Why can't healthcare be free?

[Northwestern Coastline]

Nothing is ever free and anything taken on by the government normally ends in disaster. Imagine your doctor's office like the DMV

[Enadail]

Note however where all the money came from to build roads, pay for the public services, use cheaper products, ect; the labor of various individuals. It is technically impossible to be completely self reliant because the government has mandated that no one can be. Ruby Ridge is an example of what happened to those who attempted to try doing it on their own. Even the Amish aren't exempted.

The government mandates it, largely because when people are completely on their own, it harms the well being of everyone else. Just like those Christians who don't believe in vaccinations. Ignoring that I consider that a form of child abuse, mandating it is necessary as without it, if one kid gets a rarer disease, it can spread fast, and become an epidemic.

There is a prevailing assumption (perpetrated by the school system.) that somehow one is privileged to live in this country and in return must pay in terms of taxes for that privilege. That assumption has dangerous consequences. It essentially means that the government/collective owns you and whatever you think your own, not yourself. This means you can never be self sufficient, because if you don't fall into line, everything you have could be taken to pay for your "fair share."

I have no idea who perpetrates it the way you out it. If anything, its that you take from the country and should give back. I don't see how its dangerous or how it leands to the government owns everything, not you. You can't be self sufficient, because you live in a society, not on your own.

Also note that notion of "fair share" is completely subjective and often is determined by who has more money to give to politicians to determine what is the "fair share." Many on todays progressive left complain about the rich dominating everything. They have a point, but they have no-one but themselves to blame for an ideology that advances their very complaint. A government that has the power to give out out special favors, subsidies, tax breaks, ect can be bought completely and utterly by the rich as it is now.

You're absolutely right; the government system is broken. That doesn't mean ideals stop existing. You don't stop working for right because the current system isn't.

---

Haven't looked at the recent argument, but to answer the OP for what is probably the 9,999,999th time:

Because

(Image)

Except its been shown time and time again that a NHS is cheaper then private care, thus opening up more resources for other things.

---

I would like it too, but the main argument is that it is OMFG EXPENSIVE.

See above: NHS has been shown to be cheaper then private care, thus... OMFG NOT AS EXPENSIVE.

[Zephie]

Why Isnt' everything free? You should think about what you say for at least 5 seconds.

[Enadail]

Nothing is ever free and anything taken on by the government normally ends in disaster. Imagine your doctor's office like the DMV

Its a good thing that a NHS doesn't mean the doctor's office becomes a public service then! A NHS replaces private healthcare, meaning that instead of a doctor being paid by an insurance company, its paid by the government. Because the government's primary concern is not profit, they can run cheaper and with less red tape (and anyone who argues that the government is king of red tape has not tried to get money from a health insurance company who was unwilling to pay).

[Jinos]

Nothing is ever free and anything taken on by the government normally ends in disaster. Imagine your doctor's office like the DMV

The DMV is fine. For an organization that literally serves tens of MILLIONS of Americans it actually does just fine. Of course the wait time is going to be long if you've only got one or two DMV offices per city.

There's plenty of examples of the government doing stuff successfully, you're just selectively oblivious.

[Death Metal]

Nothing is ever free and anything taken on by the government normally ends in disaster. Imagine your doctor's office like the DMV

The DMV is fine. For an organization that literally serves tens of MILLIONS of Americans it actually does just fine. Of course the wait time is going to be long if you've only got one or two DMV offices per city.

Hell, last time I needed to go the DMV, I was in and out in ten minutes.

[Enadail]

Nothing is ever free and anything taken on by the government normally ends in disaster. Imagine your doctor's office like the DMV

The DMV is fine. For an organization that literally serves tens of MILLIONS of Americans it actually does just fine. Of course the wait time is going to be long if you've only got one or two DMV offices per city.

There's plenty of examples of the government doing stuff successfully, you're just selectively oblivious.

Whats kinda funny, when I went to go get my permit for the first time, I was dreading it from what everyone said about a terrible place, long lines, etc. Instead, it took me 15 minutes to get through a line of about 25 people, had to wait a total of 0 minutes to test, and another 10 to wrap up. In and out in less then an hour. Then when i went in to get my license, I went to a diff place (one with a course), and I thought maybe the first place was just good that day. A big place, busy, had about 40 people ahead of me, got my paperwork in and out in an hour.

What I learned that day? The DMV is efficient as hell.

[Salandriagado]

Nothing is ever free and anything taken on by the government normally ends in disaster. Imagine your doctor's office like the DMV

It works perfectly fine, thanks.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Nothing is ever free and anything taken on by the government normally ends in disaster. Imagine your doctor's office like the DMV

Its a good thing that a NHS doesn't mean the doctor's office becomes a public service then! A NHS replaces private healthcare, meaning that instead of a doctor being paid by an insurance company, its paid by the government. Because the government's primary concern is not profit, they can run cheaper and with less red tape (and anyone who argues that the government is king of red tape has not tried to get money from a health insurance company who was unwilling to pay).

