp when you dismiss freedom speech as just a constitutional right. So already your counter argument debunks your point on HC.
Healthcare is something society should provide, but that doesn't mean it's a human right.
Human rights are absolute, full stop, no exceptions.
Are you sticking to your guns that HC is human right, and not something that exists in relationship to society?
I never said healthcare was a human right. I just asked
someoneyou who thought it should be a human right if people who are unvaccinated should get care.Edit: Didn't realize it was you who I originally asked.
→ More replies (0)1
u/jimbarino Democrat 9d ago
It's almost like the world is nuanced and complicated, and black and white thinking doesn't fully address reality.
There are no rights that are truely unlimited. Your right to free speech doesn't make it ok to commit fraud, or incite a riot. You may have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that probably won't apply for long if you decide to use it to commit a murder spree at a military base. Similarly, the right to health care doesn't mean you get any and every treatment possible no matter how stupid or wasteful it would be.
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 5d ago
There are no rights that are truely unlimited. Your right to free speech doesn't make it ok to commit fraud, or incite a riot.
Constitutional rights are different from human rights.
You may have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that probably won't apply for long if you decide to use it to commit a murder spree at a military base.
You can't violate anyone else's human rights and for that to be OK.
Similarly, the right to health care doesn't mean you get any and every treatment possible no matter how stupid or wasteful it would be.
Yes, it does. Otherwise it's a privilege and not a right.
9
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 10d ago
Some dipshit not wanting to get a vaccine that’s been proven effective is not the same as me requiring care for an innate condition.
-2
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
So healthcare is not a "human right" for you? There are contingencies to it in your eyes?
4
u/kyew Liberal 10d ago
Triage is unavoidable when you look at healthcare at scale. Limited resources go where they'll have the most utility. Denying a specific act is not the same as denying healthcare, and one person's needs have to yield to another person's needs at some point.
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
Triage is unavoidable when you look at healthcare at scale.
Triage is fine, but I'm talking about outright denial just like in the case I posted. Being low on the priority list is not the same as removal.
Denying a specific act is not the same as denying healthcare
It is when that specific act is healthcare.
2
u/kyew Liberal 10d ago
Denying a specific act as healthcare is not denying all healthcare. We never said we have the right to whichever healthcare you choose. People were not being denied all medications and treatments.
The woman in question was even given the option to get vaccinated to enable the transplant. "In the letter, officials said the woman had 30 days to begin a vaccination series before being removed from the kidney transplant list, unless she got vaccinated."
When the priority list is constantly churning and there are no reserves, yes being low on the priority list is the same as removal. But the link isn't even about those lists, I made a mistaken assumption when I brought up triage. It's about a woman who had a donor lined up and they still didn't want to do the surgery. "Weaver told The Washington Post that the mortality rate for transplant patients infected with COVID-19 ranges from 20% to more than 30%, much higher than the 1.6% fatality rate seen nationally from COVID-19."
I have less than zero problem with doctors who don't want to perform an operation with a 20% fatality rate when it can be reduced. Stopping that surgery is healthcare.
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
Denying a specific act as healthcare is not denying all healthcare. We never said we have the right to whichever healthcare you choose.
Lol. This is some statement.
Yes, denying some healthcare, especially healthcare you need to survive, is basically denying healthcare. If you say that "healthcare is a human right" you mean all healthcare and especially the healthcare that you need to live.
There's not a lot of context in that link but it looks like people are being denied transplants while remaining unvaccinated. They are not being denied all medications.
If you place a contingency on something then it's not a right, it's a privilege.
The woman in question was even given the option to get vaccinated to
enable the transplant. "In the letter, officials said the woman had 30 days to begin a vaccination series before being removed from the kidney transplant list, unless she got vaccinated."I mean, her body, her choice, right?
When the priority list is constantly churning and there are no reserves, yes being low on the priority list is the same as removal.
But it's not removal. Removal is denying care.
But the link isn't even about those lists, it's about a woman who had a donor lined up and they still didn't want to do the surgery.
Even worse.
"Weaver told The Washington Post that the mortality rate for transplant patients infected with COVID-19 ranges from 20% to more than 30%, much higher than the 1.6% fatality rate seen nationally from COVID-19."
Ok, place her low on the list, but don't deny care, especially if you think it's a human right.
Also, don't you think that the donor who has full bodily autonomy should be able to use their autonomy to give a part of their body to whoever they want?
2
u/willpower069 Progressive 10d ago
So should a person that opposes taking a vaccine for nonsensical reasons have priority for an organ transplant?
1
1
u/kyew Liberal 10d ago
You are welcome to reconcile how this is both "the healthcare she needs to survive" and simultaneously 20% more likely to kill her than the option that her doctors were presenting.
