Universal Healthcare; yay or nay?

[acptulsa]

I'm a give not a taker. + rep

Now you're both. +rep!

[angelatc]

I'm off to the hospital for $3000 worth of drugs for my disabled kid this morning. He has an ultra rare bleeding disorder. I was there 2 days ago and 2 weeks ago for the same. I'll be back in another 2 days for another $3000 treatment. He's 3, we've probably long since passed $100k and are on to $1/4m. No meds? He bleeds to death.

I'm a carpenter, I make $200 on a good day, about a 1/4 of every month I'm at home enforcing bed rest to help him recover and save everyone money.

At 3, he's learning to read and has single digit addition and subtraction under control.

I don't know what the right answer is. I've met a lot of million dollar babies in hematology and oncology. If I could be emperor, I'd declare state royalties on oil and mineral commonwealth to cover the cost of universal health care. Generally, I do not believe in the wisdom of "welfare" for groups. I think there is greater wisdom in "citizen's dividends" for all.

just some perspective on this issue,

presence

Sorry that your baby is sick, but the reality is that health care is a limited commodity, and it will always be limited by the ability to pay. Once you allow government to supply health care, even if it's funded through a means other than direct taxation, you're putting yourself in the position hoping that a bureaucrat will vote to continue funding your child's treatments.

And getting research funded to develop new medicines and treatments? That cash will vanish due to the endless demands of a population getting free stuff.

[Brian4Liberty]

First and foremost, it is not the intended role of the Federal Government to provide Health Care or any other business service. If the people desire that the government go into the business of healthcare, a Constitutional Amendment is required. Absent that, there is no need for this discussion. Yes, a Constitutional Amendment is a high hurdle to jump, and that is exactly how it is intended. The government should not be taking actions that do not have enough support to pass Constitutional requirements.

[acptulsa]

If the people desire that the government go into the business of healthcare, a Constitutional Amendment is required.

Or they can do this on the state level, and we can see what works better and who migrates where as a result.

That's why they keep trying to do this sort of thing on a federal level. If they just screw the residents of one state, they'll empty that state out. Then they still don't have control over anyone. What fun is that?

[VIDEODROME]

I'm open to the idea of State involvement in offering health care services or some kind of safety net.

I do not think our Federal Government has any business or authority to do this however and I can't bring myself to support a Nationwide program. Even aside from the legality, I think it is also a problem of incompetence and flawed central planning.

The states or counties handle emergency services like police and firemen. It would make more sense for the state to be involved in emergency hard luck health care cases. I mean suppose a person is uninsured and through no fault of their own gets hit by a drunk driver. Police and Ambulence shows up to help them. Might as well finish the job patching the person up instead of saying you're on your own.

Though later in that situation the state should go after the drunk driver for fines and damages to help make up for it.

Just tossing that out as one idea and that I don't totally dismiss a safety net as long as it is run locally.

[Brian4Liberty]

Or they can do this on the state level, and we can see what works better and who migrates where as a result.

That's why they keep trying to do this sort of thing on a federal level. If they just screw the residents of one state, they'll empty that state out. Then they still don't have control over anyone. What fun is that?

And then they would have to amend the State Constitution.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm open to the idea of State involvement in offering health care services or some kind of safety net.

I do not think our Federal Government has any business or authority to do this however and I can't bring myself to support a Nationwide program. Even aside from the legality, I think it is also a problem of incompetence and flawed central planning.

The states or counties handle emergency services like police and firemen. It would make more sense for the state to be involved in emergency hard luck health care cases. I mean suppose a person is uninsured and through no fault of their own gets hit by a drunk driver. Police and Ambulence shows up to help them. Might as well finish the job patching the person up instead of saying you're on your own.

Though later in that situation the state should go after the drunk driver for fines and damages to help make up for it.

Just tossing that out as one idea and that I don't totally dismiss a safety net as long as it is run locally.

IIRC, County Hospitals used to perform this function.

[Neil Desmond]

I listen to WMAL, which is essentially a "neocon" talk radio station in DC, and half-jokingly tell people that I listen to it to "monitor enemy transmissions" (because, of course, of the foreign policy positions issue). Yesterday evening I was monitoring Levin, and he had a caller in the healthcare business (I think she was a nurse who works or worked for an ob/gyn), and she brought up something about how Obamacare somehow restricts or makes access to birth control resources more difficult. Levin remarked with something like "talk about the irony of ironies."

