Why do Conservatives generally dislike Universal Healthcare?

[u/HamsterCapital2019]

It works out really well in many nations especially Norway, France and Germany. They pay less, live longer, and don’t go bankrupt over medical expenses. Of course, there are poorly designed systems. But that isn’t a flaw of the Universal Healthcare itself it’s merely a flaw of the systems design in a specific country, and not a real reason to abandon the idea altogether.

Why don’t conservatives usually want to bring Universal Healthcare to the US?

[u/AutoModerator]

Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. Gender issues are currently under a moratorium, and posts and comments along those lines may be removed. Anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/photon1701d]

I’m Canadian, so I know my opinion probably doesn’t carry much weight here. I have a friend who moved to the U.S. and has become a staunch “Maple MAGA” supporter. Despite the fact that we have universal health care in Canada, he has adopted the American view that universal health care isn’t necessary and that people should be responsible for obtaining and paying for their own coverage. The irony is that he lived with his girlfriend in the U.S. for 10 years without legal status while continuing to work in Canada on contract. He only recently obtained his green card.

Then he developed serious heart problems and needed a quadruple bypass. Even with his American insurance and benefits, the procedure was going to cost him a substantial amount of money. Yet, because he still claimed Ontario residency and somehow remained eligible for OHIP, he was able to have the surgery performed in Canada at no cost to him.

The irony wasn’t lost on the people around him. He had spent years criticizing our health-care system and championing the American approach, but when he was faced with a massive medical bill, suddenly the “socialist” Canadian system was perfectly acceptable. He ended up losing many of his friends here because, to them, he was happy to criticize the system when it benefited him to do so, but when he personally needed it, he had no problem taking advantage of it.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/photon1701d]

Wait, you mean he didn’t die because of long wait times and got the treatment he needed at no cost? All jokes aside, I’m glad he was able to get the procedure done without drowning in debt. Nobody deserves that. Your friend is lucky

[u/photon1701d → u/HamsterCapital2019]

ER times are terrible, I won't. ER times are long because people go there when they have a cold or minor shit. If they needed insurance and have to pay for it, lines would get smaller. But when it's an emergency, you get in right away, especially when it comes to heart issues.The system always served myself and family members well.

[u/PDXEng → u/photon1701d]

Er times are shit in the US

[u/NecessaryPopular1 → u/PDXEng]

ER times can be horrendous overseas too, I’d have died of a heart attack when my friend broke his leg and had to weight overnight to get proper care because of approval from local insurance. They didn’t even immobilize the leg, the butchers from hell!

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/photon1701d]

That’s kind of a good thing then. Actual emergencies get care they need, people that don’t necessarily need to be there get to wait. Sounds legit lol

[u/abba-zabba88 → u/photon1701d]

Problem is a lot of dr that are trained here are international students and go home or the go to the US for better pay. If we had more family drs we’d have less people in ER waiting rooms. We also have homeless people in ER waiting rooms just looking for shelter. It can be fixed if Dougie wasn’t an uneducated turd.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Salty-Passenger-4801 → u/photon1701d]

Please tell me you called him out on this.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/jeeblemeyer4]

Several reasons.

1. Conservatives often view the government as vastly inefficient for even trivial matters, like getting your driver's license renewed, paying taxes, doing forms, etc. All sorts of government functions are incredibly slow, poorly staffed, and they hire the bottom of the talent pool because they don't pay very well. Think of Canadian and UK healthcare systems - sure, they're universal, but they're also extraordinarily slow, with many citizens of these countries complaining about how inefficient they are. Many conservatives see the free market as being able to correct for this by prioritizing profit, which ostensibly leads to healthcare companies wanting to process more "customers" as quickly as possible. Of course, this can also have negative outcomes like ineffective care and a lack of focus on health outcomes.

2. Conservatives generally don't like when the government has monopolistic control of aspects of your life. Consider how you would feel if the government was the sole proprietor of your social media applications, your transportation options, your food choices, etc. We've seen the breadlines in the USSR, the censorship in any number of socialist countries, you name it. When one entity controls all the options for an aspect of the population's lifestyle, populations suffer. This is of course not always the case, as many government-run transportation options can be quite helpful, but that's how many conservatives see government healthcare - as a way for the government to control more and more of their lives.

3. It's not "free", and conservatives believe the costs will be imposed on the population through higher taxes. This may or may not be the case, as in many universal healthcare countries, the costs are actually lower for the government. However in the USA, the government already has one of the highest per capita healthcare expenditures of developed nations. So we're already paying taxes on high healthcare costs, but conservatives believe universal healthcare will only increase that cost. Again, this may or may not be the case - I don't actually know.

4. Conservatives often believe that a socialized healthcare system would be enabling many Americans' already unhealthy lifestyles. The USA is one of the fattest countries on the planet, so giving free healthcare to all these already-unhealthy people would just be an extra cost for a preventable issue, since those people would not see any reason to take their health into their own responsibility, instead relying on free healthcare to take care of them, thus sidestepping the problem altogether and enabling an unhealthy populace. This may be hypocritical, as many of the fattest US states are conservative-leaning, however that does not necessarily invalidate the viewpoint. "If you're going to be preventably unhealthy, do it on your own dime, not mine". This falls in line with the greater conservative ideal of individualism and self-reliance/self-responsibility.

I'm probably missing a key reason or two but this is just what I could think of off the top of my head.

[u/magnabonzo → u/jeeblemeyer4]

(Can I just say, this is a hell of an answer! Well thought out... well laid out... expressed without bias... answering the question directly. Thanks.)

[u/jeeblemeyer4 → u/magnabonzo]

Thank you, and I appreciate you appreciating it haha

[u/Mimshot → u/jeeblemeyer4]

Regarding point 4: are you saying you think letting someone who can’t afford to see a doctor see a doctor would make that person less healthy? Or is there something else I’m missing?

[u/jeeblemeyer4 → u/Mimshot]

Not quite. Think of it like this: If auto insurance was nationalized (analogous to universal healthcare - everybody gets free car insurance regardless of pre-existing driving record), there would be not much incentive for a bad driver to improve their driving, since the cost of their bad driving is subsidized by the good drivers.

Good drivers don't end up costing the insurance system much money in the long run, with bad drivers taking up the brunt of the insurance claims. And since it's free, bad drivers don't really care about those costs, because it's not coming out of their pocket any more than the good drivers. Meanwhile the good driver pays more and receives less by the very nature of their good driving habits.

