NATION

PASSWORD

(USA) A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Rhodisia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 451
Founded: Sep 27, 2014
Ex-Nation

(USA) A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage

Postby Rhodisia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:51 pm

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro: Sortition, gold standard, small and efficient government, concise laws, community policing, responsible private gun ownership, school choice, absolutely free market, low taxes, net neutrality, press freedom, etc

Against: Dynasties, fiat currency, excessive bureaucracy, verbose laws, police militarization, gun control, state-only education, crony capitalism, high taxes, net non-neutrality, censorship, empire, etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Confederate Ramenia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1939
Founded: Mar 29, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Confederate Ramenia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:55 pm

Unfortunately our current two-party system doesn't care about people's health or health care. We have the stupid old system (you need insurance, you can't afford insurance) or stupid Obamacare (you need insurance, you can't afford insurance, you are forced to buy insurance).
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a genuine workers' state in which all the people are completely liberated from exploitation and oppression. The workers, peasants, soldiers and intellectuals are the true masters of their destiny and are in a unique position to defend their interests.
The Flutterlands wrote:Because human life and dignity is something that should be universally valued above all things in society.

Benito Mussolini wrote:Everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Othelos
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12729
Founded: Feb 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Othelos » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:56 pm

Another important point - if we can end personal medical debt (a HUGE portion of debt in the US), the economy would improve.

User avatar
Vazdaria
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1348
Founded: Sep 02, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Vazdaria » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:59 pm

Rhodisia wrote: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? :eyebrow: Because you sound very liberal.
NSG's one and only Constitutional Executive Monarcho-Corporatist!
100% Pro-Women Pro-Babies Pro-Life!!!

User avatar
Rhodisia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 451
Founded: Sep 27, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Rhodisia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:04 pm

Vazdaria wrote:Are you quite certain you're conservative? :eyebrow: Because you sound very liberal.

Yes actually. I'm more conservative or libertarian than most of my peers, but I see the liberal cause of universal health coverage as one that's worth it for the overwhelming majority of Americans. For all its faults, I love my country, and I want us to be the best that we can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro: Sortition, gold standard, small and efficient government, concise laws, community policing, responsible private gun ownership, school choice, absolutely free market, low taxes, net neutrality, press freedom, etc

Against: Dynasties, fiat currency, excessive bureaucracy, verbose laws, police militarization, gun control, state-only education, crony capitalism, high taxes, net non-neutrality, censorship, empire, etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Kiribati-Tarawa
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1341
Founded: Jan 24, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Kiribati-Tarawa » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:08 pm

Social conservatism has nothing to do with universal healthcare. Fiscal conservatives are the ones opposed to it.
From the desk of:
Ambassador Sir Thomas Chapman, CD, KG
His Majesty's Ambassador to the WA for Kiribati-Tarawa
Office # 22, Floor 5 of the General Assembly building

User avatar
Degenerate Heart of HetRio
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10600
Founded: Feb 12, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:10 pm

Vazdaria wrote:Are you quite certain you're conservative? :eyebrow: Because you sound very liberal.

Rhodisia is as liberal as I'm a fascist. :eyebrow:
Pro: Communism/anarchism, Indigenous rights, MOGAI stuff, bodily autonomy, disability rights, environmentalism
Meh: Animal rights, non-harmful religion/superstition, militant atheism, left-leaning reform of capitalism
Anti: Dyadic superstructure (sex-gender birth designation and hierarchy), positivism, conservatism, imperialism, Zionism, Orientalism, fascism, religious right, bending to reactionary concerns before freedom/common concern, fraudulent beliefs and ideologies

Formerly "Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro".

Compass: -10.00, -9.13
S-E Ideology: Demc. Socialist (92% ditto/Marxist, 75% Anarchist/Social democrat, 0% etc)
S-E school of thought: Communist (100% ditto, 96% Post-Keynesian)

Though this says I'm a social democrat, I'm largely a left communist.