Shirley, you can't be serious. Me thinks you're being facetious or just lazy.

I myself consider the inherent conflict-of-interest involved in lobbyists meeting with legislators enough of a reason to say "no" to more statism & mandates.

[UMULAS]

Jesus, I am researching on this and then when I ask questions I get people saying "Do you own homework". Last time I come here for questions and sources.

[acptulsa]

Jesus, I am researching on this and then when I ask questions I get people saying "Do you own homework". Last time I come here for questions and sources.

Suit yourself. But you got both resources and superior ideas in regard to tactics. And hints on where to look when you do do your own research. If you want to look this fine gift gelding in the mouth, and/or get your nose out of joint because we want to give you credit for having your own intelligence to develop, it's your funeral. When someone does me a favor, whether it's exactly what I wanted or not, I prefer to say thank you.

And Jesus, like us, helps those who help themselves. Here's the ball. If you can't run with it, get off the field.

[Elwar]

And of course, like most libertarian policies, be ready to face the implication that you want poor people to die.

Ron Paul was faced with this very question in the debates.

It is common.

After a pause, Paul was asked, “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted, “Yeah!”


Paul, a doctor trained in obstetrics and gynecology, said that when he got out of medical school in the 1960s “the churches took care of them.”
“We never turned anybody away from the hospital,” he said. “We’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves or assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. That’s the reason the cost is so high.”

There is also Harry Browne:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/Morality.htm
Set them free...

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Hell no.

[Neil Desmond]

Jesus, I am researching on this and then when I ask questions I get people saying "Do you own homework". Last time I come here for questions and sources.

Is this the only response you found? I don't believe it's representative of everyone. I suggest you just ignore it.

[The Free Hornet]

I'm in the national forensic league and the Lincoln Douglas issue for the next two months is "should the United States have universal health care".

Since I am in the RPF, specifically in economics subject, you guys probably might know a lot more on the disadvantages, sources, documentaries, and austrian think tanks. Any documentaries, videos, books, that I should look at in the matter?

NFL ref says:

The NFL has announced the new topic for November/December. It is Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

You can approach this topic from both sides using a libertarian framework. For example, the product "health care" is an over-regulated piece of $#@! that nobody ought to pay for. Like a game of hot potato(e), the winning move is to toss that bill to someone else.

You can play with the definitions and argue that a complete end to regulation (including the DEA, FDA, patent office, COBRA, medicare/aide, etc.) would be the best "guarantee" of health care. You could also argue, given the premise of medical licensing et cetera, that the state ought to pay for state-licensed services. Put your opponent - blabbing about the non-existent free market - on the hook to defend existing state intrusions since they may take the position that we ought to pay for them (unless they went full-on libertarian). Of course, if you are debating a libertarian (or someone using that playbook), you may need to argue the infeasibility of ending the federal/state regulatory structure. As such, you might argue for some "creative destruction" in particular of the insurance industry, the patent-encrusted pharmaceutical industry, and all the unnecessary middle men.

Also of note is the word "citizens". No doubt there are plans afoot to exploit that.

Hopefully you can take some people by surprise from either side. Good luck.


ARI has some resources too:
www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_debate_ld

[osan]

I'm off to the hospital for $3000 worth of drugs for my disabled kid this morning. He has an ultra rare bleeding disorder. I was there 2 days ago and 2 weeks ago for the same. I'll be back in another 2 days for another $3000 treatment. He's 3, we've probably long since passed $100k and are on to $1/4m. No meds? He bleeds to death.

I'm a carpenter, I make $200 on a good day, about a 1/4 of every month I'm at home enforcing bed rest to help him recover and save everyone money.

At 3, he's learning to read and has single digit addition and subtraction under control.

I don't know what the right answer is. I've met a lot of million dollar babies in hematology and oncology. If I could be emperor, I'd declare state royalties on oil and mineral commonwealth to cover the cost of universal health care. Generally, I do not believe in the wisdom of "welfare" for groups. I think there is greater wisdom in "citizen's dividends" for all.

just some perspective on this issue,

presence

Your POV is well taken and I can sympathize, but does your child's plight, or anyone's for that matter, entitle one to the fruits of the labor of others? Does it justify force in ways that apply here?

Tough questions, but the answers seem clear, if unattractive in some ways.

PS: Good luck with Junior.

[Sola_Fide]

It's free right? Sure! I'm all for anything that's free!