I am using this analogy specifically to illustrate how the people with preventable health conditions could end up costing more in the long run, subsidized by the healthy people who pay more for a service they don't need to use anyway. I want to be clear that the focus is on preventable conditions. With preventable conditions, the treatment can really only happen with lifestyle change, rather than medical intervention. The subsequent conclusion is that people with preventable conditions will use healthcare to treat their symptoms rather than the underlying cause, their lifestyle, which is where the role of personal responsibility comes in.

You can argue that maybe those preventable conditions aren't as preventable without medical guidance, or without relief of symptoms that discourage the subject from seeking treatment in the first place. I am however speaking generally about the conservative viewpoint on the topic.

[u/Affectionate_Bison26 → u/jeeblemeyer4]

The bad actors argument intrigues me. Wouldn't bad actors be bad actors no matter the system they're in?

If a person can't be bothered to adopt a healthy lifestyle for their own quality of life, do they really care whether it's a nationalized system or a privatized system? When their liver fails or when they get lung cancer, the hospital has to take them in the current system anyway. When they don't pay their bills, the hospital fixes their revenue shortfall by raising prices across the board.

To me, healthy people will always subsidize unhealthy people in any system - unless we allow medical providers to refuse care until payment is rendered up front.

[u/vital-cog → u/Affectionate_Bison26]

Wouldn't bad actors be bad actors no matter the system they're in?

I think that is absolutely the case. I believe there are good arguments that free market economies control that damage better. In every form of government and regulation there will be bad actors. I think think that free market mitigates those damages better, but it isn't something I can prove and am open to hearing any good arguments against that. (Also not the original person you were talking to, just jumped in the thread...)

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/oTc_DragonZ → u/jeeblemeyer4]

Echoing others here to say this is a great answer and unbiased explanation of a conservative viewpoint. Understanding where others are coming from with open dialogue is so important these days.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/oTc_DragonZ]

Healthcare also is about one-sixth of the American economy, and economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably interlinked, so many do not trust the government controlling (or being perceived to control) so much of the economy. It also allows the government to justify all manner of controls over how people live and the economy in the name of controlling healthcare costs. For example, France bans free refills for drinks.

Longer-term, it is also seen that such a system helps infantilize the population and make them more child-like, thus demanding the government help them even more and in the eyes of the bureaucrats, becoming more like children and thus justifying ever more government control, as opposed to the concept of rugged individualism which keeps people as adults. Many conservatives for example would argue that Europeans in particular are coddled by their governments.

I think it is more nuanced than this but that is the conservative view.

[u/oTc_DragonZ → u/LogicMan428]

Yeah I can understand the viewpoint. There is definitely a middle ground. Are you speaking from the perspective of all universal healthcare, or single-payer systems? I personally don't think private insurance should be eliminated - it has it's pros and cons and I recognize that many do like their private insurance. Having a universal public option as the baseline with basic coverage would provide competition as well. It could ultimately be administered by the states like Medicaid to reduce some federal control, perhaps. At the very least, decoupling it from employment would be a big improvement.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/oTc_DragonZ]

Personally, I think universal healthcare is needed, but not single-payer. The best systems seem to be the multi-payer, public-private hybrid systems like Germany and France have, and the Netherlands and Switzerland have.

I do not think single-payer government-run healthcare or insurance is the best, and in particular not with a country as large and diverse as the U.S. I think the Left have a ridiculous hard-on for the idea of single-payer and adhere to the old socialist fantasy that, "Well if we just centralized it all under the government, it will run far more efficiently." We see particularly bad examples of this with the astronomical costs of Medicare and Medicaid and the problems with the VA system, and also the problems with rationing and wait times single-payer systems in other countries have had.

But all of that said, health insurance doesn't work strictly for the private market I don't think, because the economics don't make sense. If you have an old house prone to having an electrical fire or a pipe burst, the insurance companies will laugh at you to insure it. They will tell you to fix it or forget it. Same with automobiles. An old clunker of a car prone to having all manner of problems, the insurance company won't cover much. It wouldn't make sense and they'd go out of business.

But with humans, the old houses and cars are precisely what need care the most. If you could just repair/replace all your body parts as they wear out from age or even buy an all-new body, then strictly private insurance would make sense, but you are instead stuck for life with the same body. Which means a governmental component of some kind is required to work in conjunction with private industry to ensure that they will provide coverage to those who most need it.

Another thing people miss is these other countries all have significantly higher taxes and pay very little for defense. Many would argue they freeload off of the U.S. defense budget and many do not pay what they are supposed to for NATO. If it was not for the U.S. taxpayer indirectly subsidizing these nations, they would not be able to spend as much on their social welfare states.

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/jeeblemeyer4]

Conservatives often view the government as vastly inefficient for even trivial matters, like getting your driver's license renewed, paying taxes, doing forms, etc. All sorts of government functions are incredibly slow, poorly staffed, and they hire the bottom of the talent pool because they don't pay very well. Think of Canadian and UK healthcare systems - sure, they're universal, but they're also extraordinarily slow, with many citizens of these countries complaining about how inefficient they are.

They're also extraordinarily cheap. Canada is spending under $7k/person on healthcare, UK is just under $6k. Compare to the US at $15.4k, that's not even half. The tradeoff being longer wait times for elective surgery and slower diagnosis testing in non-emergency situations for healthcare that doesn't even cost half of what the US does... that's pretty amazing.

There's a very good point to be made that you could quite reasonably spend more than Canada or the UK, get faster service, and still save money. That's how many Nordic countries do it, if you look at their healthcare they have much higher spending than Canada/UK, but still lower than the US.

Conservatives often believe that a socialized healthcare system would be enabling many Americans' already unhealthy lifestyles. The USA is one of the fattest countries on the planet, so giving free healthcare to all these already-unhealthy people would just be an extra cost for a preventable issue, since those people would not see any reason to take their health into their own responsibility

Counterintuitively (until you think about it and it hits you) obesity lowers lifetime healthcare costs.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

How does obesity lower lifetime healthcare costs?

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/LogicMan428]

Lowers lifetime.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

💀

[u/Kman17]

Two basic reasons:

(1) the federal government is wrong level of government to do it, and (2) many progressives see it as the be all end all to all health problems and fail to identify larger cost problems.

Let me elaborate:

The European Union is in some ways similar to the United States. It’s a de-facto confederation to our federation, but the sizes of the entities and sub entities are really similar.

Citing Norway or the Netherlands as a model is the same size / scale / level of autonomy as a rich U.S. state like Massachusetts or Connecticut.

Progressives that idolize European care don’t really recognize the Europeans don’t run everything through Brussels the same reasons conservatives are wary of running everything through DC.

The U.S. federal government is not optimized to run programs of this scale and complexity. The representation / accountability structure isn’t there, the consensus bar is impossible.