There are unintended consequences of an NHS though. Namely, doctor shortages because of the lack of future profit potential for anyone who goes to hella expensive and hella hard doctor's school.

Perhaps it works better in the UK, but here in the US our Medicare system has always had difficulties because it doesn't pay doctors enough to incentivize them to actually TAKE medicare.

[Enadail]

Its a good thing that a NHS doesn't mean the doctor's office becomes a public service then! A NHS replaces private healthcare, meaning that instead of a doctor being paid by an insurance company, its paid by the government. Because the government's primary concern is not profit, they can run cheaper and with less red tape (and anyone who argues that the government is king of red tape has not tried to get money from a health insurance company who was unwilling to pay).

There are unintended consequences of an NHS though. Namely, doctor shortages because of the lack of future profit potential for anyone who goes to hella expensive and hella hard doctor's school.

Perhaps it works better in the UK, but here in the US our Medicare system has always had difficulties because it doesn't pay doctors enough to incentivize them to actually TAKE medicare.

You're absolutely right, there are consequences of the UK's NHS... but couldn't we take that into account when we create our own? Why do we have to fail the same way someone else did? Its an argument I've never understood. Besides, with the way private insurance is going right now, fewer people are making the same money, and I've seen a number of people drop med school for other fields.

Medicare is a good idea with failed implementation. People can take our far more then they put in (plus inflation), it gives so little doctors don't want it... but there's no reason that has to be a part of the solution, nor any reason it should be... again, I don't get why failed ideas should be a guideline.

[Death Metal]

Perhaps it works better in the UK, but here in the US our Medicare system has always had difficulties because it doesn't pay doctors enough to incentivize them to actually TAKE medicare.

Which is why we have medicare supplements like the AARP plan. Seniors who want the best care can get it at a premium, those who can't afford it however still have options thanks to Medicare.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Perhaps it works better in the UK, but here in the US our Medicare system has always had difficulties because it doesn't pay doctors enough to incentivize them to actually TAKE medicare.

Which is why we have medicare supplements like the AARP plan. Seniors who want the best care can get it at a premium, those who can't afford it however still have options thanks to Medicare.

Only that doesn't solve the problem because doctors don't always take Medicare and fewer of them are taking it. are (just a momentary google search and 2 years old is that article, there's surely one more recent out there with new numbers, perhaps it's even gone down recently thanks to PPACA)

So those with Medicare STILL don't necessarily HAVE it. Useless to have something covered by Medicare if your doctor doesn't take medicare as it seems more and more aren't.

Edit: Here's something a little more recent on the topic.
Edit 2: Oregon has just under 20% not accepting Medicare patients and 28% restricting the # of Medicare recipients.
Edit 3: Forgot to link the above

[Death Metal]

Edit 2: Oregon has just under 20% not accepting Medicare patients and 28% restricting the # of Medicare recipients.

So that's 80% that do accept Medicare patients. Not a bad margin.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Edit 2: Oregon has just under 20% not accepting Medicare patients and 28% restricting the # of Medicare recipients.

So that's 80% that do accept Medicare patients. Not a bad margin.

When it's supposed to be 100% and it's something as important as healthcare, it's a fucking terrible margin.

Besides that, the trend is seemingly downwards (no source on this besides the above) the 1st link (from 2010) says 13% didn't accept it nationwide, the 2nd says 25% didn't (out of a small sample) and the 3rd says 20% in Oregon don't take it. (2nd & 3rd from 2012)
That's moving in the wrong direction.

Seriously, when is it the libertarian lectures someone on how important medical care is? one in five people unable to get preventive medical care that they are supposedly entitled to is a BAD MARGIN. Hell, when there was such a hooplah over insurance being made available to the 36 million people without it it, that was STILL A BETTER MARGIN of people who were insured versus not (roughly 1 in 10 people uninsured in that case). Here it's 1:5. Granted the old folks can get their own, but supposedly their medical care is SUPPOSED to be covered, at least in part, by Medicare. In 1:5 cases, it ISN'T. That's a problem, and one that seemingly is getting no attention and being outright exacerbated via cuts to reimbursement rates.

[Death Metal]

one in five people unable to get preventive medical care that they are supposedly entitled to is a BAD MARGIN.

1 in five doctors not allowing care =/= 1 in 5 patients don't get care.

Unless I missed the part where people are assigned doctors from birth now. Doctor A doesn't accept medicare patients, fine. Doctors B, C, D, and E do.

[Ethel mermania]

Perhaps it works better in the UK, but here in the US our Medicare system has always had difficulties because it doesn't pay doctors enough to incentivize them to actually TAKE medicare.

