Universal Healthcare - The best rebuttal

[RonPaulCentral]

Fool: "Universal Healthcare is the best thing for America!!"

You: "Have you ever been to a VA hospital? This has been Federal Universal Healthcare for a long time. Think about it."

[Jeremy]

any good sources on this? cause I'll use it... but I've never been to VA actually

[haaaylee]

any good sources on this? cause I'll use it... but I've never been to VA actually


you could just go to your closest street corner and find a homeless vet that could let you know all about it..........

[sidster]

any good sources on this? cause I'll use it... but I've never been to VA actually

*ahmm* ... VA as in Veterans Affairs not Virginia :D

[Black Dude]

an argument back would be:

"We need to improve help for vet's too, stupid Bush administration... we need to put the Dem's in charge so things won't get messed up for people like the Republicans and Bush did with Hurricane Katrina and everything else"

[Black Dude]

The argument that has won over my Liberal friends is to go over the pros and cons, be open minded about it, then eventually come to the conclusion that...

A. We can't afford it (and go over our budget, our deficit, and how much money we bring in each year)

B. If we let the federal government do it, it will just create a big blanket bureaucracy that ends up giving terrible health care that is non flexible, non innovative, and will probably end up benefiting a bunch of special interests. The States would do a much better job if you let them do it.

then the liberal person will say "but what about the really poor states like Alabama :("
and you say:
C. Even the poorest State in the US could give better health care to its citizens than the Federal government could. At least they will know what things they need in their system, it will be more easily changed, and they can look at other States' health care systems to see what works best and what doesn't.

[Paul4Prez]

How about this:

Would you stay at a government-run hotel, or a corporate-run one?

Which are better, government-run schools, or private schools?

Would you buy a car built by the government?

Should the government run the supermarkets, like they did in the USSR?

Why trust your life to the government?

[thechitowncubs]

I'd say the best rebuttal is connecting the dots of the government's department of motor vehicles and comparing that to health care from essentially the same provider... its flawless.

[sidster]

Would you buy a car built by the government?

Actually, if big government was to make cars they'd only sell
them to you with a personal chauffeur (government paid of
course!)



Why trust your life to the government?

Actually, the constitution gives government full power to protect
our lives and liberty. Therefore, the answer to this question is: because
of the Constitution!

[badmedia]

Here's my arguement. It is against centralization in general.

When you have 1 program for the entire nation, you consolidate all the power into that 1 program. All the resources available are put into this 1 program, and all trials and errors are felt on the entire program. If the program is failing, there are no viable alternatives that have been tried.

To move healthcare to a state issue, automatically and instantly creates 50 programs, 1 for each state. Each state then tries to have the best healthcare for it's citizens. Because there are 50 programs, it allows many new ideas to be tried at the same time. When an idea works in 1 state, the other states can more easily adopt these ideas. Likewise, when a state implements a bad idea it only hurts that 1 state. And as there are 49 other programs available to look at, other solutions can be found quickly. If you take this down to even further to local levels, you can then have thousands of programs each working to be the best. As they will by default because we all want the best, we disagree on how to do it.

Besides this benefit, having healthcare taken care of on local levels gives you the individual more power over how that healthcare is done. The most power lies of course with individual choice. However your 1 vote means very little in a national election. The % of your vote is among the entire nation, it makes up a very small %. These elections also only happen every 4-8 years. In 8 years, your child will have completed half his childhood. On a state level, your 1 vote makes up a larger % of the total votes. This means you have more power over the issue. No longer are you having to vote against other states on your healthcare. State elections happen much more often, every 2 years so this also allows for changes to be made quicker if the guy isn't getting it done. And it's also alot easier to remove someone before then, ala California. If you take it down even further to your local community, your 1 vote makes up a really large % of the vote. This is the draw to small towns, as you have much more control over your life. On a local level, you can even be the one elected rather easily. This is what it means to return the power to the people.