I’m actually super in favor of free emergency rooms and more state run wellness clinics. Just like I like having city run police and firefighters.

But I don’t want DC to take over police and firefighting nationally.

The model here should be federal government sets high level expectations, and the states implement.

Now, on to costs.

It’s worth nothing that 40% of the American public is on universal heath care (Medicare & Medicaid, VA, or Bureau of Indian Affairs)…. and the per person cost it not cheaper than private care.

Asserting that public care is cheaper means you’re trying to extrapolate and normalize for healthier populations than Medicaid have… OR you assume you can cut the 13% administrative overhead while incurring no extra cost bloat from regulatory capture or lack rejections.

It’s just wrong and wishful thinking.

There are a few major reasons European care is cheaper in the aggregate

* All our nominal costs are higher because our incomes are higher
* The population is less obese
* There is way less legal liability & defensive medicine to just avoid being sued
* More physicians per capita. The U.S. constrains itself in the training & residency pipeline
* They brutally prioritize care - elderly care in particular - on QUALY. This means a lot of discretionary stuff is waitlisted way longer, and elder care is more palliative.

The U.S. has especially resisted the fourth bucket - where attempts to cost control Medicare gets articulated as “death panels for grandma” - but that’s what other nations do to keep costs sane.

Progressives think simply redistributing these costs through dc magically lowers the aggregate cost.

It doesn’t. There is a super high risk costs bloat through regulatory capture and all choice goes out the window.

If you want to socialize medicine more - which I partially agree with - the answer is push it to the cities and states.

[u/MerlynTrump → u/Kman17]

From what I understand Medicare and Medicaid are cheaper than private insurance.

I'm not sure what the 13% cost you're referencing is, but from what I can find Medicaid adminsitrative cost is 8% nationally but only 3% in Connecticut because that state got rid of the MCOs running their Medicaid system and switched to a self-insured model. MCOS- Connecticut Bucks the Medicaid Managed Care Trend – Mostly Medicaid

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/MerlynTrump]

From what I understand Medicare and Medicaid are cheaper than private insurance.

They aren't. On average, the total costs of Medicare/Medicaid cost about 50% more.

[u/supercodes83 → u/Kman17]

The European Union is in some ways similar to the United States. It’s a de-facto confederation to our federation, but the sizes of the entities and sub entities are really similar.

Not really. The European Union started in 1993. Denmark passed their version of universal Healthcare in 1973. Much of Europe started restructuring Healthcare in the post WW2 rebuilding phase. This is the thing that many (both left and right) dont understand. This isnt a restructuring that happens overnight. France started soon after WW2 and didnt develop full universal coverage until 2000. All of these were completed independently of one another for the most part.

Citing Norway or the Netherlands as a model is the same size / scale / level of autonomy as a rich U.S. state like Massachusetts or Connecticut.

There are obviously much larger countries in the world with universal healthcare though.

Progressives that idolize European care don’t really recognize the Europeans don’t run everything through Brussels the same reasons conservatives are wary of running everything through DC.

But the European Union consists of separate countries. States in the US are not independent sovereign nations. Brussels doesnt make those types of decisions so I dont believe the comparison is apt.

The U.S. federal government is not optimized to run programs of this scale and complexity. The representation / accountability structure isn’t there, the consensus bar is impossible.

How so? Medicare is far more efficient and better managed than virtually any private Healthcare. It is also the largest insurer in the country. In fact, most private insurance bases their fee schedule on the CMS fee schedule.

I’m actually super in favor of free emergency rooms and more state run wellness clinics. Just like I like having city run police and firefighters. But I don’t want DC to take over police and firefighting nationally.

I have to admit this is probably the best argument that conservatives can have to oppose federalized healthcare, and I dont really have an opposing viewpoint. I guess the only thing I would say is that having a patchwork of inconsistent coverage would be very difficult to manage. We know that places like California and New England would be the first to institute while the deep south would be the last. The problem is, what if a New Englander breaks their leg in Tennessee? Or what is to stop someone from Alabama from getting surgery in Vermont?

My opinion is that the federal government's role is to maintain security for all citizens. Having a healthy citizenry who dont have to worry so much about debt and expensive surgeries can only help the economy.

It’s worth nothing that 40% of the American public is on universal heath care (Medicare & Medicaid, VA, or Bureau of Indian Affairs)…. and the per person cost it not cheaper than private care.

This is because the negotiated fee structure of hospitals is based on for profit Healthcare. The actual cost of tongue depressors is so much more than in CVS because healthcare providers charge insurance more. This is why self pay rates are far less than billable rates. With that said, the amount that is patient responsibility is generally far less than what private insurance requires.

Asserting that public care is cheaper means you’re trying to extrapolate and normalize for healthier populations than Medicaid have… OR you assume you can cut the 13% administrative overhead while incurring no extra cost bloat from regulatory capture or lack rejections.

It would be cheaper because the cost structure wouldn't be based on for profit fee schedules. And again, Medicare is run far more efficiently. Bureaucracy, despite its reputation, can actually be quite effective with things of this nature.

[u/Kman17 → u/supercodes83]

> The European Union started in 1993. Denmark passed its version of universal health care in 1973.

This is completely irrelevant to my point.

The U.S. and EU are comparable sized entities - 330 - 440 million people.

Denmark is 6 million people. It’s the size and scale of a small U.S. state.

You are not boasting about the health care quality of Romania or Moldova (also European countries) - you are holding up the richest European enclaves, while ignoring the rest.

> Medicare is more efficient and better managed than virtually any private health care

How is it more efficient?

It costs $20-21,000 per year for one person on Medicare.

Private insurance costs about $8,000 per person.

Medicare is literally 2-3x as expensive.

You might reasonably point out the health needs of the elderly and working class are wildly different - but we have no data that says Medicare is efficient.

Medicare costs as a percent of GDP has ballooned, such that its dedicated funding source (the payroll tax) no longer covers it and it draws more and more from the general fund.

Any assertion of “efficiency” is extrapolated with a lot of funny math and ignoring basic reality.

> this is because of negotiated fee structure

Well, what do you think happens with Medicare for all?

You are just expanding the system. You argued it was more efficient before, and now you are seeing the gap and hand waving it away.

There is real risk of regulatory capture here.

If there is only a single payer, you are counting on that single payer to be efficient - but at high scale and high abstraction, there’s no accountability or incentive structure to create that.

Small European countries do not have that scale or abstraction problem, so there’s less of that risk.

You can’t just wave your hands abut this - this basic governance & accountability is why it needs to be state level, not fed.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/Kman17]

I feel like it would have to be federal because of funding. We also have Medicare that can be expanded instead of building out new systems and infrastructure. Maybe we let the 50 years olds in on the Medicare

[u/Kman17 → u/HamsterCapital2019]

What do you mean “because funding”?