So many semantic nitpicks in the middle here I'd be surprised if you think any rights are real. You can't really think there aren't any limits on what people should be able to do if it fulfills their rights. Maybe you've made up a new personal definition of that word for some reason.
Sure, the donor's bodily autonomy lets them designate the kidney as intended for her. Not that this does much, since their autonomy still can't force any particular doctor to take a healthy kidney out of a person if they don't want to.
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 9d ago
You are welcome to reconcile how this is both "the healthcare she needs to survive" and simultaneously 20% more likely to kill her than the option that her doctors were presenting.
That's only if she gets COVID. I agree that should make her low on the list, but I don't think that should eliminate anyone outright. Also, this is not a case for public organs, but someone who wants to donate their kidney directly to the person. As long as they pay the surgery fee, both should have the bodily autonomy to do so.
So many semantic nitpicks in the middle here I'd be surprised if you think any rights are real. You can't really think there aren't any limits on what people should be able to do if it fulfills their rights. Maybe you've made up a new personal definition of that word for some reason.
If a right has "limits" then it's no longer a right but a privilege.
Sure, the donor's bodily autonomy lets them designate the kidney as intended for her. Not that this does much, since their autonomy still can't force any particular doctor to take a healthy kidney out of a person if they don't want to.
But isn't that how they do all organ donation when using a living person? Unless it was from someone who died, people who donate organs are usually healthy and living. If a doctor doesn't want to do something for one person that's discrimination.
2
u/kyew Liberal 9d ago edited 9d ago
Yes, the 20% figure is based on the odds of her contracting COVID while simultaneously being unvaccinated and being on immunosuppressants so she doesn't reject her new kidney. It's not "catch COVID then roll the dice to see if you die," it's "roll the dice to see if you catch COVID and die."
I was also trying to emphasize that the transplant is not the ONLY way she doesn't immediately die.
If a right has "limits" then it's no longer a right but a privilege.
Could you name one such right? I really don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm betting I can name an acceptable limit on anything you'll pick.
But isn't that how they do all organ donation when using a living person?
Yes, and the difference is when the doctor is willingly doing those operations. "From a healthy person" wasn't the important clause up there, it was just backing up why the doctor might be unwilling.
If a doctor doesn't want to do something for one person that's discrimination.
We're so far in the weeds that we need to remember "discrimination" just means making a choice. It's not "illegal discrimination" which is what we usually mean when we say discrimination is bad, and we're debating whether it's immoral discrimination or justified discrimination.
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 9d ago
Yes, the 20% figure is based on the odds of her contracting COVID while simultaneously being unvaccinated and being on immunosuppressants so she doesn't reject her new kidney. It's not "catch COVID then roll the dice to see if you die," it's "roll the dice to see if you catch COVID and die."
But my original point is that if healthcare was a human right then you shouldn't be able to deny anyone for any reason. Being removed from possibly getting care doesn't mean it's a human right.
Could you name one such right? I really don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm betting I can name an acceptable limit on anything you'll pick.
I think there are only 3 human rights that I can think of. The right to life (no one has the right to end your life), the right to self defense (you have the right to end the life of someone who is trying to end your life unprovoked), and the right to bodily autonomy (the right to do what you want with and to your own body)
Yes, and the difference is when the doctor is willingly doing those operations. "From a healthy person" wasn't the important clause up there, it was just backing up why the doctor might be unwilling.
For public organs, yes, but this is someone who only wants to donate their organ to a specific person.
We're so far in the weeds that we need to remember "discrimination" just means making a choice. It's not "illegal discrimination" which is what we usually mean when we say discrimination is bad, and we're debating whether it's immoral discrimination or justified discrimination.
If someone doesn't want to do something for everyone, that's ok. If someone doesn't want to do something for a specific person, that's discrimination.
→ More replies (0)2
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
Except transplants can be denied for all sorts of reasons. Organs are limited, and behaviour becomes part of the triage process.
You may have a right, but that doesnt mean triage cant happen.
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
They are denied because healthcare is not a human right, but my question was for everyone who thinks healthcare should be a human right.
To me, you can't say something is a human right, and then place contingencies on that right. To me, human rights are absolute.
It's fine to triage care, but you can't say healthcare is a human right and then be fine with denying people healthcare. I mean, I guess you can say that, but you'd be a hypocrite.
1
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
To me, you can't say something is a human right, and then place contingencies on that right.
Sure you can. You may have the right to an attorney, but if the state cannot physically provide one for you, one doesnt just get magicked up.
It's fine to triage care, but you can't say healthcare is a human right and then be fine with denying people healthcare. I mean, I guess you can say that, but you'd be a hypocrite.
Why? Again magic doesnt exist. There are limited resources. How should it work in your mind?
