(USA) A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage

[Arkolon]

What's wrong with free private healthcare through a comprehensive voucher system? That way we have competition AND affordability, not one or the other.

Why should healthcare be competitive? What makes private healthcare inherently better than public healthcare?

What makes competition inherently better than monopoly? Hint: competition.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

What's wrong with free private healthcare through a comprehensive voucher system? That way we have competition AND affordability, not one or the other.

Why should healthcare be competitive? What makes private healthcare inherently better than public healthcare?

In Brazil people who can pay for it go for private healthcare. But at least the poor and the rural folk aren't left with their own luck.

[Murkwood]

What's wrong with free private healthcare through a comprehensive voucher system? That way we have competition AND affordability, not one or the other.

Why should healthcare be competitive? What makes private healthcare inherently better than public healthcare?

Competition leads to innovation and better services.

[Fortschritte]

Why should healthcare be competitive? What makes private healthcare inherently better than public healthcare?

Competition leads to innovation and better services.

Thanks for not answering multiple posts. Like usual, you're picking certain posts to respond to.

Anyways, how so?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Countries with universal healthcare are doing better.

If we look at this map, we realize why Central America, the Andean countries, Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia are infested with easily preventable diseases that don't touch the southern Cone and rarely happen in relevant numbers in Brazil, even though our public healthcare is much inferior to the ones at work in Canada and Western Europe.

[Fortschritte]

Why should healthcare be competitive? What makes private healthcare inherently better than public healthcare?

What makes competition inherently better than monopoly? Hint: competition.

While competition is usually great, I fail to see why it'd be great in providing healthcare to the people.

[The Sons of Adam]

What's wrong with free private healthcare through a comprehensive voucher system? That way we have competition AND affordability, not one or the other.

Why should healthcare be competitive? What makes private healthcare inherently better than public healthcare?

Privatized- Encourages competition, making companies have to provide better services for less. (You know, like how capitalism works)
Public Sector- The government has control, if it gets bad it isn't likely to get better, and you know (Collapse of Soviet economy)

[Arkolon]

Competition leads to innovation and better services.

Thanks for not answering multiple posts. Like usual, you're picking certain posts to respond to.

Anyways, how so?

More supply, fixed demand..? It's pretty self-explanatory. Competition has always either vastly reduced prices or vastly increased the quality of services. What I'm suggesting is a middle-way between the modern liberal case and the ultraconservative case: subsidising competitive health plans. Not nationalising health plans, and not leaving health plans solely up to private competition.

[The Sons of Adam]

Thanks for not answering multiple posts. Like usual, you're picking certain posts to respond to.

Anyways, how so?

More supply, fixed demand..? It's pretty self-explanatory. Competition has always either vastly reduced prices or vastly increased the quality of services. What I'm suggesting is a middle-way between the modern liberal case and the ultraconservative case: subsidising competitive health plans. Not nationalising health plans, and not leaving health plans solely up to private competition.

Good idea!

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Privatized- Encourages competition, making companies have to provide better services for less. (You know, like how capitalism works)
Public Sector- The government has control, if it gets bad it isn't likely to get better, and you know (Collapse of Soviet economy)

Do you realize millions of people still pay for insurance and doctors in countries with universal coverage?

Universal coverage has to do with prevention more than with necessity, depending in how you set it up.

[Murkwood]

Competition leads to innovation and better services.

Thanks for not answering multiple posts. Like usual, you're picking certain posts to respond to.

Anyways, how so?

Thanks for not answering multiple posts. Like usual, you're picking certain posts to respond to.

Anyways, how so?

More supply, fixed demand..? It's pretty self-explanatory. Competition has always either vastly reduced prices or vastly increased the quality of services. What I'm suggesting is a middle-way between the modern liberal case and the ultraconservative case: subsidising competitive health plans. Not nationalising health plans, and not leaving health plans solely up to private competition.

[Shilya]

Why should healthcare be competitive? What makes private healthcare inherently better than public healthcare?