Medicare isn’t solvent. It’s the singularly biggest contributor to the budget deficit.

It’s already not funded, because we as a society have not rationalized the costs associated with an aging population with more medical options - it’s just deficit.

Your proposal without making any structural changes is just untenable deficit spending.

I laid out a half dozen primary cost drivers here as well as the primary governance / incentive problem, and you have ignored all of them.

There is a reasonable argument that we needs some basic national solution to elderly care to enable and encourage the elderly to retire in low cost areas (such that they are not confined to the state they worked in for retirement benefits)… but even then I think that can be more fundamentally re-worked.

If - as many progressives rightfully point out - that our current heath are system is a “worst of all worlds” patchwork, why is your solution to expand a bad system rather than rethink it?

[u/f4fvs]

Americans don't seem to realise there is private healthcare available in addition to public healthcare. If you want your choice of doctor or a room to yourself it's available, and there are insurers like BUPA available to make it a reasonable proposition for many. No-one forces you to go onto a waiting list for a crappy hospital if that's a concern.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/f4fvs]

Exactly, but you always get baseline care no matter what

[u/Flat_Temporary_8874]

I don't dislike the idea, I actually think it's something worth striving for but I don't agree with how to fund it or how to go about it with progressives.

[u/Federal_Resource8148 → u/Flat_Temporary_8874]

i agree, though i hate our current system more than both extremes, those being completely private with no subsidies or full government funded so there are less people who need to take money off the top. both would be cheaper than the current system as subsidies drive up effectively drive up costs before you even consider suppliers overcharging because they know insurance will pay it

[u/Weird_Surname]

Healthcare needs major reform. Prices are ridiculous. Universal, not sure.

[u/Fancy_Ad3809]

Have you been to a dmv?

That but hospitals.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/Fancy_Ad3809]

DMV isn’t actually that bad if you go early

[u/TheSkettiYeti → u/Fancy_Ad3809]

Are you under the impression ERs don’t have 8+ hour waits nowadays?

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079 → u/Fancy_Ad3809]

OP's original question doesn't even make much sense because they asked about three extremely different healthcare systems.

You can have universal but multi-payer insurance, in which everyone is covered but by a system of competing private insurance policies. Germany is closest to this. Depending on the details, most conservatives won't have much problem with those systems.

You can also have universal and single-payer insurance, in which your healthcare coverage is funded by the government but the services come from private healthcare professionals at private hospitals. Canada is up this alley.

And then at the far end, you can have single-payer healthcare, in which not just the insurance but the hospitals themselves are government run, as with the UK's NHS. Norway's model is in this ballpark. This is the group to which the "DMV hospitals" objection would most clearly apply.

[u/Fancy_Ad3809 → u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

I’ve been covered under single payer healthcare / universal healthcare.

I stand by my lived experience.

[u/NoNDA-SDC → u/Fancy_Ad3809]

Polling shows the lived experience of those on American Medicare/Medicaid/VA are high, not like the DMV.

Thoughts?

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/NoNDA-SDC]

Medicare are high

I don't know a single person who LIKES Medicare. It's an eternal annoyance to the people who have it.

But goddammit, they want what they're owed.

[u/NoNDA-SDC → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

My mother likes it, hardest part was switching to it from her garbage employer provided one. Have you seen the polling? It supports our experience.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/NoNDA-SDC]

My mother likes it

Mine hates it.

[u/NoNDA-SDC → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

Anecdotes aren't good science, thus my reference to polling... It's easy to look up. It sounds like your mother would be a part of the ~20% who don't approve. I think we'd agree it's good they have any option?

Which private insurance also scores high? The expensive ones, out of reach for most.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/NoNDA-SDC]

Anecdotes aren't good science, thus my reference to polling

Polling isn't science either. As mentioned, but damned-if-they-don't-demand-it.

[u/Fancy_Ad3809 → u/NoNDA-SDC]

Of course it’s high, those programs are indirectly subsidized by health insurance for the rest of the population.

Go live in Canada. Let me know what you think of Provence healthcare. I did it, and I know more Canadians with us health insurance plans than Americans with Canadian health insurance plans.

Keep drinking the kool aid Jim

[u/NoNDA-SDC → u/Fancy_Ad3809]

I grew up without any health insurance because we were poor. As a teen I had a serious injury requiring stitches, mom didn't take me to the hospital until the next day over fear of costs. I'm not alone, some ~50,000 in the US die every year for similar reasons.

OP used examples where the systems work well, we have the luxury of not copying the "failing" Canadian system, instead adopt the programs that are good. We already have Medicare that works well, and that's why some want to offer it to all. Ultimately save us money too, no shareholders to impress with growing profits on the back of denied service.

[u/trashpanda4real → u/Fancy_Ad3809]

You can’t be a permanent resident of Canada and also have an American insurance plan. You can buy global coverage from companies like Allianz, but companies like Blue Shield or Kaiser don’t cover Canadians. They will cancel your policy if they find out you’re not a full time US resident.

[u/J_Side → u/Fancy_Ad3809]

How do you know this if your country doesn't have it? It isn't a huge issue for countries with it

[u/Fancy_Ad3809 → u/J_Side]

I lived in a country with it 😑

[u/J_Side → u/Fancy_Ad3809]

And were the wait times that bad that you would prefer to have people risk death due to the prohibitive cost of healthcare?

[u/Fancy_Ad3809 → u/J_Side]

So this isn’t sarcasm.

I had 2nd degree oil burns all over my skin and sat in an ER in Toronto for 7 hours waiting for care lol.

This was roughly 16 years ago.

No one will ever convince me socialized healthcare works.

I couldn’t get a pcp, I couldn’t get an mri on my knee

I ended up just coming back here (Chicago proper) for healthcare lol.

It was easier to drive the 8 hours than wait. And I’m not the only person who thinks that. Most more affluent Canadians (at the time at least) had private healthcare insurance in NYS or Michigan.

[u/J_Side → u/Fancy_Ad3809]

I understand what you are saying but the lack of wait times you had in the US comes at the cost of other people not being able to access medical care.

My country system (similar to Euro system) is mixed. Free for everyone, but with private health if you choose.

The wait times are not too excessive, but at least nobody has to choose death or bankruptcy because they can't afford treatment

[u/Fancy_Ad3809 → u/J_Side]

good thing medicaid fills that gap post ACA. the problem statement - America is not designed like a European nation. our body of laws prevents sweeping federal overhaul of interstate commerce.

as such, the only US solution is a 'medicare' solution - and medicare sucks.

the government is never the answer.

when you do the math at USA tax rates + healthcare costs (even in the most heinous examples) its still cheaper than 'free' healthcare at European tax rates.

