Healthcare

[placidchap]

Wasn't sure on how to do a poll, but:  How would you like a countires healthcare system to be run?

Privately run? per the USA
Run by the government? a la Canada
Both? (e.g. everyone is covered, but if you want to pay extra, you can get a private doctor/surgeon/etc and skip the longer wait times.....just an example, could be any other combination)

At the very least I would prefer a government run method.  It is their duty to take care of the citizens and as such, providing a basic level of healthcare is necessary for a better, more productive society.  A healthy person does not miss work and a healthy person is (probably) more apt to find a job.  Health is a basic human right and privatizing Health care is an injustice to the society.

How about privatizing the police or the firefighters?  You were just saved by a policeman from a mugger!  But you don't have police insurance....too bad, that will be $250.  Your house is on fire!  But you didn't pay the firefighter company, so they did not put the big medallion on the front of your house, so the firetruck drives by while throwing a brochure for their firefighting services at you, yelling "Choose Blazebegone Co!"  I'm sure my point is clear now....oh wait...I am dying!  but I don't have health insurance...or I do actually!  Yes!  But...it is a preexisting condition, better luck next time...
And I'm spent.
 

[Patchy]

I'll have to say I'm a big fan of universal healthcare (government run) 'a la Canada', being a Canadian myself. It's not a 'perfect' system and many people complain about wait times, but in all honesty I feel it's superior to not getting any treatment at all. And being born and raised here, not being able to get treatment for an injiry because someone lacks the necessary capital is ridiculous.

I also feel that it's dangerous to institute a two-tiered healthcare system. Although doctors wages paid by the government make for some very comfortable living on their part, if given the chance to work a private practice where the money is almost guaranteed to be better I don't think there would be many doctors willing to stay with the government. I can't help but see the government funded healthcare system eventually eroding as a result of that.

I seriously lol'd @ your example about 'police insurance' - very creative, and it gets the point across nicely.

[Radical_Dreamer]

At the very least I would prefer a government run method.  It is their duty to take care of the citizens and as such, providing a basic level of healthcare is necessary for a better, more productive society.  A healthy person does not miss work and a healthy person is (probably) more apt to find a job.  Health is a basic human right and privatizing Health care is an injustice to the society.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a world in which we can enforce notions of health being a basic human right. There will always be illnesses aflicting people. Should they go to their congressman or their doctor about those? You can argue that universal health care is (or derives from) a basic right, but to say that good health itself isn't really meaningful.

How about privatizing the police or the firefighters?  You were just saved by a policeman from a mugger!  But you don't have police insurance....too bad, that will be $250.  Your house is on fire!  But you didn't pay the firefighter company, so they did not put the big medallion on the front of your house, so the firetruck drives by while throwing a brochure for their firefighting services at you, yelling "Choose Blazebegone Co!"  I'm sure my point is clear now....oh wait...I am dying!  but I don't have health insurance...or I do actually!  Yes!  But...it is a preexisting condition, better luck next time...
And I'm spent.

That can be an argument against anything you don't want to pay for. Observe: How about privatizing clothing stores? Spring is on the way and you want some new, lighter clothes. But you don't have the money for it, so I guess you'll have to wear the clothes you have!

If you want to argue that something should be government run, you should argue that either whatever it is the duty of the government to provide or that the government is the most effective means of providing whatever it is.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Health care isn't a basic human right, but it is a duty upon a republican/democratic government to provide free and good healthcare to the people.

Maybe a system like this: all hospitals are privately run. However, the government pays for EVERYTHING. Now, this might sound silly because this will be very expensive for the government, as it can be seen for normal citizens struggling to pay for various operations. But, the government, and it's agencies, are far more resourceful than we are. They have far more legal knowledge, and more power, and more time, to fight for a fair payment. So we go in, get fixed up, and the government is left with the bill.

[placidchap]

government  It is their duty to take care of the citizens and as such, providing a basic level of healthcare is necessary for a better, more productive society.  A healthy person does not miss work and a healthy person is (probably) more apt to find a job.  Health is a basic human right and privatizing Health care is an injustice to the society.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a world in which we can enforce notions of health being a basic human right. There will always be illnesses aflicting people. Should they go to their congressman or their doctor about those? You can argue that universal health care is (or derives from) a basic right, but to say that good health itself isn't really meaningful.

If you want to argue that something should be government run, you should argue that either whatever it is the duty of the government to provide or that the government is the most effective means of providing whatever it is.

Sorry I did mean that heath care is a basic right, not just 'health'.  I did say that it is the government's duty to provide it.  I just went on a tangent afterwards.... 