Not to mention the fact that with 1 big program for the entire nation, you have now added a middle man between you and your doctor, big brother. Because the doctor doesn't work for you, he works for the government and answers to them and their regulations.

And this goes for healthcare, and all other social services. Same argument can be made for Education, welfare etc. It's not the social issues themselves that must be argued against, it's the system of centralizing all power and control to a single authority which takes the power out of the hands of the people, otherwise known as centralization that needs to be argued against.

This IS the way our government is supposed to work according to the constitution. This is what the 10th amendment says we are to do. And if we lived under a limited government, rather than limited rights we would have it.

These centralizations have been allowed to happen under the abuse of the general welfare clause. A complete manipulation of the constitution, because the general welfare is mentioned in 1 other place, and that is in the preamble which declares the purpose of the constitution, and 1 of those is to promote the general welfare. It is the amendments themselves which define what constitutions promoting the general welfare, and the general welfare clause is the part of the constitution which gives congress the power to provide the general welfare, as is in accordance with the 10th amendment, that any powers not given to congress is reserved to the states and individuals.

A constitutional government rather than taking away free speech, protects it. Rather than take away gun ownership, protects it. When a local city or community puts up "protest zones" that infringe on the 1st amendment, it is supposed to be the job of the federal government to step in and tell those states, no you can't do that. And the states over the cities etc. With the majority of the laws handled on the local level where you the citizen has the most power for change, so long as you aren't infringing on the rights of others.

I hope someday to get a government which functions as such again. One that works for the people, rather than working towards turning the population into slaves for the corporations who sponsor them. I think they should make politicians wear suits like NASCAR drivers. Just go ahead and put those big corporate sponsorships across their chest so we know who they are representing.

[SeanEdwards]

Fool: "Universal Healthcare is the best thing for America!!"

You: "Have you ever been to a VA hospital? This has been Federal Universal Healthcare for a long time. Think about it."

That argument isn't very convincing to a person with no healthcare options.

[Truth Warrior]

If you like the post office, you'll just love Universal Healthcare. :p

[szczebrzeszyn]

Universal Healthcare is good for poor people - because they can get any care at all (and they usually don't pay for it, because they are, well, poor). But that's about it. We have this system here since many many years. It's very expensive, there is no amount of money that couldn't be "eaten" by this system and it's still very poor in terms of availability. A few personal examples. I am forced to pay monthly tax for the Universal Healthcare (doesn't matter if I'll ever use it of course). If you want to go to the dentist, you'll wait MONTHS for a visit. I needed to visit an eye doctor, went to the hospital, they told me to wait 6 months ;) But when I offered to pay (I needed it asap), I could go the very same day (mind you, I've already paid for this with my TAX! Right...?). The waiting-rooms are FULL of old/poor people. If you want to accomplish anything, you need to get a day off. I broke my arm some time ago and went to the nearby hospital. They didn't even want to talk with me - fortunately I knew some high-ranking person there, so 1 phone call and they eventually did talk with me, but were not happy about it. Still, I waited 9 hours in the waiting-room to be taken care of :)

Because of all this, more and more people buy insurance in private hospitals, but there are at least 2 drawbacks. 1st - they don't treat any serious diseases or perform comples operations (no equipment etc. - this stuff is only available in public hospitals for now, but anyway this would be VERY expensive for any person do privately). Second, you still have to pay UH tax ;)

This is a complex issue and I don't know what is the best solution (looking at US, I'm not sure I want a free market here - it's free only in theory). But look around Europe, when universal healthcare is in many countries - there are a lot of financial troubles with it, same as with retirement programs etc. I'm 100% sure I will not get a penny when I retire, because this system will collapse before that time. But still, I am forced to pay for this...