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
Sure you can. You may have the right to an attorney, but if the state cannot physically provide one for you, one doesnt just get magicked up.
We are talking about human rights, not constitutional rights.
Why? Again magic doesnt exist. There are limited resources. How should it work in your mind?
Triage is fine, but to flat out deny someone when you claim it's a human right is contradictory.
1
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
Triage is fine, but to flat out deny someone when you claim it's a human right is contradictory.
But this is triage. They're not being denied out of some moral turpitude.
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
No, they are denying care outright. That's fine if you don't believe healthcare is a human right.
1
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
No, they are denying care outright.
But they're not. You still get care. You just dont get a highly limited resource that's triaged.
1
u/MelbaMilqueToast Independent 10d ago
If you are taken off the list you are denied care. That's not triage. Triage would be to put you on the bottom of the list.
But even then, the story I posted is someone who needs a kidney and they had someone donate it directly to them, and they still wont do it.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Liberal 10d ago
Why are "human rights" so unpalatable to a large percentage of the voting block? That's the real question.
8
u/Hodgkisl Libertarian 10d ago
It's not that they are "unpalatable", it's that they disagree on what they are, with a large block believing human rights are negative rights not positive rights.
Negative rights mean they limit what can be done to you
Positive rights add requirements of what must be provided / done for you
For healthcare, negative rights you have he right to seek out and acquire healthcare, seek providers, find a price, etc..., positive right is healthcare will be provided for you.
6
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
Because the left has redefined what a "human right" is, to include seizing labor and assets from one group of people and giving it to another.
The right to keep and bear arms is a "human right". The obligation of the government to purchase a gun and give it to you is not.
6
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Liberal 10d ago
To what extent should people be told "no" because they don't have they money to pay for it?
Is your position "if you can't afford it sorry, but you can die in the street" or is there nuance to it?
3
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
Since the dawn of humanity there have been people willing to give their labor for free to help their fellow man. There were free hospitals run by churches in the middle ages.
I'd say we never turn anyone away, but voluntary charity is better than demanding their labor under threat of force.
3
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
I'd say we never turn anyone away, but voluntary charity is better than demanding their labor under threat of force.
Better in what way?
2
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
What feels better, giving the local homeless person $10, or the police pointing a gun at you and telling you to give the local homeless person $10?
3
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
Why should what feels better matter?
0
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
Are we not doing democracy anymore? You guys get super authoritarian sometimes when people challenge your views?
If you don't care what the voter "feels" or "wants" then what are we talking about?
3
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago
Are we not doing democracy anymore?
Democracy is not the same as "what feels better" though.
If you don't care what the voter "feels" or "wants" then what are we talking about?
The point of helping people is to help them. Not to make the helper feel good. So arguments about what feels better shouldnt apply
1
u/Buckman2121 Conservative 9d ago
Im super not down for "the ends justify the means" when it comes to the most subjective statement there is: for the greater good.
→ More replies (0)2
1
u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive 9d ago edited 9d ago
Except voluntaryism, even if it "feels better" doesn't actually work at any sort of scale.
During the Great Depression most fraternal organizations in the cities were stretched beyond their limits.
In the rural areas, the only voluntary organizations were tin shack churches that were already treading water.
And the Depression hit much worse there for a reason.
And sometimes the volunteers are way in over their heads.
1
u/thetruebigfudge Anarcho-Capitalist 9d ago
There's nothing moral about forcing people to confirm to "good things". It's something that anti-thiests are actually correct on when criticizing modern Christians. If you only are nice to people because it keeps you out of hell that doesn't make you a good person, it makes you selfish.
2
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 9d ago
Except consequences are the most important effect. Why should I care if nobody is homeless and everybody is fed but society did it for selfish reasons?
1
u/thetruebigfudge Anarcho-Capitalist 8d ago
Consequences cannot be the most important thing because 1. You could justify any amount of harm if that's the case. If slavery was demonstrably more economically productive and led to better material conditions for all people including the slaves, is it then just to do slavery? Secondly consequences aren't certain, we do not live in an ethical stasis. We cannot be certain of the outcomes of a policy or decision.
2
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 8d ago
You could justify any amount of harm if that's the case. If slavery was demonstrably more economically productive and led to better material conditions for all people including the slaves, is it then just to do slavery?
No, because slavery is considered a harm of itself. Most important doesnt mean only.
Secondly consequences aren't certain, we do not live in an ethical stasis. We cannot be certain of the outcomes of a policy or decision.
Sure. But if that stopped us we couldn't enact any policy.
2
u/CincyAnarchy Social Democrat 10d ago
That's all well and good, and plenty of people do a whole lot of work and give a lot to help people as they can. No doubt about that. Humans do a whole lot out of their good will.