That can be an argument against anything you don't want to pay for. Observe: How about privatizing clothing stores? Spring is on the way and you want some new, lighter clothes. But you don't have the money for it, so I guess you'll have to wear the clothes you have!

...though I still think my tangent is on point, considering clothing stores are privatized...and having a different set of clothes for each season is not in the same league as having police, firefighters or proper access to good health care.  That is basically comparing sunflowerseeds(a rotating wardrobe) to grapefruits(health & safety). Also, it isn't because I don't want to pay for it...because you do through higher taxes, which I am fine with.  You pay one way or the other, it is just better for a society as a whole, if everyone throws into the pot, rather than some poor soul having to foot the thousands out of pocket.

Health care isn't a basic human right, but it is a duty upon a republican/democratic government to provide free and good healthcare to the people.

Maybe a system like this: all hospitals are privately run. However, the government pays for EVERYTHING. Now, this might sound silly because this will be very expensive for the government, as it can be seen for normal citizens struggling to pay for various operations. But, the government, and it's agencies, are far more resourceful than we are. They have far more legal knowledge, and more power, and more time, to fight for a fair payment. So we go in, get fixed up, and the government is left with the bill.

I'll still have to say that access to proper health care is a basic human right, per the non-binding "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".  Sure it isn't law, but it is a proper set of rights for any human on earth, at least in my opinion.
I quite like that idea of a system, to be honest thats the best one I've heard.

[MsBlack]

That government money isn't going to materialise out of nowhere.
~
I think concurrent universal and private healthcare works in certain places due to poorer folks being unable to afford private healthcare (and sometimes in reality not universal healthcare, but I digress) and hence turning to universal healthcare while the more affluent who are able to afford it support private healthcare.

For example, the UK has an NHS and allows private healthcare. Despite the availablity of private healthcare, very, very few people buy it. The smaller the market for private healthcare, the fewer people can be employed in it and hence those who wouldn't be able to find a job in private healthcare turn to universal healthcare. If you see what I mean[, Patchy]...

[Patchy]

Excellent point about the UK.

[Burning Zeppelin]

@MsBlack: Government money can come out of thin air: through tax. If the American people are too stupid to realize how well extra tax can be spent, maybe they don't deserve free healthcare. Oh, and maybe they should stop worrying about Iraq, save a hundred billion dollars, and spend it on healthcare.

@placidchap: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all well and good, but does that mean it is a "human right"? Human rights imply that humans have inherent rights at birth. This is simply not true. It may be if they are born within a certain nation-state that they will get rights, but rights don't come out of the womb with you. And really, the only human right you can really back up is the right to self-determination.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Health care isn't a basic human right, but it is a duty upon a republican/democratic government to provide free and good healthcare to the people.

How so? A republic is simply a form of representative government. There is nothing intrinsic to either a democracy or a
republic that requires it to provide healthcare for the people.

Maybe a system like this: all hospitals are privately run. However, the government pays for EVERYTHING. Now, this might sound silly because this will be very expensive for the government, as it can be seen for normal citizens struggling to pay for various operations. But, the government, and it's agencies, are far more resourceful than we are. They have far more legal knowledge, and more power, and more time, to fight for a fair payment. So we go in, get fixed up, and the government is left with the bill.

That idea has problems. While the government may have greater capability to negotiate better rates, they have no motivation to do so. Since the fat cats aren't paying with their own money, they have no object to just raising taxes to pay for whatever the healthcare providers ask for. So instead of distributing the cost burden of health care so that it's reasonable for all, you wind up taking the unreasonable cost of healthcare for an individual, and multiplying it out to every tax payer, even those who don't need it.

There's no such thing as the government being left with the bill, particularly when it's a universal (national, really) system you're talking about.

[MsBlack]

@MsBlack: Government money can come out of thin air: through tax. If the American people are too stupid to realize how well extra tax can be spent, maybe they don't deserve free healthcare. Oh, and maybe they should stop worrying about Iraq, save a hundred billion dollars, and spend it on healthcare.

@placidchap: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all well and good, but does that mean it is a "human right"? Human rights imply that humans have inherent rights at birth. This is simply not true. It may be if they are born within a certain nation-state that they will get rights, but rights don't come out of the womb with you. And really, the only human right you can really back up is the right to self-determination.

Exactly, the money would still come from the people, contrary to what your "and the government is left with the bill" statement would suggest.

I would dispute that it is the only right one can back up. For example, the right to self-determination requires the right to life, ergo it is not the only inherent right. And then there's the plethora of other rights such as the right not to be attacked physically, slandered et cetera.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Where does the right to not be attacked physically or slandered come from?