[VIDEODROME]

Your POV is well taken and I can sympathize, but does your child's plight, or anyone's for that matter, entitle one to the fruits of the labor of others? Does it justify force in ways that apply here?

Tough questions, but the answers seem clear, if unattractive in some ways.

PS: Good luck with Junior.

To be a little more fair, we have emergency services don't we? If someone's house is on fire don't we need a fire truck to put it out? Probably paid for with the homeowner's neighbors?

I do agree that income confiscation sucks. Ron Paul seemed to favor ditching that in favor of excise taxes. If a government funded that way could afford to include a safety net it might not be a big deal.

I'll still never support it Federally though.

[Neil Desmond]

Your POV is well taken and I can sympathize, but does your child's plight, or anyone's for that matter, entitle one to the fruits of the labor of others? Does it justify force in ways that apply here?

Tough questions, but the answers seem clear, if unattractive in some ways.

PS: Good luck with Junior.

I work at a hospital, and sometimes have discussions with people there about the healthcare industry.

For example, one of the security officer supervisors is from Ghana & he told me that a procedure that costs $10k - $15k here only costs about $30 there. How is that possible? The insurance industry draws my attention. Would the cost of procedures, drugs, etc. be so ridiculously high if the insurance industry didn't exist as a means to compensating? There's also the liability insurance healthcare providers need because of the litigation. Mix that in with HIPAA & all kinds of other regulations and mandates and maybe that might explain the huge discrepancy. Seems to me that the real problem is costs are out of control.

Another example - an ER nurse told me that when he was in England (a "socialized medicine" nation), he went to visit the hospitals there. He mentioned how "slow" the service was there from observation. He also talked about how they passed a law that limits the amount of time a person has to wait in the ER waiting room; hospitals there were able to get their waiting times down to the level required by law. Isn't that amazing? Ok, I guess you want to know how they achieved this - well, they prevent people from entering the ER waiting room until they're ready to start the timer. Problem solved (right?).

[Sola_Fide]

Would the cost of procedures, drugs, etc. be so ridiculously high if the insurance industry didn't exist as a means to compensating?

It wouldn't be so high if the government wasn't the one paying for the procedures and bidding up the cost.

[Bohner]

It wouldn't be so high if the government wasn't the one paying for the procedures and bidding up the cost.

Not to mention forcing employers to provide insurance to it's employees that covers basically everything including Viagra and Birth Control pills. The more things insurance covers, the more people don't care about cost since insurance covers it, the more prices rise.

[Brian4Liberty]

Another example - an ER nurse told me that when he was in England (a "socialized medicine" nation), he went to visit the hospitals there. He mentioned how "slow" the service was there from observation.

It is worse than the 4-10 hour waits that we often have here in the ER?

[presence]

Sorry that your baby is sick, but the reality is that health care is a limited commodity, and it will always be limited by the ability to pay. Once you allow government to supply health care, even if it's funded through a means other than direct taxation, you're putting yourself in the position hoping that a bureaucrat will vote to continue funding your child's treatments.

No real/true "insurance" coverage would cover these types of diseases without regulation, it is a pre-existing condition from birth that will without a doubt carry millions of dollars before death, it is inherently unprofitable and unmarketable to keep kids like mine alive. Nobody would buy it. No insurance would cover it. Maybe every once in a while a corporation would sponsor a kid for a publicity stunt. In the extreme case, kids would simply bleed out staring at meds on the other side of the counter their parents can't afford. Its that way, right now, 2012, in many a 3rd world country. At the moment, the special interest bleeding heart bureaucrats are all kids like mine have. I really don't like it being that way; I'd prefer we all have the same access my kid has.

I guess I have come to see the denial of life saving (or morbidity reducing) care qualitatively (though perhaps not quantitatively) equivalent to directly causing someone harm, which creates a liberty issue, and right to life issue.

The government should not be taking actions that do not have enough support to pass Constitutional requirements.

..which, I can agree with completely. There was no such thing as modern health care when the constitution was written. Some pretty fancy stuff there,especially when you get into individualized medicine, nanotech, gene therapy, and the like, lots of unforeseen ethical issues, lots of public and private funding put us where we are. We might need a new amendment to describe our rights to it and protections from it, especially in light of our right to life and the rule of necessity.

presence

[farreri]

There's still a gap in total private care that needs a good solution before the masses accept it and that's what's done for those who are too poor, or too irresponsible to get emergency care insurance?