[Truth Warrior]

Universal Healthcare is good for poor people - because they can get any care at all (and they usually don't pay for it, because they are, well, poor). But that's about it. We have this system here since many many years. It's very expensive, there is no amount of money that couldn't be "eaten" by this system and it's still very poor in terms of availability. A few personal examples. I am forced to pay monthly tax for the Universal Healthcare (doesn't matter if I'll ever use it of course). If you want to go to the dentist, you'll wait MONTHS for a visit. I needed to visit an eye doctor, went to the hospital, they told me to wait 6 months ;) But when I offered to pay (I needed it asap), I could go the very same day (mind you, I've already paid for this with my TAX! Right...?). The waiting-rooms are FULL of old/poor people. If you want to accomplish anything, you need to get a day off. I broke my arm some time ago and went to the nearby hospital. They didn't even want to talk with me - fortunately I knew some high-ranking person there, so 1 phone call and they eventually did talk with me, but were not happy about it. Still, I waited 9 hours in the waiting-room to be taken care of :)

Because of all this, more and more people buy insurance in private hospitals, but there are at least 2 drawbacks. 1st - they don't treat any serious diseases or perform comples operations (no equipment etc. - this stuff is only available in public hospitals for now, but anyway this would be VERY expensive for any person do privately). Second, you still have to pay UH tax ;)

This is a complex issue and I don't know what is the best solution (looking at US, I'm not sure I want a free market here - it's free only in theory). But look around Europe, when universal healthcare is in many countries - there are a lot of financial troubles with it, same as with retirement programs etc. I'm 100% sure I will not get a penny when I retire, because this system will collapse before that time. But still, I am forced to pay for this...
Only IF the FED collapses first! :D

[freelance]

any good sources on this? cause I'll use it... but I've never been to VA actually

Google. Not sure you'll need sources. Even the braindead know that the Veterans Administration is a DISGRACE!

[USAFCapt]

Is Michael Moore's movie "SICKO" a representation of the truth of healthcare in Europe? If so, he makes and adequate case, yet he didn't go over in detail what the 65 million people of France pay in taxes.

I saw the post above; can any other European forum members comment on this?

[Thomas Paine]

That argument isn't very convincing to a person with no healthcare options.

Actually, a poor person with no healthcare options is going to get treated anyway at the local hospital emergency ward. Also, my older brother who is a retired Navy Doctor was the first to tell me that the best argument against universal healthcare is the VA, which is just a disgrace. If you will recall, there were stories about a year ago about cockroaches and leaking ceilings in Walter Reed Army Hospital, which is supposed to be one of the premier hospitals in the VA.

[kigol]

pretty accurate :)

[SeanEdwards]

Actually, a poor person with no healthcare options is going to get treated anyway at the local hospital emergency ward. Also, my older brother who is a retired Navy Doctor was the first to tell me that the best argument against universal healthcare is the VA, which is just a disgrace. If you will recall, there were stories about a year ago about cockroaches and leaking ceilings in Walter Reed Army Hospital, which is supposed to be one of the premier hospitals in the VA.

I'd be grateful for the opportunity to see a doctor in a roach infested VA hospital at this point.

You're argument is not convincing to someone with no reasonable access to healthcare. You're telling me I should become homeless and destitute in order to get free emergency room care? I think the roach infested VA hospital sounds better than that.

[billjarrett]

Posted this in another thread on this subject:


I've won several arguments against it just using a simple supply & demand graph. By providing health care to everyone, you are in effect artifically increasing demand which shifts the demand curve to the right and sets the equilibrium point at a much higher price for everyone. One argument I've gotten against this is that government could set the price lower. But in this case it would be artifically low, which would lower the supply causing a shortage. You can't force people to provide any service/product if it's not profitable for them.

After this, I've told said universal health care supporters that I'm not cold hearted, and I think it's a noble cause - just not realistic. I've also told them if they come back to me and show me an economic argument showing how it's not only feasible, but beneficial to do it to show it to me and I'd be it's biggest supporter. I have gotten a total of zero people who've taken me up on the challenge.


Most of the people I have to battle against around here are those "educated" liberals, who have taken economics. Nothing quite like the "Oh crap" look on their face when they don't have an argument explaining how increasing demand but not supply makes healthcare cheaper.