User avatar
Sunarctica
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 150
Founded: Jul 30, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Sunarctica » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:13 pm

Why can't the United States' government just decrease their Defense Budget massively, establish a system of Universal Healthcare, and relocate that spending towards the new healthcare system? Privatized healthcare is horridly inefficient.

User avatar
Tribal Germania (Ancient)
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 18
Founded: Dec 02, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Tribal Germania (Ancient) » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:13 pm

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:
Vazdaria wrote:Are you quite certain you're conservative? :eyebrow: Because you sound very liberal.

Rhodisia is as liberal as I'm a fascist. :eyebrow:

So, Rhodisia is an ultra-liberal? Doesn't seem like it.

User avatar
WestRedMaple
Minister
 
Posts: 3068
Founded: Aug 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WestRedMaple » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:17 pm

Do we get universal payment to go with it?

User avatar
Degenerate Heart of HetRio
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10600
Founded: Feb 12, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:22 pm

Tribal Germania wrote:
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Rhodisia is as liberal as I'm a fascist. :eyebrow:

So, Rhodisia is an ultra-liberal? Doesn't seem like it.

:rofl: Get real
Pro: Communism/anarchism, Indigenous rights, MOGAI stuff, bodily autonomy, disability rights, environmentalism
Meh: Animal rights, non-harmful religion/superstition, militant atheism, left-leaning reform of capitalism
Anti: Dyadic superstructure (sex-gender birth designation and hierarchy), positivism, conservatism, imperialism, Zionism, Orientalism, fascism, religious right, bending to reactionary concerns before freedom/common concern, fraudulent beliefs and ideologies

Formerly "Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro".

Compass: -10.00, -9.13
S-E Ideology: Demc. Socialist (92% ditto/Marxist, 75% Anarchist/Social democrat, 0% etc)
S-E school of thought: Communist (100% ditto, 96% Post-Keynesian)

Though this says I'm a social democrat, I'm largely a left communist.

User avatar
Emerald-Springs
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 01, 2014
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Emerald-Springs » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:30 pm

Philosophically you have valid points, and I'm inclined to agree with you that conservatives with religious and transcendental beliefs should take an approach to healthcare that is inspired more by the teachings of their churches and less by the Church of the Invisible hand.

The principal objection that I have to a single-payer healthcare system is that it gives advocates of the "nanny-state", if you'll pardon the term, a solid argument to regulate a lot of what individuals choose to do with their bodies: "It's a man's right to smoke/drink/eat a high cholesterol diet/drive an SUV" -- "But the rest of us have to pay for all of the additional medical care that those activities incur. Your choices raise our taxes." I think a public option would be a better middle way, but I admit to knowing jack-squat about the relative economic consequences of either plan.

User avatar
Murkwood
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7806
Founded: Apr 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Murkwood » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:31 pm

> "Conservative"
> Advocates Socialism


Now how does that work?
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o

Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.

Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.

Catholicism has the fullness of the splendor of truth: The Bible and the Church Fathers agree!

User avatar
Communist Volkstrad
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6878
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Communist Volkstrad » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:33 pm

Murkwood wrote:> "Conservative"
> Advocates Socialism


Now how does that work?

Universal Healthcare =/= Socialism.
It's an element of Socialism, but one can be capitalist and still have it.
I'm not actually a communist.

User avatar
Degenerate Heart of HetRio
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10600
Founded: Feb 12, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:33 pm

Murkwood wrote:> Advocates Socialism

You keep using that word... I don't think you really know what it means...
Pro: Communism/anarchism, Indigenous rights, MOGAI stuff, bodily autonomy, disability rights, environmentalism
Meh: Animal rights, non-harmful religion/superstition, militant atheism, left-leaning reform of capitalism
Anti: Dyadic superstructure (sex-gender birth designation and hierarchy), positivism, conservatism, imperialism, Zionism, Orientalism, fascism, religious right, bending to reactionary concerns before freedom/common concern, fraudulent beliefs and ideologies

Formerly "Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro".