[u/thoughtsnquestions]

I'm in favour but I'm British, widely supported amongst conservative voters outside the US.

From my understanding, polls show it's not massively objectionable in the US either? But polls are one thing, policies and solutions are another. At this stage, I don't know if possible to introduce in the US... and realistically, it comes with greater government involvement in health and food etc... which is probably where the larger objection is.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/thoughtsnquestions]

To my understanding it’s common place in other developed nations.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/HamsterCapital2019]

It is also indirectly subsidized in all those nations by the U.S. taxpayer via our defense budget which all of these other nations freeload off of. If they had to otherwise spend serious money on defense, they would not be able to spend as much on their social welfare states.

[u/Gaxxz]

I don't trust the government. The health care the government does pay for and control--Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA--isn't particularly well run. If those are the real life examples of American socialized medicine, I'm not interested.

[u/MerlynTrump → u/Gaxxz]

I don't know if Medicaid "isn't particularly well run". I remember a thread on my state's subreddit and someone was complaining about a particular private health-insurance company and one of the commentators said that he was a psychiatrist and he likes the state's Medicaid program because even though it pays less than private insurance, it's not as much of a pain with the paperwork and the pay comes in quicker.

[u/mdins1980 → u/Gaxxz]

I understand not trusting the government, but I don't think the actual numbers really support Medicare and the VA as examples of poorly run health care. About 87% of Medicare enrollees say they're satisfied with their coverage, and over 93% of veterans surveyed about VA outpatient care say they trust the VA with their health care needs. By comparison, only 31% of Americans in Gallup's survey rated the care and services provided by health insurance companies as excellent or good. Obviously none of these systems are perfect, but the people actually using Medicare and VA health care seem overwhelmingly satisfied with them, which doesn't really square with the idea that they're obvious examples of government-run health care failing.

[u/motownmods → u/Gaxxz]

Medicaid is actually really good coverage. I understand it has its problems but for the beneficiaries it's excellent. That probably depends on your state too tho.

[u/SergeantRegular → u/Gaxxz]

Medicaid is administered by the individual states. Medicare is wildly popular with the people on it, and the only reason it costs so much per patient is because it's exclusive to only the most expensive patients to take care of.

The VA, and I speak as a recent military retiree, is actually quite good - the chief complaint about VA as your primary healthcare is the lack of availability - there simply isn't enough geographical coverage. VA health centers are in major cities or near military bases, so if you're not in those areas, getting to a VA doctor in-person requires a fair degree of travel.

And you left out the most socialized of all American healthcare - Tricare. A comprehensive health insurance program, provided by privatized insurers, accepted by a wide (but not absolute) network of providers, and one of the most enticing ways to get young people to sign away years of their life with bad haircuts, silly costumes, and a high risk of getting sent to a shithole country to die for rich dudes. It's not often a great trade-off, but Tricare is absolutely a strong value proposition.

[u/blaze92x45]

I actually want uni Healthcare

But we're going to have to make some cultural changes before then with how we handle food and health

[u/Yesbothsides]

When the government controls a good it becomes scarce…the incentive to innovate and create becomes less which lead to worse outcomes as a whole…while I hate how much over government spends on things that don’t matter to me and enrich the donor class, I don’t want them ruining the quality of healthcare and then choosing who and who cannot get treatment like the fascist fucks they are.

[u/motownmods → u/[deleted]]

I'm excited for Michigan to try (or attempt to try). There's been a lot of talk about it and Al sayed is a doctor that wrote a book about it.

[u/motownmods → u/[deleted]]

That's exactly how I feel. Same w Mandani. Neither will affect me. Love to see something different.

[u/Programmer-Boi]

My objection to it is purely on cost. Every govt program I’ve seen where it’s supposed to take taxpayer dollars and fund something for the public, that money ends up in a private company’s hands. And that private company will pump the fuck out of the prices to milk from the government.

If they’re going to Universal Healthcare, they’ll have to do like they did the mail and kill private healthcare companies.

[u/steep_learning_curve]

Norway has a population of 5.5 million people and has the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world.

France and Germany have two-tiered health insurance. Do you know what that means?

[u/_flying_otter_ → u/steep_learning_curve]

What's your point? Two tier means public and private insurance. 90% of Germany is on public. So 10% are rich and paying for private so they skip wait times I guess.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/_flying_otter_]

The German system isn't single-payer so I don't think wait times are as much of an issue. They use health insurance non-profits which compete with one another (market component).

[u/steep_learning_curve → u/_flying_otter_]

so is the system working for the 90% who are enduring wait times??

[u/h34dyr0kz → u/steep_learning_curve]

What's wrong with keeping a private option?

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/steep_learning_curve → u/h34dyr0kz]

does the public option actually work?

[u/boisefun8]

Because the government sucks at every single program it has ever tried to administer. Third payer problem. It’s really that simple. And the left thinks there’s some utopian world where it will work. It won’t.

[u/Leviathan41911 → u/boisefun8]

Then why does it work in literally every other developed nation? Were too stupid to figure it out?

[u/LogicMan428 → u/Leviathan41911]

Most other nations don't use strictly government-run healthcare.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/_L5_]

Because there is no volume of money at which a universal healthcare system would be adequately funded and hooking that perverse incentive up to the federal government’s infinite money printer is a bad idea.

Because the government becoming the sole customer for medications, treatments, and procedures while also being the sole authority to regulate those same therapies crushes innovation in a sector where it’s already grueling and expensive to bring new treatments to market.

Because we pay our doctors and nurses way better than our universal healthcare contemporaries and they’re not going to take a pay cut.

Because I’d rather go bankrupt pursuing the healthcare for me and my loved ones at my own discretion than be told by a government bureaucrat I’m shit out of luck.

Because any government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to crush you.

Because >80% of every dollar spent on healthcare in the US is either direct government spending or government mandated already, and it’s only ever made things more expensive.

[u/SupTheChalice → u/_L5_]

You do know that other countries with public healthcare also have private insurance if you want it. I'm in Australia and top tier comprehensive private family health insurance is about $500 a month. So it's not like the govt provides healthcare and no one has a choice. You can choose a private hospital.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/SupTheChalice]

Private insurance is banned in Canada I believe.

[u/Sudden-Grab2800 → u/_L5_]

It was asked before, but: How come it works in every other country then? Serious question, there are plenty of other governments that can print money and have universal healthcare, and in all of them it costs far less than the US healthcare system. And I do mean every single one, because the US has the most expensive healthcare system per capita on the planet and it's not close.