[RP4EVER]

Ron Paul himself said the same thing about the VA hospitals. He said the following

"To those who seek Universal Health Care I would encourage you to take a long hard look at the medical care provided to our Veterans. If that is how America treats her bravest what can we expect?"

Universal Healthcare will not be Universal. It will be based on certain factors; the same as the welfare system is. If youre black or other minority you'll automatically qualify; if youre homeless you'll qualify. But if like youre like me who works 40 hours a week and has insurance currently; Id probably be forced to wait a year; in the event that I was no longer able to work; because I would have made to much money.

Basically if you work wether you have healthcare or not you wont qualify because youll make to much money.

[badmedia]

Posted this in another thread on this subject:



Most of the people I have to battle against around here are those "educated" liberals, who have taken economics. Nothing quite like the "Oh crap" look on their face when they don't have an argument explaining how increasing demand but not supply makes healthcare cheaper.

Sadly, I can. Due to decreased supply, it will rise prices but it will also make filling the extra demand more rewarding, thus more new people will enter the field which over time would balance out the demand and eventually lower prices once the supply expands. Free market in action there.

The only way to introduce universal healthcare constitutionally is to add an amendment to the constitution. Which of course, requires 2/3'ds majority. The current way of abusing the general welfare clause allows for special rights and that is what the liberals are tooting for. None of them ever mention the constitution in their arguements. Because they only represent the special interest groups.

If you add the amendment as a right to proper healthcare, then it is by default applied to everyone equally. It does not abuse the general welfare clause, does not apply only to special groups and the federal government would actually have permission for once.

The problem however is that you are centralizing everything under 1 big system. It's not versatile and if something bad is done there is no safe harbor as is when states handle it. We get stuck with some GWB type person for 4-8 years, and we are at the mercy of the leaders for our healthcare. Even just with the special interest group stuff now, lobbyists are pushing things which are for profit, not for the benefit of the people. It is absolutely insane to wish to give these people anymore power over our lives than they have now. When the system crumbles, the entire nation is on it's knees, with nobody able to help pick up the pieces. When the states and communities run their own programs, when it stumbles the pieces are easy to pick up.

I am not in favor of universal healthcare because I don't believe in centralization. It is putting all your eggs in 1 basket. It's extremely short sited and not very bright. It's not a good system. There are much better way to help the needy locally.

[tajitj]

Coming from a person who is in the VA system. It encourages healthcare use. If if becomes nationalized then people who think they are sick all of the time, will have no reason to show up to work.

It happens all the time in the Army. We let in losers who do not up hold the standards. They then feed off the system.

[Bryan]

Freedom is the only argument necessary IMO- in this case, who is going to pay for it?

Serious response: If you want "universal healthcare" that's fine, just remember that if we are to live in a free society then everyone should have to option to not pay into it in any way. Freedom means choices, not the force of government.

Alternative: So if I don't submit to paying for this and your LEO/police comes and shoots me while I'm defending my liberty and property against your theft in the name of "taxes", will "universal healthcare" cover the hospital bill? :)

[acroso]

How about because we don't support seizing someone else's property by FORCE to give to someone else?

[Bossobass]

Which would you prefer to make the decisions regarding your medical treatments?:

A. A well trained, capable doctor and his/her medical team.

B. An insurance agent.

Bosso

[driller80545]

Which would you prefer to make the decisions regarding your medical treatments?:

A. A well trained, capable doctor and his/her medical team.

B. An insurance agent.

Bosso

bump ++

[billjarrett]

Sadly, I can. Due to decreased supply, it will rise prices but it will also make filling the extra demand more rewarding, thus more new people will enter the field which over time would balance out the demand and eventually lower prices once the supply expands. Free market in action there.



Great! Someone to bounce arguments off of. Need to be prepared around here :)

Couldn't this also result in lower quality healthcare (production possibilities curve) though? How much healthcare can our economy realistically produce? I know some of the countries that have implemented UHC have dealt with this problem with a quota system and we've heard about how well that works.