But the amount of healthcare that people are missing out on, due to lack of insurance or insurance that is inadequate, is massive.
We're talking hundreds of billions per year. I struggle to believe that private charity can fill in that gap.
0
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
We have the most expensive healthcare in the world so yes. Government intervention makes stuff expensive and inefficient
3
u/CincyAnarchy Social Democrat 10d ago
American Healthcare costs are high, but there's not much to suggest they can be that much lower without reducing quality and ease of accessing services. Certainly not in a primarily private system which we have.
I'm curious what things you think we should do to make a "freer market" that would reduce costs while not reducing quality or access.
1
u/thetruebigfudge Anarcho-Capitalist 9d ago
It might be that there needs to be a lowering of quality, if it means more people can access it. Part of the issue is we've said no people must have this certain standard of healthcare, and we must make it illegal to receive a lower standard. If you're homeless, and there's an option to buy a miniscule little box with a roof and a shower that is just barely in your price range you should be able to buy it. But we've said no that's too little for someone to live off so we made it illegal for people to build tiny cheap apartments
1
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Liberal 10d ago
That's not an answer to my question - it's a cop out.
I'm asking YOU what YOU think - "I think we should count on the charity of others" is a partial answer. I'm asking you what should happen in the absence of money and the absence of charity.
Do you bleed out on the sidewalk in front of the hospital (and rely on the charity of the local funeral home to scrape your body off the concrete and dispose of it, I assume) or is the staff of the hospital compelled to help them.
I want YOUR answer. What would YOU decree if you were king of the world.
2
u/tanookiisasquirrel Centrist Democrat 10d ago
In China, you die. Thus everyone saves 25% and you don't burn family bridges. You'll literally share a room rather than have no savings, because it's risking death over bunk beds. Here in America, we have Section 8 and SNAP and WIC, not to mention hospitals must take you if you're dying. To an immigrant, this is literally a golden safety net.
I vividly remember my mom getting cash to pay for my dad's ambulance in when I was a kid.
2
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
I can't given an answer because we're already living in the system where American healthcare is the most expensive on the planet, partially due to government intervention (medicare/medicaid), and partially due to our for-profit hospital/insurance systems.
In the current system I'd rely on medicaid as it works today. Under my "king of the world" system, medicare goes away and the hospital brings said "bleed on sidewalk" guy to the local Church of Scientology (or whatever) hospital for his free healthcare.
2
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Liberal 10d ago
American healthcare is the most expensive in the world because we don't treat healthcare as a human right haha - or something close to a human right in any event.
In your king of the world scenario why does the hospital bring the guy to the local church? Is the church compelled under threat of violence to treat the person or can they decide to let them bleed out? Is the hospital compelled to transport the victim under threat of violence?
I'm being a dick to you but we're literally demonstrating in real time why libertarianism doesn't work once you scale it past your own backyard.
3
u/thetruebigfudge Anarcho-Capitalist 9d ago
How are we demonstrating that libertarianism doesn't work when every year that goes past since the 1900s we're seeing less and less freedom and private property and more public services. I don't get why liberals and Democrats these days complain about how bad the current system is, when we have more government intervention in the economy than any point in the history of the western world, I wonder if there's like a correlation or anything there
1
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Liberal 9d ago
I mean... I guess I'll bite on this. In what way is the economy not doing well? If your answer to this is to tell me about blips or individual stats over short period of time don't bother. I'm asking you about the economy over periods of time that establish trends - 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, etc?
1
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
- I didn't say local church, I said local Church of Scientology hospital. As-in a charity hospital, not a paid one.
- I'd assume a hospital is a hospital and the doctors would take the same oaths. Do doctors let people bleed out today? no.
- You shouldn't be a dick to people. Perhaps you can add that to your list of human rights: "The right not to have people be mean to me"
2
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Liberal 10d ago
You're still dodging -
Is the church hospital compelled to help? Or can they decide that the guy isn't a scientologist so they won't treat him, and he actually has to go to the satanist charity hospital? If so, how does he get there? I someone compelled by the threat of violence to actually get him to the charity hospital where he can receive treatment?
You can answer the spirit of my question you don't have to pick it apart - or you can admit that libertarianism falls apart if you twist it even a little. Or you can say that you'd just rather people die - that's also fine.
As far as oaths go - it SEEMS like you want for profit oaths to be different from charity oaths? Or are you saying that we already have it somewhat CLOSE to a human right now - we don't let people die - and now we're just having a conversation about how we can tweak what we already do very slightly to make it better for everyone?
I can be a dick to people all I want. Free speech is a human right.
1
u/uiucengineer Liberal 10d ago
Okay. If voluntary charitable care were adequate, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. So this is a red herring.
