Why can't healthcare be free?

[Pope Joan]

Having the government run things does not make them free.

It sometimes makes them even more expensive in the end.

Every service has a cost. We can try to contain the costs, make billing more honest (which is why Ryan can accuse Obama of "cutting" medicare, since he is cracking down on over-billing), or find creative ways to raise revenue to pay for it.

But no service is free.

[New Hampshire Free State]

THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH! You would be paying for it with much higher taxes and have no choice over doctor or treatment. Better to cut taxes and let people decide what's best for themselves. Elected lawyers (politicians) do not know what is best for you.

[Divair]

THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH! You would be paying for it with much higher taxes and have no choice over doctor or treatment. Better to cut taxes and let people decide what's best for themselves. Elected lawyers (politicians) do not know what is best for you.

You actually have choice over doctor or treatment in most countries with universal healthcare.

[Sevco 5508]

THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH! You would be paying for it with much higher taxes and have no choice over doctor or treatment. Better to cut taxes and let people decide what's best for themselves. Elected lawyers (politicians) do not know what is best for you.

Granted but I would consider quality of life to be more important than the amount of money in your pocket.

[Enadail]

THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH! You would be paying for it with much higher taxes and have no choice over doctor or treatment. Better to cut taxes and let people decide what's best for themselves. Elected lawyers (politicians) do not know what is best for you.

You've never bothered to actually read about what most NHS are like, have you?

1) Instead of having a private health insurance company, you have a state run one. Its run by bureaucrats just like private ones are. Most often, the same people who'd go to private industry go there instead. So you still pick your doctor, your treatment, etc. Just like private insurance, the public program may not cover it and you might have to pay yourself, but no one ever forces you into something.

2) You pay higher taxes but don't have to pay for insurance. Balances out for most people.

3) If people aren't required to have insurance and end up going to the ER, you pay for it through your insurance anyway. Better everyone pays.

4) Politicians don't decide what care you get, the same kind of bureaucrats who run private insurance do, only they now have a bigger money pool to work from and aren't concerned with making a profit, leaving more room for compassion.

[Ordo Drakul]

The courts.

Running the fucking country. Passing laws and writing budgets is a pretty big deal.

I note the socialists here are forced to pull up the same tired lines-in this case, the belief a government monopoly is actually an endorsement. First off, police-since they do such a brilliant job, no one really hires private security, except for everyone who can afford it, and their efficiency is such that crime is too costly to produce profits. These are not the signs of a successful operation.
It's a little harder to knock the Fire Departments, since very few private companies DO compete, but most places that consider a high risk of fire also provide their own rather than relying on the government's. As much admiration as I do have for firefighters, between poor funding and strangulation by public sector unions, a fire department is a very costly necessity.
The military-no one in the service believes the military is efficient or even sensible, so I don't see why I should.
The courts-No options exist, since our court system is so perfect. Let's face it, I'm sure if the courts were not all that, people'd just go on TV before an arbitrator to hash out their differences...oh wait.
Running the fucking country? Again, give me an option and I'll take it-of course, this is so perfect, one wonders why we bother with elections except in cases of death or incapacity.
Not a single one of these qualifies as successful without government intervention, much less being efficient or the sort of thing I'd risk MY health for if I didn't have to.

[Los Malvinas Son Peruano]

Still, tax funded 'free' healthcare needs a roof-limit.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Running the fucking country. Passing laws and writing budgets is a pretty big deal.

I note the socialists here are forced to pull up the same tired lines-in this case, the belief a government monopoly is actually an endorsement. First off, police-since they do such a brilliant job, no one really hires private security, except for everyone who can afford it, and their efficiency is such that crime is too costly to produce profits. These are not the signs of a successful operation.
It's a little harder to knock the Fire Departments, since very few private companies DO compete, but most places that consider a high risk of fire also provide their own rather than relying on the government's. As much admiration as I do have for firefighters, between poor funding and strangulation by public sector unions, a fire department is a very costly necessity.
The military-no one in the service believes the military is efficient or even sensible, so I don't see why I should.
The courts-No options exist, since our court system is so perfect. Let's face it, I'm sure if the courts were not all that, people'd just go on TV before an arbitrator to hash out their differences...oh wait.
Running the fucking country? Again, give me an option and I'll take it-of course, this is so perfect, one wonders why we bother with elections except in cases of death or incapacity.
Not a single one of these qualifies as successful without government intervention, much less being efficient or the sort of thing I'd risk MY health for if I didn't have to.

Uh, can you reformat that?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Running the fucking country. Passing laws and writing budgets is a pretty big deal.

I note the socialists here are forced to pull up the same tired lines-in this case, the belief a government monopoly is actually an endorsement. First off, police-since they do such a brilliant job, no one really hires private security, except for everyone who can afford it, and their efficiency is such that crime is too costly to produce profits. These are not the signs of a successful operation.
It's a little harder to knock the Fire Departments, since very few private companies DO compete, but most places that consider a high risk of fire also provide their own rather than relying on the government's. As much admiration as I do have for firefighters, between poor funding and strangulation by public sector unions, a fire department is a very costly necessity.
The military-no one in the service believes the military is efficient or even sensible, so I don't see why I should.
The courts-No options exist, since our court system is so perfect. Let's face it, I'm sure if the courts were not all that, people'd just go on TV before an arbitrator to hash out their differences...oh wait.
Running the fucking country? Again, give me an option and I'll take it-of course, this is so perfect, one wonders why we bother with elections except in cases of death or incapacity.
Not a single one of these qualifies as successful without government intervention, much less being efficient or the sort of thing I'd risk MY health for if I didn't have to.