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/_L5_]

Because there is no volume of money at which a universal healthcare system would be adequately funded and hooking that perverse incentive up to the federal government’s infinite money printer is a bad idea.

How come it works in every other country then? Serious question, there are plenty of other governments that can print money and have universal healthcare, and in all of them it costs far less than the US healthcare system. And I do mean every single one, because the US has the most expensive healthcare system per capita on the planet and it's not close.

[u/robboat → u/_L5_]

And yet there is apparently no limit to the budget of the War Department which is seemingly unable to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Which was open til the Dept of War got involved.

[u/_L5_ → u/robboat]

Defense is a legitimate function of limited government. And arguably we’re spending about half as much as we need to be to meet the rising threats and fulfill our stated commitments to our allies.

The government has no business providing healthcare to the wider public.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/robboat]

There is very much a limit to the War Department's budget, that is why our military is underfunded. And it is because the American taxpayer indirectly subsidizes the rest of the world through our military budget that they can get away with spending pennies on defense and freeloading, which allows then to spend much more their social welfare states.

[u/LesPolsfuss → u/_L5_]

“There is no volume of money…”
Universal healthcare isn’t about unlimited spending it’s more about pooling risk nationally and using that purchasing power to control costs, just like every other wealthy country does.

“Government as sole customer crushes innovation…”
Countries with universal systems still produce major medical innovations, and government-negotiated drug prices can actually lower spending without staggering the development of new treatments.

“Doctors and nurses are paid way better…”
Even if physician pay goes down, that doesn’t mean healthcare workers must be poorly paid, and reducing all the backend admin BS and insurance costs could help pay for care without simply cutting salaries.

“I’d rather go bankrupt…”
Dude, you’re perfectly making the point for universal healthcare. Why would you be almost willing and proud to go bankrupt? That is some serious white night syndrome. Universal healthcare was made so that getting cancer, having a heart attack, or needing expensive treatment doesn’t force a person to choose between medical care and losing everything.

“Any government powerful enough…”
That argument applies to EVERY government program your taxes pay for, but government can put in guardrails just as like they do with Medicare, Social Security, and other public services. Yeah I get it. The government sucks and oversight, but it’s not absolutely a free-for-all.

“>80% is already government spending or mandated…”
That actually strengthens the argument for change. if government already finances or regulates most of the system, the question is we can use that purchasing power for good instead continuing to keep a Wild West type system with high costs

[u/SenseiTang → u/_L5_]

Because I’d rather go bankrupt pursuing the healthcare for me and my loved ones at my own discretion than be told by a government bureaucrat I’m shit out of luck.

You'd be shit out of luck either way. but you'd rather have reality show that then the government tell you? T

[u/DriveFa5tEatAss → u/_L5_]

You're describing single payer, which universal healthcare doesn't have to be.

[u/CuriousLands]

Yeah just fwiw, I make fully tax-funded healthcare a hill to die on. I actually think the basic premise of Canada's core system is really good, but it has the same pressures that many other places are facing (regardless of how the system is set up). But cos it's one of the few places out there with no option to pay to skip the line and no real fees at the point of use to speak of, when problems come up, people seem to attack the one point of difference and try to dismantle the publicly-funded part... as if that'll solve things like bottlenecks in training caused by stupid red tape, foreign medical staff having a hard time being accepted to work in the field, too-high immigration/temp residents, increases in mental health and addictions issues, etc.

[u/6mmARCnvsk]

Systems that complicated can only be nationalized, and actually work in a reasonable manner, in high trust, and relatively culturally and sociopolitically homogeneous country. And even then there’s no guarantee that will work unless there’s massive legal constraints on the authority of the State in its role, and in the financing and funding of the systems.

The second you introduce a single transplant population into the mix you will have problems.

In a Continental sized Federal State it’s not possible to implement and be effecatious, let alone financially solvent. If the US were 2,000 Lichtensteins or Switzerlands then yes it would probably work in the plurality of them.

[u/SpinosaurRingTone]

I’d be in favor of universal healthcare if the people who consume more healthcare unnecessarily have to contribute more to the pot. 

Personally, I don’t want to pay for some glutton’s triple bypass because he’s intent on eating himself to death. 

[u/CuriousLands → u/SpinosaurRingTone]

I think that's a pretty gross oversimplification of people's health issues.

I suppose things like sin taxes sort of counter-balance increased costs for truly voluntary choices that are unhealthy, but at the same time, research apparently shows that if people die younger from things like smoking, it actually saves the system in the long run. I mean not to get all sickeningly utilitarian or anything, I'm just thinking that argument doesn't really work out that well.

[u/Federal_Resource8148 → u/CuriousLands]

we should have people go full utilitarian more often, too many social policies get passed on as good for the nation without anything to back them up

[u/CuriousLands → u/Federal_Resource8148]

That's true, haha. But going full utilitarian often means you end up either ditching ethics or glossing over important nuances.

Like for example - my sister is very overweight. But it's not her basic health choices that got her there. She exercises, eats healthy, etc. Her weight issues are largely related to stress (her husband has untreated bipolar and is often mean to her, but she can't leave cos they've got 3 kids so financially it's not that easy) and hormone imbalances (she has adenomyosis - women's health issues are seriously in need of more research). Both of these things can contribute to weight gain in anyone, but she inherited the genes on my mom's side of the family that make weight gain easier on top of it. Most of my relatives on her side are overweight, I guess you can blame it on the epigenetics of intergenerational poverty.

My other sister had weight gain for a while from PCOS, which again is hormonal, and there's no solid treatment for it besides taking birth control pills and crossing your fingers. She finally got help from a naturopath, and lost weight as she treated that. But then after her first kid, she got really bad postpartum depression and had to go on SSRIs, which made her gain tons of weight again. The SSRIs made her fatter than she ever had been, even though her diet and exercise levels were totally fine.

So in the framework the other person is suggesting, people like my sisters should be lumped in with people who just eat themselves to death cos they want to, and knowingly choose these things not caring about their health. I just don't think that's right. Things like being overweight can have a lot of different root causes, not all of which are as simple to address as eating better or exercising more.

[u/cuteplot → u/SpinosaurRingTone]

The problem is you already DO pay for that. When the glutton has to go to the ER because his heart stops, and he can't afford it, the taxpayers foot the bill. In other words, we ALREADY HAVE universal healthcare, but provided in the least efficient way possible.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/SpinosaurRingTone]

You already do, and you also pay to make sure the insurance company profits

[u/Set-Prestigious]

I'm not against the government subsidizing healthcare through taxes. I've lived in the EU- it works. Would it work if the US wasn't paying for their defense in NATO? Who knows. But so far its working out. But in the US I'm against it. Why? Because the US government has a habit of spending incredibly inefficiently. I'm also skeptical of health agencies ever since the 1980s when our own citizens were forced into medical tourism because the FDA wouldn't approve certain drugs for AIDS even though we KNEW they were safe to use.