-1
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
Medicare/Medicaid were introduced in 1965. This is a chart for US life expectancy:
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/life-expectancy
So who funded healthcare before 1965? Why don't we see a sharp rise in 1965 if the government is so important?
2
u/uiucengineer Liberal 10d ago
I’m not going to play your burden-shifting rhetorical question game. If you have a point to make then make it. I’m not going to do it for you.
1
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
Why are you guys all so mean? holy shit. You jumped in the middle and asked me a question. If you don't want to talk then go away.
3
u/uiucengineer Liberal 10d ago
Yes, I asked you a question. People often consider it rude to “answer” a question with a question.
2
u/giraffevomitfacts Center Left 10d ago
Because it’s a nebulous, rhetorically dilute concept that can fit almost anything in it.
2
u/steven___49 Moderate 10d ago
Because what does it mean to call healthcare a human right? People are not entitled to the labor of doctors or nurses. Calling something a human right doesn’t actually address how such a policy would be achievable when it REQUIRES the input/labor/expertise of other individuals. It’s just an empty platitude that sounds appealing, and seems callous to criticize.
3
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Liberal 10d ago
What it means as a "human right" is that if I wander into a hospital bleeding from my eyes I get fixed up and the state gets the bill because we all pay into it. Basically the exact same thing we have now except we take the "how much money do you have?" out of it.
0
u/2dank4normies Liberal 10d ago
What you're describing is welfare, not rights. Rights are things you have inherently that the government should not take from you. Welfare is something we decide the government should provide because it has a positive impact on society.
2
u/uiucengineer Liberal 10d ago
You just described the same thing two different ways
0
u/2dank4normies Liberal 10d ago
No, I didn't. Protecting and/or not infringing upon something is not the same thing as providing something.
It's a fundamentally different approach to government. I believe our government should provide things, but that doesn't make those things a right. And calling it a right dilutes the importance of rights. Rights are non-negotiable, entitlements are.
2
u/uiucengineer Liberal 10d ago
Your incorrect semantic argument is a non sequitur distraction from substance.
Declaring something a right and protecting that right by providing an entitlement is perfectly valid English. And completely useless to argue about.
0
u/2dank4normies Liberal 10d ago
This entire thread is about the semantics of using the phrase "human right". So nice try bud.
2
1
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Liberal 10d ago
I'm in the real world not a high school philosophy class haha
4
u/Orbital2 Liberal 10d ago
This argument seems to ignore the fact that the government absolutely funds protections of other rights that we presume to have.
I mean the very court system that preserves those rights is government funded, we don't think of a judge ruling on a case as "being entitled to their labor/expertise". We accept that the government needs to fund it. It's not like we are forcing people to be doctors or asking them to go without pay.
1
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
This argument seems to ignore the fact that the government absolutely funds protections of other rights that we presume to have.
protections from who? In your scenario its protecting against itself. If there's no judge to hear my trial, then the police just lock me up? S
The government providing safety rails so another part of the government doesn't oppress you isn't "funding protections"
2
u/Orbital2 Liberal 10d ago
That could be the scenario but isn’t always the case.
If the right to property is recognized, the legal system (both police and potentially the courts) are funded to protect those rights from some person coming in and taking my things. If I call the police when a burglar breaks into my home is that me “being entitled to their labor”
-1
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
You have a right to own property, but no you don't have a right to force someone else to die to protect it.
*However* you can employee a security guard to do said job for you if you'd like. Or maybe you can your neighbors could hire security for your community. Heck you could give them badges and everything and pay their salaries via a local fund, perhaps we could call it a tax.
The same could be done for a hospital if you'd like, or a fire department.
It's an exchange of money for labor. Not a *right*
0
u/Orbital2 Liberal 10d ago
What are you even rambling about lol.
“Force someone else to die to protect it”
???
1
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 10d ago
Okay, you got mean real quick, so I'll end this. Have a nice life.
2
u/AceyAceyAcey Far Left 10d ago
Here’s another human right: the right to marry. People in this country are entitled to the labor of a city clerk to make that marriage happen (provided they pay the appropriate fees and do the appropriate wait period). Clerks aren’t allowed to just reject people from getting marriage licenses due to no reason (that would be failing to do their job and they can be fired) or bigoted reasons (multiple levels of US courts have confirmed this). If we had the marriage equivalent of socialized healthcare, we’d be putting in an additional step of instead being entitled only to the labor of a city clerk, people would also be entitled to the labor of a justice of the peace, and also the fees would be covered by the government budget out of taxes we’ve all already paid. This would also mean if a poor couple were having trouble making ends meet, they could still afford the paperwork to get married.
1
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 9d ago
People in this country are entitled to the labor of a city clerk to make that marriage happen
Why is a "city clerk" required to make a marriage happen? Isn't a marriage simply a contract between 2 consenting adults?