Since a republic is representing the people's best interests, and since the people's best interest is free health care, I guess you could say a republican government should provide free healthcare to it's people.

And I guess governments could raise taxes to pay for the bill, but honestly, the fact that the government could do such a thing proves how much the system is failing. Having a democracy doesn't just mean voting once in a while for someone you think can lead you, it's to participate in laws and the government all the time, even if you aren't a politician.

And I seriously don't see why people get so worked up over increased tax.

[Patchy]

Which is why we live under a representative democracy. Assuming you live in what is commonly referred to as the western world. It's simply unworkable to impliment full democracy or some very close variant of it. I feel I can safely speak for not only myself but a lot of people when I say I don't have the time to help direct the course of government. I'm quite satisfied voting for the person I see best fit to do that in my place and (hopefully) make the best use of my tax dollars to better the country.

I'll have to agree with Radical Dreamer though, governments don't have a duty per se to provide free healthcare to their citizens. The most obvious example can be seen with the United States. That being said, some may feel it is the best course of action to take and subsequently act on it, as can be seen in Canada, the UK, etc.

[Burning Zeppelin]

What citizen will not want free healthcare? Absolute none. Any citizen who does not want best for the other people in his or her society does is not fit to participate in society. I'm very much a supporter of individualism and existentialism, but once you have "signed" that social contract, you agree to a set of values and morals which form part of the national order. That is why I do not believe in inherent rights, but I believe in governmental duties and rights under a state. Everyone wants health, and anyone who doesn't is obviously afflicted with a mental disorder, therefore, why shouldn't society look after me? All this bullshit about increasing tax is just that - bullshit. If tax needs to be raised (and I'm not talking about my private - government hospital system anymore, just basic universal healthcare), then so be it. If you're scared that the government will use the money in the wrong way, fucking stand up and assert the rights the democratic system has bestowed upon you. Just don't complain about increased tax.

[placidchap]

If you're scared that the government will use the money in the wrong way, fucking stand up and assert the rights the democratic system has bestowed upon you. Just don't complain about increased tax.

Amen to that.

And I seriously don't see why people get so worked up over increased tax.

Have you seen "The Century of the Self"?  It does a nice job explaining that one, at least in my opinion.  It is on google video, last time I checked.

That being said, some may feel it is the best course of action to take and subsequently act on it, as can be seen in Canada, the UK, etc.

Replace that with "the majority of Europe, Asia and South America, as well as Austraila and Canada."  whoops I just listed over half the globe!

[Thought]

Since a republic is representing the people's best interests, and since the people's best interest is free health care, I guess you could say a republican government should provide free healthcare to it's people.

No, a republic is representing the people's interests. These may or may not always sync up with that nations "best interest." The problem with a government representing the people's "best interests" is who then decides what is best when people disagree? A government that tries to determine the people's best interests, especially when it contradicts the actual interests of the people, is oppressive and a prime candidate for being overthrown.

What citizen will not want free healthcare?

Yo!

But I am a practical person; I well realize that there is no such thing as free healthcare. Free healthcare is a con. Sure, there are people it would be "free" to, but I am not one of them, nor would most tax-paying Americans get free-health care. Indeed, the only ones to get free care would be those who make too little to be taxed. (Which isn't to say, then, that when the truth is presented universal healthcare is a bad thing, but neither is it to say it is a good thing. Just that "free healthcare" is a lie.)

There is a fundamental problem with health coverage; it is a gamble. You give money to a company so that they will cover your costs when you get sick. Most people will never use as much money as they put in, but they continue to do so on the off chance that they are one of the ones that would need more than they have. In short, the majority of tax-paying citizens in any given government would be better off putting the money that would otherwise go towards healthcare taxes in a liquidable money market account.

Any citizen who does not want best for the other people in his or her society does is not fit to participate in society.

I quite agree, but the question then comes of what is best? You say free, universal healthcare, which is all well and good. Others would say that free, universal health care is not good for society. Both of you would want what you see is best for society, thus both are fit to participate in society. Now comes the sticky situation of actually talking to each other, seeing each other's view point, and attempting to come to an amenable conclusion.

I'm very much a supporter of individualism and existentialism, but once you have "signed" that social contract, you agree to a set of values and morals which form part of the national order.

We do? What are these "values and morals" and where are they written down in a set form?

Unfortunately, the values and morals of a society are not set; they are malleable and shift with population's conception of itself.

That being said, I am curious; how would universal healthcare handle pandemics?