Privatized- Encourages competition, making companies have to provide better services for less. (You know, like how capitalism works)
Public Sector- The government has control, if it gets bad it isn't likely to get better, and you know (Collapse of Soviet economy)

This would be a good argument if this was about the healthcare industry, but it isn't - it's about healthcare insurance. In other words, not doing it, but paying for it.

And there the massive buying power of the government - which has a monopsony in countries with full UHC - prevents overcharging. This encourages more effective drugs that are actually worth it, as well as competition between providers to offer the cheapest alternative. If some place wants to charge too much, they can simply not buy, and the place loses its complete customer base.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

This would be a good argument if this was about the healthcare industry, but it isn't - it's about healthcare insurance. In other words, not doing it, but paying for it.

And there the massive buying power of the government - which has a monopsony in countries with full UHC - prevents overcharging. This encourages more effective drugs that are actually worth it, as well as competition between providers to offer the cheapest alternative. If some place wants to charge too much, they can simply not buy, and the place loses its complete customer base.

Exactly.

[Olivaero]

Why should healthcare be competitive? What makes private healthcare inherently better than public healthcare?

What makes competition inherently better than monopoly? Hint: competition.

Competition wont reduce the cost of health care, when your having a heart attack your in no position to make a rational judgement about which hospital offers the best care for the most reasonable price. You need the closest care and that is the one you'll be given.

[Arkolon]

What makes competition inherently better than monopoly? Hint: competition.

Competition wont reduce the cost of health care, when your having a heart attack your in no position to make a rational judgement about which hospital offers the best care for the most reasonable price. You need the closest care and that is the one you'll be given.

... don't you know how the health insurance system works?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Competition wont reduce the cost of health care, when your having a heart attack your in no position to make a rational judgement about which hospital offers the best care for the most reasonable price. You need the closest care and that is the one you'll be given.

... don't you know how the health insurance system works?

Yes, not how many people think it does.

[Arkolon]

... don't you know how the health insurance system works?

Yes, not how many people think it does.

In any case, I doubt that in any economy with health insurance, where one has health insurance, one having a heart attack would not be directly brought to the hospital.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, not how many people think it does.

In any case, I doubt that in any economy with health insurance, where one has health insurance, one having a heart attack would not be directly brought to the hospital.

Oh no, the problem is not being refused on an emergency.

It's that afterwards you can end up paying up to 10,000-60,000 dollars in debt just for saving your own life by going to the hospital and not having insurance. It's ridiculous.

[Arkolon]

In any case, I doubt that in any economy with health insurance, where one has health insurance, one having a heart attack would not be directly brought to the hospital.

Oh no, the problem is not being refused on an emergency.

It's that afterwards you can end up paying up to 10,000-60,000 dollars in debt just for saving your own life by going to the hospital and not having insurance. It's ridiculous.

So you make health insurance more affordable by relaxing regulatory policies and by subsidising insurance programs through voucher systems. Nationalising the whole ordeal is what sounds ridiculous to me.

[The Nihilistic view]

Sounds like the US needs a few one nation conservatives.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh no, the problem is not being refused on an emergency.

It's that afterwards you can end up paying up to 10,000-60,000 dollars in debt just for saving your own life by going to the hospital and not having insurance. It's ridiculous.

So you make health insurance more affordable by relaxing regulatory policies and by subsidising insurance programs through voucher systems. Nationalising the whole ordeal is what sounds ridiculous to me.

The problem is that we already had to regulate them because when they were unregulated they created the mess we're in right now in the U.S.

The private market for health insurance here in the U.S. has proved to be an abject failure.

[Celritannia]

You mean that Singapore, which outspends the US in private healthcare has terrible health coverage? A government system not only bankrupts a nation, but hurts competition and lower prices. The reason for shitty, expensive healthcare in America is due to the lack of competition, as insurers have basically no competition. As a result, they make the decision to give you shit healthcare and high costs, but when competition happens, a company must get that customer by having the highest quality for the lowest costs without operating at a loss, and that results in lower costs for the consumer.