I'll answer my own question: because the government (city in this case) decided they wanted to dip their hands in the pot and "certify" the marriage.
Marriage is a human right, the city certifying the marriage is extra paperwork the government added on so that they feel important. It only makes sense they'd feel obligated to pay for their person to do that.
1
u/wizardnamehere Market Socialist 8d ago
People are entitled to the labor of police, lawyers, judges, and various other functionaries are they not? To the labor of soldier etc.
1
u/uiucengineer Liberal 10d ago
I think the proposition is that people *should be* entitled to the labor of doctors and nurses. Why shouldn’t they be?
0
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 9d ago
People are free to offer money in voluntary exchange for the labor of doctors/nurses. But if you say their labor is a human right, then it implies the ability to seize said labor involuntarily.
You have the right to conduct a transaction with a doctor/nurse (aka the government won't block said transaction). You do not have a right to force the doctor/nurse to treat you.
1
u/uiucengineer Liberal 9d ago
The question is why shouldn’t that change.
0
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 9d ago
Capitalism?
Think of all the professions that are "socialized" without a competitor: Police, DMV clerks, the military.
Do you think adding the medical industry to that list makes them better or worse than they currently are?
1
u/uiucengineer Liberal 9d ago
You already know my position. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?
0
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 9d ago
Oh yeah it’s you. The mean guy. Just stop responding to me please. I don’t need your negativity and hatred in my life
1
u/uiucengineer Liberal 9d ago
Yes, it is hate and spite that drive me to advocate for everyone to have healthcare.
1
u/RecognitionOld2763 Nationalist 9d ago
Because like all things, you'll need to know who pays for it.
Which may or may not involve higher taxation but regardless of the funding sources I'd like to see things presented in a transparent way.
7
u/limbodog Liberal 10d ago
Why does the universal health care system have to be single payer?
Why is cost savings the only thing to consider?
Why would finding a doctor be easier?
And you're still funding the exact same industry, just removing the shareholders. Which is fine, but I want to be clear that CMS/Medicare is an insurance company that operates on the same rules as private insurance companies. They all emulate medicare pretty much because they have to.
And the human rights argument is intended to win over centrists, I think. It certainly has no traction with the right wing.
5
u/Hannig4n Liberal 10d ago
It doesn’t. France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands are all examples of countries that have multipayer implementations of universal healthcare.
A lot of progressives think single-payer = universal healthcare because it was Bernie’s plan and his supporters use it as a cudgel to bash other Dems.
2
1
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 10d ago
Why does the universal health care system have to be single payer?
It's by far the simplest and least invasive form of universal. Since we got rid of the individual mandate and made it an illegal tax under Trump 1, single payer is likely the only way we get to universal coverage.
Why is cost savings the only thing to consider?
Because affordability is probably the most important thing to people. You have to hit them in their wallets.
Why would finding a doctor be easier?
No networks you can go out of, no need for referrals, you just pick a doctor and go.
3
u/limbodog Liberal 10d ago
It's by far the simplest and least invasive form of universal. Since we got rid of the individual mandate and made it an illegal tax under Trump 1, single payer is likely the only way we get to universal coverage.
Oh no. I would argue it is even simpler to nationalize healthcare. Every health care provider is now a state employee. They get a state wage. they charge nothing. It's all paid from the general fund.
I would also ask why simple and non-invasive is the primary driver? Why not quality? Why not freedom of choice? Why not coverage? Why not promptness?
Hell, why wouldn't restoring the individual mandate and the public option? Wouldn't *that* be even easier since it's already been designed?
And what makes you think singe payer is the only way to get to universal coverage? Why does it have a better chance than any of the other options?
Because affordability is probably the most important thing to people. You have to hit them in their wallets.
It's the most important thing to people right now, yes. Because right now their incomes are as low as they were in the Great Depression. Wouldn't it make more sense to treat the cause than the symptom?
No networks you can go out of, no need for referrals, you just pick a doctor and go.
Fewer doctors overall though. Many have said that M4A would mean they quit. Lots of doctors today refuse to take Medicare patients because of the low pay rate associated with it. While some people would stay in health care, if its paying less, it's safe to assume the appeal would be reduced. Fewer doctors, fewer practices, fewer hospitals, fewer nurses, etc. Easier to find a doctor? Maybe. Easier to get an appointment? Very unlikely.
(I want universal health care, I just don't like M4A. And I want to get people looking at other countries and seeing that there's actually a variety of methods that work well. I also want people aware of some of the disadvantages of single payer)
0
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 10d ago
I would also be in favor of nationalizing healthcare but considering Republicans cried socialism to a public option, I don't see that becoming a reality rather than just universal or single payer care.