Compass: -10.00, -9.13
S-E Ideology: Demc. Socialist (92% ditto/Marxist, 75% Anarchist/Social democrat, 0% etc)
S-E school of thought: Communist (100% ditto, 96% Post-Keynesian)

Though this says I'm a social democrat, I'm largely a left communist.

User avatar
District XIV
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5990
Founded: Dec 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby District XIV » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:33 pm

Murkwood wrote:> "Conservative"
> Advocates Socialism


Now how does that work?

Kiribati-Tarawa wrote:Social conservatism has nothing to do with universal healthcare. Fiscal conservatives are the ones opposed to it.

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:35 pm

Murkwood wrote:> "Conservative"
> Advocates Socialism


Now how does that work?


Because Universal Healthcare is not socialism.

Otherwise you'd also be against Social Security.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Murkwood
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7806
Founded: Apr 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Murkwood » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:35 pm

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:
Murkwood wrote:> Advocates Socialism

You keep using that word... I don't think you really know what it means...

Yeah, okay. :roll:
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o

Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.

Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.

Catholicism has the fullness of the splendor of truth: The Bible and the Church Fathers agree!

User avatar
Murkwood
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7806
Founded: Apr 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Murkwood » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:36 pm

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Murkwood wrote:> "Conservative"
> Advocates Socialism


Now how does that work?


Because Universal Healthcare is not socialism.

Otherwise you'd also be against Social Security.

Who says I'm not?
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o

Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.

Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.

Catholicism has the fullness of the splendor of truth: The Bible and the Church Fathers agree!

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:36 pm

Murkwood wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
Because Universal Healthcare is not socialism.

Otherwise you'd also be against Social Security.

Who says I'm not?


I dunno, are you against getting money when you retire?
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Soviet Haaregrad
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16702
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Soviet Haaregrad » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:40 pm

Murkwood wrote:
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:You keep using that word... I don't think you really know what it means...

Yeah, okay. :roll:


Being snarky and wrong is worse than just being wrong.
RP Population: 1760//76 million//1920 104 million//1960 209 million//1992 238 million
81% Economic Leftist, 56% Anarchist, 79% Anti-Militarist, 89% Socio-Cultural Liberal, 73% Civil Libertarian
Privatization of collectively owned property is theft.
The Confederacy of Independent Socialist Republics
FACTBOOK
ART


There are no gods and no one is a prophet.

User avatar
Brunsk
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Dec 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Brunsk » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:43 pm

Vazdaria wrote:
Rhodisia wrote: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? :eyebrow: Because you sound very liberal.


I thoroughly agree. I do not think you are as conservative as you think you are.

User avatar
Fortschritte
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1693
Founded: Nov 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Fortschritte » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:43 pm

Murkwood wrote:> "Conservative"
> Advocates Socialism


Now how does that work?


Oh, give me a break. You know well that universal healthcare isn't socialism. That's a load of malarkey.
Fortschritte IIWiki |The Player Behind Fort
Moderate Centre Rightist, Ordoliberal, Pro LGBT, Social Liberal
OOC Pros & Cons | Fort's Political Party Rankings(Updated)
Political Things I've Written
Japan: Land of the Rising Debt | Explaining the West German Economic Miracle
Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:44 pm

Fortschritte wrote:
Murkwood wrote:> "Conservative"
> Advocates Socialism


Now how does that work?


Oh, give me a break. You know well that universal healthcare isn't socialism. That's a load of malarkey.


Actually, I think he truly believes it.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
The Orson Empire
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31630
Founded: Mar 20, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Orson Empire » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:45 pm

Vazdaria wrote:
Rhodisia wrote: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? :eyebrow: Because you sound very liberal.

He's likely not a Christian Fundamentalist, which most extreme Republicans are.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ariddia, Celritannia, Cerula, Cyptopir, Dumb Ideologies, Escalia, Google Adsense [Bot], Ifreann, Kenmoria, Republics of the Solar Union, Tungstan

Advertisement

Remove ads