Hospitals that refuse those patients might suffer economically for having their reputation scarred for looking "cold hearted."

Hospitals that accept those patients might just pass the cost to insured patients.

The ultimate question is will the uninsured be so small to be non-consequential that hospitals can absorb the cost, or will we start seeing prices creep up from the uninsured? I don't know the answer.

[Steven Douglas]

I work at a hospital, and sometimes have discussions with people there about the healthcare industry.

For example, one of the security officer supervisors is from Ghana & he told me that a procedure that costs $10k - $15k here only costs about $30 there. How is that possible?

China is the exact same way, and that's with private hospitals and private practices openly competing with state-owned, without subsidies. You can pay for almost everything, healthcare-wise, out of pocket at a TINY fraction of what it costs in the US, with or without insurance. What's more: I TRUST IT MORE. The doctors in China are generally intelligent, humble, affable, caring, concerned -- and some even make house calls (had one house call while I was there).

Here's one of my visits in 2009, for pain in my abdomen that turned out to be an enlarged spleen:

1) Walk in, register and pay 4 Yuan (about $.50 cents) for a medical logbook (skip that if you already have one). That's for the doctor to write in, and will be the ONLY record of your visit, aside from administrative payment records recorded in their system.
2) Consult with doctor, who sends me with a note to X-Ray and tells me to come back to see him when I'm finished.
3) Two x-rays paid for in advance (about $18 total).
4) x-rays taken, developed and handed directly to me. They're mine now, and I can take them back to the doctor myself. Or, I could leave and nobody would even notice or care.
5) The doctor looks at the x-rays, writes in the log book, and discusses things with me. He talks about it over with another doctor briefly, before saying that he wants to write me a prescription. I agree, and he asks if I want name-brand or Chinese generic western medicine. He also asks if I would like Chinese Traditional medicine as well. I say yes to both generic western and Chinese Traditional (hey, when in Rome). Another $9 total.
6) I fill the prescriptions, take my x-rays, logbook and medicine with me in a big bag when I go.

All total for that visit to the emergency room: About $30
With co-pay insurance: Around $4
With full coverage: About $25 a month, everything covered.

The same holds true for dental work. $25,000 for a full mouth rebuild here in US, with implants, would cost less than $2K in China, with its Swiss-trained dentists and oral surgeons.

Screw American healthcare and dentistry, it's a giant sham, and we have numbskulls trying to figure out clever ways to fund it, rather than put it on any kind of honest competitive footing -- as if you can guarantee it first, then talk about how to get prices and costs under control.

[farreri]

No real/true "insurance" coverage would cover these types of diseases without regulation, it is a pre-existing condition

Forgot about pre-existing conditions! That's the other gap that's going to need a good resolution from the free market until the masses accept free market health care.

[Working Poor]

At the moment, the special interest bleeding heart bureaucrats are all kids like mine have. I really don't like it being that way; I'd prefer we all have the same access my kid has.

I would gladly give your child my portion of the health care fund if I could. I don't deny your child or any other person the right to life.

I totally believe insurance drives up the cost for all concerned including ones like your son. I do wonder if he could receive more affordable care in another country? Is that something your family has ever checked into?

[James Madison]

The problem is having those without any knowledge or experience in medicine writing the laws that doctors must abide by. Most of the doctors I talk to are none too thrilled with Obamacare.

[Brian4Liberty]

Screw American healthcare and dentistry, it's a giant sham, and we have numbskulls trying to figure out clever ways to fund it, rather than put it on any kind of honest competitive footing --

Hellyeah!

[dbill27]

The argument is rather simple. We used to have no government interference in health care, when that was the case, we had the cheapest and best health care in the world. Simply understand all the ways government has gotten involved in health care and explain how each one backfires.

[Bryan]

I think most liberty minded people look at these types of social program issues the wrong way.

Question: How is it morally objectionable in of itself for the government to provide medical care for the needy?

If it is funded by donations or other non-coercive, non-violent means then what is the problem?

So the issue isn't if we should have "universal health care", it's: "How are you going to pay for it?"

If it's by forced taxation or debt slavery (as we live under now) then there are clear grounds of it being morally objectionable. If a bunch of people want to create and fund the system themselves then so what?


I have yet to see this position be defeated by either the left or right.


Edit- of course we still need free markets, such as described in this already posted link: http://mises.org/daily/3643
but the two are not mutually exclusive.