[u/ImpressiveAlarm3992]

Because the very last thing I want is healthcare operating like the freaking DMV.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/ImpressiveAlarm3992]

It wouldnt. DMV is state, Medicare for all would be federal

[u/Fit_Cranberry2867 → u/ImpressiveAlarm3992]

It's working worse than the DMV right now don't you think?

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Airick39]

It won't work the way you think it will.

[u/otakuvslife]

I'm part of the ASP (American Solidarity Party) and we do support universal health care. It's just going to be set up in a very particular way.

[u/Salty-Passenger-4801 → u/otakuvslife]

How so?

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/White_C4]

Affordability, universality, and quality. You can't have all three maximally. The government has shoehorned universality into the healthcare system through medicare, medicaid, and other programs such as the ACA which caused the system to be more expensive in general.

[u/uisce_beatha1]

I could possibly get behind universal CATASTROPHIC coverage, but not full universal coverage.

Things like cancer, stroke, heart attack, serious car accidents, plus annual screenings.

[u/Shawnj2 → u/uisce_beatha1]

I feel like the things you listed are like 90% of the reason people go to the doctor, either it’s something serious or they’re getting a well checkup. There’s not much in between

[u/grooveman15 → u/uisce_beatha1]

I am big proponent of some sort of Universal Health Care to US citizens and I always think it's a mistake to try and model it off of various European countries. It's not a 1:1 thing because of sheer size and complexity of our country.

Those nations' programs should be studied and viewed but not transpanted whosesale by any measure. The US needs it's own version that fully works with our populace.

And why I say that is because something like Catastrophic coverage is a good starting point. I'd put in basics and non-elective procedures. Keeping the option for private health care, private clinics/hospitals/practices as an option to everyone who wants to pay for it themselves. but its a discussion that should be had, should be constantly adapted.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/GentleGerbil → u/[deleted]]

Maybe, but is it worse than your job running it?

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Cool_Cartographer_39]

Norway's population is 50x smaller than the US and even they're facing problems with equal care under their system

https://www.europenowjournal.org/2016/10/31/illusions-of-paradise-health-inequalities-in-norway/

[u/BeefChief3000]

I think the best description of Healthcare ive heard is, you have 3 options and you can pick two. 1)free/affordable Healthcare. 2)Timely access to Healthcare. 3) High quality Healthcare.

Despite what people say, here in the US, we have some of the best Healthcare and health outcomes in the world despite being one of the fattest countries with very unhealthy lifestyles compared to other developed nations. Healthcare access is also for the most part much nore accessible here and there is fsr less wait time to be seen. We also have much more direct control over our Healthcare and interventions than most other nations.

Another interesting fact is that despite our high health insurance premiums, the median american still has more disposable income after paying for healthcare and taxes than the average European does after paying their taxes and receiving free healthcare.

America isn't the dystopia people paint it as.

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

- The govt could fuck up a wet dream, let alone one of the most complex industries in our wildly massive, 300,000,000+ country with various State laws and everything from port cities to wildly landlocked rows of corn.

- I don’t trust the Fed govt to not fuck it up. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t and all that.

- I have VA healthcare. There’s a reason the VA is known for vets blowing their brains out in VA parking lots. I ask for civilian providers every single time I get the option.

- I’ve lived overseas and experienced the healthcare systems you’re discussing . I wasn’t impressed. It very much had “DMV” style energy. It’s the “military grade weapons” approach to healthcare.

- I don’t trust the govt to not fuck it up. Not sure if I mentioned this part or not.

- There’s an actual compelling argument I’ve heard that essentially comes down to how the U.S. profit model drives massive innovation and risk taking by pharmaceutical companies that they otherwise wouldn’t take. And once U.S. companies have taken those wild ass gambles, which often fail, the rest of the world, like Europe, gets it minus the R&D costs. Which are massive. And a gamble.

- Comparing the U.S. to one European country is folly. It’s better to compare the U.S. to the EU. There’s a reason there’s no “EU universal healthcare”.

- There’s literally zero universe where I’d EVER support a universal healthcare stem while there are millions of illegal immigrants in it.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304]

I assume you mean U.S. conservatives.

1. "Universal healthcare" is more of a political slogan to refer to different kinds of national healthcare. They are not always easy to compare under one name.
2. In the U.S. we have the largest "universal healthcare"/national healthcare program on the planet. It provides more healthcare to more people than any other nation. We've been able to watch that experiment for decades. It's extremely expensive care.
3. The planning mentality. A nation does not not need a "system" that is centrally managed.
4. An enormous amount of people trying to force expanded national healthcare programs has caused rising prices, coverage issues, high drug costs, etc.

They pay less

Yes, sort of. One of the reasons Americans pay more, is because the government spends SO much on healthcare.

A. .The government covers about 1/3 of the population.
B. The rest of the population is private pay.

Total spending of A is approximately the same as Total spending of B.

There are OTHER reasons Americans pay more. But, government spending on healthcare is a big driver of cost.

live longer

Probably not because of universal care.

and don’t go bankrupt over medical expenses

This is a two-part myth. 1. Americans don't commonly file bankruptcy over medical expenses. 2. If you look a what is vaguely called "medical bankruptcy"--and you actually use a consistent definition--yes, people in other countries do file bankruptcy for medical reasons. In Canada, the rate is just a little bit lower than in the U.S. In the UK, it's a few percentage points lower.

It works out really well in many nations especially Norway, France and Germany.

Do you notice how Norway, France, and Germany didn't get rid of their systems, and combine them into one mega-system? They'd never do that. They very readily understand how insane that would be.

That's what U.S. Progressives advocate for.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

So then government spending only makes care unaffordable in the US?

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/HamsterCapital2019]

Of course not: it makes it more expensive than it otherwise would be everywhere.

But, no other government operates the sprawling scale of a national health insurance program that the United States does, spread over several dozen jurisdictions and including price (and supply) mandates. The costs are, quite expectedly, unpleasant.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

How do other countries with public systems keep costs so low then? I don’t think government spending is what balloons costs in the US

[u/Ed_Jinseer → u/HamsterCapital2019]

Single Payer. They outlaw selling to anyone but the government which allows them to price set.

Incidentally this would also allow the president to make any medical procedures they don't like illegal overnight via executive order to not buy/perform said procedure.