-Police services have hilariously different duties to private security firms.
-Because aside from places where you will need specialist, on-site fire crews (military bases, nuclear facilities, chemical plants, fuel depots etc), there is no competition, because people wouldn't pay it. Similar reason as to why the general public don't rely on private security firms to keep them safe at night or investigate robberies.
-wut
-wut
-wut

On the courts and military, man, seriously wut. As if the current legal system isn't vulnerable enough to bribes and corruption already, you want to add corporate influence?

[Ordo Drakul]

On the courts and military, man, seriously wut. As if the current legal system isn't vulnerable enough to bribes and corruption already, you want to add corporate influence?

Are you saying there is no corporate influence already? Governmental intervention never improves anything.

[Galla-]

Really? Which ones? The only time healthcare is "free" is if you do it yourself, and that isn't really free because it consumes labor, but is probably the closest to free because it doesn't really cost any $$$.

So, what? Somalia, DRC...that's about it.

Re-check his post.

Since when are you not charged for a service? Taxes is still paying for something, it's just being handled by more people.

THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH! You would be paying for it with much higher taxes and have no choice over doctor or treatment. Better to cut taxes and let people decide what's best for themselves. Elected lawyers (politicians) do not know what is best for you.

Granted but I would consider quality of life to be more important than the amount of money in your pocket.

Quality of life is directly related to money in pocket, fyi.

[Raeyh]

It's a little harder to knock the Fire Departments, since very few private companies DO compete, but most places that consider a high risk of fire also provide their own rather than relying on the government's. As much admiration as I do have for firefighters, between poor funding and strangulation by public sector unions, a fire department is a very costly necessity.

It's quite easy to knock the fire department, actually, as some areas rely entirely on volunteer firefighters and they get by.

[Priory Academy USSR]

On the courts and military, man, seriously wut. As if the current legal system isn't vulnerable enough to bribes and corruption already, you want to add corporate influence?

Are you saying there is no corporate influence already? Governmental intervention never improves anything.

He's saying there is, but privatising it just makes it worse.

Also, there was no government intervention because the government set it up in the first place.

[Vitius]

Because we can't determine whether it is a right or a privilege.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Because we can't determine whether it is a right or a privilege.

It's a privilege, but so is owning a car. Also, lacking some of the most basic welfare ideas in the world makes the USA look bad.

[Acrainia]

Because healthcare of any real quality is massively expensive and requires a nation to tax the living hell out of its population to pay for it.

I support some measure to help those that can't afford privately offered health insurance, however the US should address its current debt situation before creating yet another government program.

[MyAmericanDream]

Because doctors and medical workers and the people associated with the production of medical goods aren't slaves.

[Raeyh]

Because we can't determine whether it is a right or a privilege.

It's a privilege, but so is owning a car. Also, lacking some of the most basic welfare ideas in the world makes the USA look bad.

It's more important that people have access to healthcare than access to transportation. If you really need to get somewhere and you don't have a car, you could just carpool with someone who does. You can't do that with health insurance.

[Priory Academy USSR]

It's a privilege, but so is owning a car. Also, lacking some of the most basic welfare ideas in the world makes the USA look bad.

It's more important that people have access to healthcare than access to transportation. If you really need to get somewhere and you don't have a car, you could just carpool with someone who does. You can't do that with health insurance.

Sorry, don't know what I was posting then

Anyway, free (taxpayer funded) healthcare is good. /thread.

[Revolutionarily]

Do you honestly want a single entity of people who do not know what they are doing to control an aspect of your life?

[Priory Academy USSR]

Do you honestly want a single entity of people who do not know what they are doing to control an aspect of your life?

As a general rule, I think doctors do know what they're doing.

[Revolutionarily]

no one owes you anything so do not think like you are entitled and form silly opinions based upon this notion

[Revolutionarily]

Do you honestly want a single entity of people who do not know what they are doing to control an aspect of your life?

As a general rule, I think doctors do know what they're doing.

i was referring to the elected officials and other policy makers, as public healthcare is state run

[Priory Academy USSR]

no one owes you anything so do not act like you are entitled and form silly opinions based upon this notion

No, we aren't entitled, but it's a modern world and most nations have gone past the point of 'why don't poor people just buy more money?', and try to help those in need.

[Enadail]

Because healthcare of any real quality is massively expensive and requires a nation to tax the living hell out of its population to pay for it.

I support some measure to help those that can't afford privately offered health insurance, however the US should address its current debt situation before creating yet another government program.

But a SPS would be cheaper for most Americans while driving down cost, meaning more money in their pockets, improving their ability to spend, helping grow the economy and shrink the debt.

And why should keeping people alive come second to helping rich people stay rich?