Which is why we have medicare supplements like the AARP plan. Seniors who want the best care can get it at a premium, those who can't afford it however still have options thanks to Medicare.

medicare supplements cover additional services, not give the medics more money.

[Geilinor]

Healthcare CAN be free. It is in many countries.

The debate in America is whether or not it SHOULD be.

*Dear libertarians/republicans, when I say "free" I do not mean it isn't FUNDED, I mean the patient is not charged directly for services.

Then it isn't free. I'm a centrist(internationally at least, not by US standards), and I'm saying it isn't free. The people pay for it through taxes. Universal single-payer health care would be the more accurate term. All health care systems have their advantages and disadvantages. What the US needs is a system like Switzerland or Israel, which is kind of what Obama's health care reform does. That would be most fitting for the country. Actually, it's exactly like the Swiss system. Health insurance mandate, private health insurance, government subsidies for the poor.

[Geilinor]

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.

Lies. You often have choices, and they are yours to make. In some European countries, doctors and the system can be picky, but in Canada and Australia, for example, you can go to any doctor you want. In Canada, unlike the UK, health care is still paid for by the government, but health care providers aren't government employees and the system isn't nationalized. Doctors generally bill the provincial health authorities, working like an insurance system, but skipping the hundreds of health insurance companies that lead to expensive bureaucracy.

[Individualist Constructivism]

I think this would be stated as "prepaid" healthcare

Health insurance companies would all go out of business and medical research companies would lack funding.

.

Fuck the health insurance industries. If there's a more effective system of maintaining the health of the population, then no love is lost transitioning from the old one.

Yes, to hell with one of the most innovative health industries in the world.

Government is not the only means by which healthcare costs are made independent of an employer.

[Costa Alegria]

Might I suggest the New Zealand health system as a basis for a compromise between the two sides? It mixes the American and British/Australian services.

[Sociobiology]

Nothing is ever free and anything taken on by the government normally ends in disaster. Imagine your doctor's office like the DMV

now imagine it like the secret service or the CIA you wake up one day with a doctor standing over you holding a tumor you didn't even know you had that he removed while you were asleep BAM!
we all can play the fantasy game.

[Augarundus]

So yeah, why can't healthcare just be free of charge. Why cant it just be run by government? Shouldn't something that saves so many lives and is needed by everyone be free for the people?

... Government provided =/= free.

I'm not even ancap-ranting here. Services provided from the government still cost resources - if healthcare is provided by the state, or by private market institutions, it is still a commodity that must be produced through labor and use of resources. Health services require labor (physicians, nurses, janitors, bureaucrats, etc.), fixed capital (hospitals and their equipment, etc.), and a constant supply of resources (medicine, utilities, etc.), all of which are expenses that have to be paid for.

If the state provides health services, it has to pass those costs onto someone at some point. In a market system, that would mean customers. Under the state's system (it could still be customers, theoretically...), that means tax payers. In either of these situations, there still exist expenses to be paid for, and the costs are still, at some point, passed on to those who receive the benefits of these services. So no, healthcare cannot be free.

Given that you think anything key to life should be provided by the state, presumably you think the state should manage all food production, yes?

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I think this would be stated as "prepaid" healthcare

.

Fuck the health insurance industries. If there's a more effective system of maintaining the health of the population, then no love is lost transitioning from the old one.

Yes, to hell with one of the most innovative health industries in the world.

Government is not the only means by which healthcare costs are made independent of an employer.

Nobody said it wasn't profitable, they will always get that right in all the wrong ways. I said that if there's a more EFFECTIVE system of care, then no love is lost. I don't care who's wallet gets bigger, I care about who's health gets better. To hell with that health insurance if it can't get to half of us, and bankrupts the half that does when they need it most.

[Emile Zola]

Yes, to hell with one of the most innovative health industries in the world.

Government is not the only means by which healthcare costs are made independent of an employer.

From Wikipedia...

In 2003, research and development expenditures were approximately $95 billion with $40 billion coming from public sources and $55 billion coming from private sources.

Let's not pretend that the US government isn't involved in funding research.

[Geilinor]

I think this would be stated as "prepaid" healthcare

.

Fuck the health insurance industries. If there's a more effective system of maintaining the health of the population, then no love is lost transitioning from the old one.

Yes, to hell with one of the most innovative health industries in the world.

Government is not the only means by which healthcare costs are made independent of an employer.

It is the only means when health care costs 16% of GDP, compared to the next highest countries at 11-12%. The US government spends half of that, or 8% of GDP. The UK and Japan spend that much on entire health care. In a normal cost health care system, overall taxes(state and federal) would increase by 15% to get to about the level Australia spends on health care. The money is there, but costs are through the roof.