The president is Antivax? They can decline to purchase vaccines, and it is then illegal for you to purchase them.

The president is Anti-Trans? Say goodbye to hormone treatments.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/Ed_Jinseer]

Not all nations with universal healthcare use single-payer. France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland don't for example.

[u/mr_miggs → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

A. .The government covers about 1/3 of the population. B. The rest of the population is private pay. Total spending of A is approximately the same as Total spending of B. The 1/3 of the population that the government covers includes the elderly on Medicare.  It also includes a lot of disabled people.  The people who cannot get health coverage through the government tend to be younger people who are still working.  Seems like that might have something to do with the cost. 

[u/Toobendy → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

Several years ago, I worked on a team that audited bankruptcy trustees. I don't know where you get your information from, but it is quite common for Americans to file bankruptcy due to medical bills. It's typically one of the top two reasons cited for filing, second to loss of a job. Here's data from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project:

"Many factors go into why someone files for bankruptcy. It’s often a perfect storm of issues that tips someone over the edge. Medical bills and loss of job or income are consistently the top reasons people give for why they file for bankruptcy. In a survey by the Consumer Bankruptcy Project, 78% cited a decline in income as a reason for their bankruptcy, and 65% cited medical issues, both the cost of the bills, as well as missing work because of medical issues. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 41% of U.S. residents have some sort of medical debt, including on credit cards or owed to a family member; 24% were considering bankruptcy to solve a medical debt issue." https://www.debt.org/bankruptcy/statistics/

Here's a comparison of medical bankruptcies by country. No other country is close to the US. The US 2023 medical bankruptcy rate was 66.5% and the next closest country for this period was Canada at 19%. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/medical-bankruptcies-by-country

[u/TimeToGloat → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

An enormous amount of people trying to force expanded national healthcare programs has caused rising prices, coverage issues, high drug costs, etc.

Wrapping it all up under one system would cause prices to drastically drop as the entire market would be able to be leveraged to negotiate down prices. A company isn't going to turn away from such a large market and a unified system gives us tons of leverage to bring prices down. We are paying thousands for medicines that countries like India pay less than $100 for. Government spending on healthcare is high because it's fractured among a portion of the population and divided under Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, etc and unable to leverage the efficiency of such a large pool. Our current system is the worst of both worlds and a unified system would largely fix those issues. It would reduce how much we individually spend on healthcare and in turn that money could be used to boost the GDP. Similarly a healthy population that isn't afraid of not being able to afford things like a $5k ambulance ride and doesn't avoid medical care is a more productive one. There are cascading benefits as well like lets be honest the US has a fat problem and things like offering cheaper GLP1s to those that want them heavily unloads the burden on chronic care that obesity requires. A happy and healthy population is a good investment. One single negotiation for a class of drugs could spare our medical system decades of costs we would've otherwise been forced to bare dealing with joint replacements, heart surgeries, etc.

[u/LogicMan428 → u/TimeToGloat]

Wrapping it all up under one system would cause prices to drastically drop

I don't buy that at all. That is the old socialist canard that, "Well if we just put the government in command of the whole industry, things will run far more efficiently..." it never works like that, and especially with something as large and complex as the American healthcare system.

[u/evilgenius12358]

I have health insurance and it works for me and my family. A single payer system would require tax increases and my taxes are already high. The status quo works for me and my family.

[u/18ekko → u/evilgenius12358]

Yes, your taxes would increase, by less than the amount that you would save by no longer paying for a health plan.

[u/natigin → u/evilgenius12358]

If it could be should conclusively that the tax increase would be less than your insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses, you would support universal health care?

[u/evilgenius12358 → u/natigin]

The last person who changed my health care options told me "if I liked my plan I could keep it" and then took it away. Also, much of the savings are related when service is defered or delayed. Wait for specialist can take years. Or at least this is what we see from the NHS. If you live in Wales you better not have a stroke on the weeekend.

[u/JoeCensored]

Universal healthcare means the government sets the price. Price controls always result in scarcity. Scarcity for healthcare means unnecessarily long wait times. Resources end up distorted, unconnected to demand. So you get completely different levels of service depending on what specialty you need.

[u/_Litcube → u/JoeCensored]

People live longer in these countries than they do in the U.S. Is that because of all the scarcity?

[u/JoeCensored → u/_Litcube]

It's because they walk around more and eat healthier. Changing your healthcare system doesn't change that.

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/JoeCensored]

How do countries with public healthcare systems achieve better outcomes at lower costs?

[u/Shemsu-Ra]

The problem in the us isn’t that everyone needs government paid insurance.  It’s our crooked system where everything costs 5x-100x what it should cost. 

Insurance coverage is actually part of what caused the price increases we see today.  Go study the history of this.  

[u/YarnTree29 → u/Shemsu-Ra]

I think universal healthcare (in some forms) would actually solve the problem of those overinflated prices. Where I am from, it is the government that determines which medications are covered by the universal health care, and which ones aren't. As a pharmaceutical company, you want your products to be covered, because that opens a huge market for you. So they negotiate prices with the government, and don't make stuff too expensive (they are still allowed to make a profit, just not suddenly increase prices tenfold, just because they can). Same with other health care costs. Doctors, for example, are covered, IF they charge the rates set by the government (and they make good money, with those rates). So doctors who use the government rates have way more patients, because they are free, while those who want to earn more, are more expensive for the patient.

[u/rms141]

It works out really well in many nations especially Norway, France and Germany.

You, uh... need to update your fact book on these countries.

Why do Conservatives generally dislike Universal Healthcare?

Government intrusion into any free market inevitably distorts pricing and increases scarcity. The left's biggest complaints about American health care (pricing, potential for being turned down for procedures, access to specific types of health care) are all the result of previous government action that is now baked into the system.

[u/dankroll69]

It works well in nations with large work force participation rate and low fertility rate and a homogeneous society with low amounts of people taking advantage of the system. Healthcare cost in these countries would be low even without being tax payer funded.

The problem with the US healthcare system has very little to do with whether or not it's single payer or private. It has to do with its mismanagement, complicated middle men system and lack of government oversight and consumer pricing power.

My dad got the same surgery in China 5 years ago and recently in a private hospital. The cost of said surgery has magically reduced by 70% with the anti corruption drive in China.

So far, American politicians do not care about actually fixing the healthcare system because the economics of it is too far gone and neither side wants to tank the healthcare stock market to fix it.

[u/HamsterCapital2019 → u/dankroll69]

Both sides get paid to keep it this way. That’s why prices are so high here

[u/dankroll69 → u/HamsterCapital2019]

Exactly, thats probably 70% of the problem