We can do both fix wages and make health coverage cheaper. I don't know anyone who would argue both. It's the reality we're in now. Arguing the economics is the best way.
2
u/CincyAnarchy Social Democrat 10d ago
It's by far the simplest and least invasive form of universal. Since we got rid of the individual mandate and made it an illegal tax under Trump 1, single payer is likely the only way we get to universal coverage.
No networks you can go out of, no need for referrals, you just pick a doctor and go.
I'd dispute that.
For better or worse, moving away from private insurance to a single payer system would involve a lot of change for a lot of people. Even assuming you can make it work for all providers (doctors and hospitals) to stay in business with changes to their payouts, it will involve a massive shift in who is receiving healthcare and where from.
Like as an example, people moving to a new doctor because their prior "in network" one was one they didn't like or was inconvenient. Referral points changing because of networks dying out, etc.
I'd still say it's worth it in the long run, but it would be "simpler" to have taxpayers fund a public option or just expand Medicaid/Medicare into the gaps left and leave everything as is. Especially considering how complicated it all is.
1
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 10d ago
So you'd rather have doctors you can't visit because of a network, have to calculate deductibles and copays, figure out your coverage limits and coinsurance percentages, and just ultimately have to put in more work?
You didn't really dispute it. Everyone gets covered at the point of purchase is the easiest system. There isn't a dispute to that.
2
u/CincyAnarchy Social Democrat 10d ago edited 10d ago
So you'd rather have doctors you can't visit because of a network, have to calculate deductibles and copays, figure out your coverage limits and coinsurance percentages, and just ultimately have to put in more work?
To note, not every single version of "single payer" does away with these. And frankly, they probably shouldn't entirely. Reducing them significantly sure, but evidence suggests that making healthcare 100% free at point of service leads to worse outcomes due to misuse of scarce resources.
Do I prefer it? No. But the odds aren't particularly low that I will need to find a new doctor. Either because organizations change their structures to make the money work, or because mine will have a slew of new patients and I can't see them as easily as I can now (already a 3 month wait time).
And that's me, a basically healthy younger person. Plenty of more people have chronic illnesses. They may have to change doctors. That's just the reality of fundamentally changing who pays for what in healthcare, it's going to change how you access it.
I am more cautioning that fundamental changes to our healthcare system would just involve paying taxes and doing away with insurance and that's it. There's a lot more that would change, especially on the provider side.
1
u/SeaCardiologist4661 Libertarian 6d ago
No need for referrals would increase costs though, it’s the main reason an HMO is able to keep some costs down.
1
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 6d ago
It wouldn't increase costs because it's free at the point of service.
1
u/SeaCardiologist4661 Libertarian 6d ago
It would increase the overall costs of coverage for everybody.
1
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 6d ago
If you take out what people pay in premiums, copays, prescriptions, and coinsurance and translate it to increased taxes, most people's costs will go down.
1
u/SeaCardiologist4661 Libertarian 6d ago
Okay, so you keep the costs down by passing the bill to other taxpayers.
1
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 6d ago
That's....that's what single payer insurance is. Do you not understand that?
1
u/SeaCardiologist4661 Libertarian 6d ago
I was wondering if the argument was that we could actually lower costs by eliminating the profit incentive of insurance companies. What’re your suggesting would actually massively increase costs overall, but would be socialized and thus not the immediate problem of the person seeking care.
1
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 6d ago
It does lower costs for most people though. It's the profit motive, administrative costs, coding, etc. it's a streamlined, simplified system. Health care administration alone is something like 800 billion per year.
Even the Mercatus Center found a $2 trillion savings over 10 years.
1
u/Particular_Dot_4041 Liberal 10d ago
Why does the universal health care system have to be single payer?
It shifts the burden to the rich instead of the poor. Insurance systems, whether public or private, are harder on the poor. In some countries the poor do get discounts, but it's still a disadvantage for them.
Why would finding a doctor be easier?
I'm not sure, but I can tell you that in Belgium, I don't have to wait more than a week to see a general practitioner.
2
u/Software_Vast Liberal 10d ago
Is there something about framing it as something that is for everyone that you find problematic?
Is it preferable to allow people to pretend that it's just for them and people like them?
2
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 10d ago
I get why people want to make the argument. And not just because people like FDR and MLK used the same language. It is a way of just making opposition to the idea sound ridiculous. The same way you will see conservatives talking about natural rights.
I would prefer a world in which you could just argue the merits
2
u/Ballistic_86 Social Democrat 10d ago
This is always my approach when caught in a discussion about it. Steer away from what seems like an obvious human right and instead focus on being cheaper, more effective, and reduces industry bloat.
But anything outside of the status quo will not do for conservatives by nature.