I'm not an economist by any means (so correct me if anything I say is incorrect), it's just always been an interesting subject to me. UHC is an interesting economic exercise because it creates potentially unlimited demand for a service (non-durable, consumable, whatever).

It also seems odd to me that given the problem of "Healthcare is too expensive." the supposed answer to the problem is "Increase demand".

[nbhadja]

I'd be grateful for the opportunity to see a doctor in a roach infested VA hospital at this point.

You're argument is not convincing to someone with no reasonable access to healthcare. You're telling me I should become homeless and destitute in order to get free emergency room care? I think the roach infested VA hospital sounds better than that.

A bankrupt country where the currency is worth nothing does not sound appealing at all. More money will just be printed out with universal health care.
A completely free market health care system should be our goal to establish.
Not a garbage government run system.

[SLSteven]

We cannot have unlimited, free, universal healthcare because there are limits on resources and manpower on the planet and we value some things other than healthcare. How will we decide how much healthcare is optimum? Should we have one doctor per 1000 people? One doctor per person? Without the marketplace and pricing, the central "planners" will decide. How good have they proven to be?

[Truth Warrior]

Universal Healthcare - The best rebuttal

It's not good enough for Ted Kennedy! :rolleyes:

[SLSteven]

What we want is inexpensive, quality, accessible, unlimited healthcare and we want huge monetary awards for any less than optimum outcome.

Its like demanding a Rolls Royce for every citizen, but at the cost of a volkswagon. Its not going to happen without resources being forcefully extracted from other areas.

[Truth Warrior]

What I want is the federal government OUT of health care! :p

[SLSteven]

What I want is the federal government OUT of health care! :p

I am with you!

[kombayn]

Vouchers - Easiest and best way to get "universal health-care" because people can actually opt-out and still get their own coverage if they want.

[Truth Warrior]

I am with you! ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Vouchers - Easiest and best way to get "universal health-care" because people can actually opt-out and still get their own coverage if they want.
Can we also opt out of paying for the frickin' voucher health care services for others too? :rolleyes:

[kombayn]

^Of course, you pay for the year through the program or you opt-out and continue to use the insurance of your choice. I fall in line that everyone should get a chance at affordable health-care. I've seen some really good basic-level voucher programs (Singapore surprisingly has some of the best health-care in the world and they use a similar voucher program.) that you get 'x' amounts of vouchers for visits during the year. My tax dollars are already being wasted on a $570 billion-dollar defense budget, why not turn a little of it towards health-care? Why put the burden on a business or company to pay for an employees health-care if we have easier ways of getting people the care they need.

[Truth Warrior]

^Of course, you pay for the year through the program or you opt-out and continue to use the insurance of your choice. I fall in line that everyone should get a chance at affordable health-care. I've seen some really good basic-level voucher programs (Singapore surprisingly has some of the best health-care in the world and they use a similar voucher program.) that you get 'x' amounts of vouchers for visits during the year. My tax dollars are already being wasted on a $570 billion-dollar defense budget, why not turn a little of it towards health-care? Why put the burden on a business or company to pay for an employees health-care if we have easier ways of getting people the care they need.
Why not give it back to We the PEOPLE? :rolleyes:

[kombayn]

In a perfect world, that'd be the case but we live in America and the entitlements are not going to change anytime soon. If people wanted a true free market without government intervention they would've voted libertarian-minded politicians a long time ago. WWI, the Great Depression & WWII changed a lot of things in American society.

[Truth Warrior]

In a perfect world, that'd be the case but we live in America and the entitlements are not going to change anytime soon. If people wanted a true free market without government intervention they would've voted libertarian-minded politicians a long time ago. WWI, the Great Depression & WWII changed a lot of things in American society. I ain't talking "perfect world" here, merely almost barely adequate. :rolleyes: Screw the votes and voters! NOBODY voted for this crap!