I am just going to leave this here.

Yeah, because the Nordic Countries, Germany, Denmark are totally bankrupt.

[Agritum]

Hello NSG, Rhodisia here. I describe myself as a social conservative, but see some very clear arguments for universal health coverage. This thread is intended to encourage debate and the free exchange of ideas regarding healthcare. Here is my conservative case for universal health coverage:

1. The current healthcare system, as it stands, is woefully inefficient. It's a national shame that we allow this system to perpetuate.

As a percentage of GDP, we outspend every other country on healthcare through private insurers, then again in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but our quality of healthcare is shameful - especially pursuant to treatable and preventable conditions. We consistently fall behind Canada, a country with universal coverage and our proverbial "little brother", in three crucial areas: in quality of care, in accessibility, and in cost. This is also true in almost all European countries. Think about it: we're a world power, and we're three hundred million strong, but we can't even make sure our citizens recover from illnesses? That is ridiculous, and the fact that we as Americans allow this to continue is shameful.

2. The current American mindset with healthcare is penny-wise and dollar-foolish.

Going back to 1776, the entire American Revolution started because of taxes. We as a nation clearly don't like taxes - but at the same time, we allow ourselves, our children, and our elderly to get sick and die from entirely curable diseases. It is far better to plan for 40 or 50 years down the line, when the next generation of Americans are in power, and we're old and fat and sick and need a doctor, than to worry about short-term ROI and taxes. I for one would much rather be taxed slightly higher than to worry about my future regarding health coverage.

3. We have certain religious and moral imperatives to take care of our own citizens - including the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally unstable.

If some of my fellow American conservatives relentlessly insist that America is a Christian nation (which it isn't), then whatever happened to Ephesians 4:32? You know, "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you?" If anything, the current attitude of calling universal health coverage "communism" is Gluttony - wanting to constantly stuff your face, but never leaving anything for the disadvantaged segments of society. If we continue to call ourselves a Christian nation, then I think it is better that we start living to some of those ideals. That, and the fact that allowing our citizens to die from lack of medical attention is morally wrong.

4. Economies of scale inherently favor a single-payer system.

Any socioeconomic institution benefits from having a larger number of participants rather than few. Healthcare is no exception to this economic law.

5. A single-payer system would reduce the number of government personnel needed to administer it - thus keeping the government from expanding.

Even when accounting for population differences, Canada - which has had a single-payer system since 1984 - still has fewer government personnel administering the funds necessary to provide universal health coverage. Compare that to the US, where our patchwork system of private insurers, Medicare, Obamacare and other laws make it very unruly to administer - for coverage that still doesn't reach our most vulnerable citizens.

Are you quite certain you're conservative? Because you sound very liberal.

I believe you've never learned about the Christian Democratic parties of Europe.

[Arkolon]

So you make health insurance more affordable by relaxing regulatory policies and by subsidising insurance programs through voucher systems. Nationalising the whole ordeal is what sounds ridiculous to me.

The problem is that we already had to regulate them because when they were unregulated they created the mess we're in right now in the U.S.

How was it unregulated, and how did you regulate it?

The private market for health insurance here in the U.S. has proved to be an abject failure.

Good thing I didn't root in favour of just the market system, then, no?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem is that we already had to regulate them because when they were unregulated they created the mess we're in right now in the U.S.

How was it unregulated, and how did you regulate it?

The private market for health insurance here in the U.S. has proved to be an abject failure.

Good thing I didn't root in favour of just the market system, then, no?

It was unregulated as in it was a new industry that we didn't know what kind of regulations we had to pass.

We've been having to pass legislation from insurers not being able to deny you insurance due to pre-existing conditions to them honoring their insurance contract, which didn't happen before.

Yes, but I don't think keeping the industry private is a good idea. Keeping it privatized is precisely why we're in the hole we're in. Having a nationalized insurance industry would be a step forward instead of leaving it to run with people who have all shown to be fuckups. You can't say with honesty that our current system in the U.S. isn't a big fuckup.