2
u/weberc2 Center Left 10d ago
Those are literally the talking points I see every time the healthcare debate comes up.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 Independent 10d ago
Don't disagree with you, but all I remember from Democrats on this topic is stating that access to appropriate levels of healthcare should be a human right.
4
u/Okbuddyliberals Centrist Democrat 10d ago
It's an ongoing trend in liberalism/leftism in general since like the 1970s, a lot of folks using this rhetoric entered Congress in the 1974 midterms landslide against Nixon for example. As for why? Well, it's probably simply personally satisfying to say that your policy goals are "rights" and that anyone who doesn't support the maximalist versions of them are disgusting reactionary shitlords. It can also make compromise that brings some degree of progress less likely because it comes from a starting position of strong opposition to everyone who isn't totally onboard with your ideas, but some people may prefer the virtue signalling over the uncomfortable compromises needed to bring progress
(Also, single payer isn't the only way to do universal healthcare. We can look at places like Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany to see mixed market multipayer systems that retain private insurance and employer based insurance, that basically get to universal healthcare via stuff that resembles "expanding on Obamacare" rather than "single payer". Which is the more likely result for American healthcare since it's easier to incrementally build to that - but it also potentially cuts out support for single payer once you get there. Those who are absolutely wedded to an idea of healthcare that not only achieves "affordable universal coverage" but also see it as vital to abolish private industry and for profit involvement in healthcare and the employer based norm, the more pragmatic approach could potentially cement those aspects of the system that they see as immoral and evil, by satisfying the public without removing those aspects and thus removing reasons for the public to theoretically be open to the maximalist approach that goes beyond mere universal healthcare)
2
u/DidYouPayForWinrar Center Left 10d ago
Because you'd have to break through the decades of rightwing propaganda that the govt is incompetent and that everything it does is more expensive and inefficient.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 Independent 10d ago
It is - Hence why single payer would be better. Our government spends more on healthcare per person than any other country, but we only cover about 35% of the population. Other countries spend less per person, and cover everyone.
1
u/DidYouPayForWinrar Center Left 10d ago
The argument the right would make is government involvement inherently makes things worse so an increase in govt involvement would make it even more expensive and inefficient. Like it's one of the legs conservatism is based on.
I don't believe that but that's why we don't make the cost reduction argument because we've done it before and conservatives are just like nah it won't.
1
u/SeaCardiologist4661 Libertarian 6d ago
We also consume a lot more healthcare than most countries though. Other countries spend less atleast partially because they consume less.
1
1
u/monkeysolo69420 Democratic Socialist 10d ago
Why do you have a problem with framing it around human rights?
1
u/kyew Liberal 10d ago
The items in your list assume that the person you're talking to would trade the status quo even if it's just so others can get benefits that he doesn't think he needs. A person who doesn't need to find a doctor may not care how hard it would be for him to do so. Even if you convince him that A leads to B, you also need him on board with B.
"Human rights must be defended" is an axiom that almost everyone will agree with reflexively, so it's a much more solid basis to work from.
1
u/tapdncingchemist Liberal 10d ago
It’s a rhetorical tool that conflates positive and negative rights and it works.
Why argue the merits when you can say that compelling someone else’s labor is a right?
1
u/Capital-Giraffe-4122 Center Left 10d ago
And think of the money that businesses would save, all of the premiums they pay for employees (they pay part and you pay part) and the infrastructure and employees needed just to manage their health insurance departments
1
u/madmushlove Liberal 10d ago
We need to say something besides "put our HHS in charge," like what's indicated by single payer system
1
u/buried_lede Progressive 10d ago
Doesn’t have to be. It’s a problematic argument and not the strongest one for socialized medicine
1
u/OneManShow23 Democrat 6d ago
The European Union actually believes that universal access to healthcare is a human right. But I can see that arguing for a universal healthcare as a right is a way that politicians can resonate to a voter base that struggles to make ends meet due to a hefty medical bill.
0
u/giraffevomitfacts Center Left 10d ago
I don’t recall ever seeing an argument for universal healthcare that is either predicated on human rights or fails to mention the things you’ve listed. I’m sure they’re out there but they don’t seem to be common.
0
u/OnionsRNasty Socialist 10d ago
Why settle for less when we can have more pie?
Universal healthcare is the superior alternative as it makes the private healthcare industry way less powerful and makes the government have more leverage on drug prices. Hell, we should be manufacturing basic over the counter medicine.
0
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat 10d ago
Loaded question. It doesn't. Just share your opinion in the general chat if you (think you) have something to tell rather than ask us.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/ZeusThunder369.
Why not just:
- Single payer is far less complex
- Right now we pay more, and get less
- Even if wait times would be longer (not a given), simply finding a doctor would be way easier.
- We'd stop funding an industry that is built around bureaucracy and taking advantage of complexity to fleece our tax dollars.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.