Healthcare! A much needed reform in the US.

[Ifreann]

Private insurance at the end of the day is saying that rich people deserve better health care. Why does someone deserve better healthcare for having money?

I support public and private forms of insurance. The reason why private insurance should exist is because everyone should own private property, including stock in private health insurance companies.

Every person in the world should be rich unless they choose not to be.

This is simply impossible.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Private insurance at the end of the day is saying that rich people deserve better health care. Why does someone deserve better healthcare for having money?

I support public and private forms of insurance. The reason why private insurance should exist is because everyone should own private property, including stock in private health insurance companies.

Every person in the world should be rich unless they choose not to be.

You know what this is? This is housing profiteers in Solomon's temple. Why should they be run out of business while people profiteering on others' misery aren't?

[Celritannia]

That’s why I said forcefully cut the profit motive out of healthcare.

I agree but it seems politicians will keep listening to the lobbyists ahead of what the people want.

Actually, it is OK to have a public option for necessary procedures with average doctors and a private option for unnecessary procedures. The private hospitals likely would have higher paying doctors and be better quality and this is OK. I am fine with wealthier people having better quality care but lower class people should have adequate care at least.

I have to point out that it's not accurate to assume private hospitals offer better care.

[Ifreann]

That’s why I said forcefully cut the profit motive out of healthcare.

I agree but it seems politicians will keep listening to the lobbyists ahead of what the people want.

Actually, it is OK to have a public option for necessary procedures with average doctors and a private option for unnecessary procedures. The private hospitals likely would have higher paying doctors and be better quality and this is OK. I am fine with wealthier people having better quality care but lower class people should have adequate care at least.

Fucking why should the rich have better quality care?

[Kowani]

That’s why I said forcefully cut the profit motive out of healthcare.

I agree but it seems politicians will keep listening to the lobbyists ahead of what the people want.

Actually, it is OK to have a public option for necessary procedures with average doctors and a private option for unnecessary procedures. The private hospitals likely would have higher paying doctors and be better quality and this is OK. I am fine with wealthier people having better quality care but lower class people should have adequate care at least.

I realize it’s libertarian orthodoxy to assume that private>government, but this doesn’t really work in the healthcare sector.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Private insurance at the end of the day is saying that rich people deserve better health care. Why does someone deserve better healthcare for having money?

I support public and private forms of insurance. The reason why private insurance should exist is because everyone should own private property, including stock in private health insurance companies.

Every person in the world should be rich unless they choose not to be.

That's nice. There is nothing in the known history of free markets to think the "right to be rich" will ever be guaranteed by private enterprise. Sounds like a job for government to me (and I wouldn't make promises about when)

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I agree but it seems politicians will keep listening to the lobbyists ahead of what the people want.

Actually, it is OK to have a public option for necessary procedures with average doctors and a private option for unnecessary procedures. The private hospitals likely would have higher paying doctors and be better quality and this is OK. I am fine with wealthier people having better quality care but lower class people should have adequate care at least.

Fucking why should the rich have better quality care?

Aristocratic privilege says hi. Or: "I deserve it because I'm a billionaire."

[Sundiata]

I support public and private forms of insurance. The reason why private insurance should exist is because everyone should own private property, including stock in private health insurance companies.

Every person in the world should be rich unless they choose not to be.

Again, the UK has a nationalised health service, while private health companies are alongside.

So does Singapore, but the issue with the UK is that private health insurers don't have enough autonomy as they do in Singapore. This stifles competition.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Again, the UK has a nationalised health service, while private health companies are alongside.

So does Singapore, but the issue with the UK is that private health insurers don't have enough autonomy as they do in Singapore. This stifles competition.

Explain why we should allow people to profit off others' misery and ill health.

[Celritannia]

Again, the UK has a nationalised health service, while private health companies are alongside.

So does Singapore, but the issue with the UK is that private health insurers don't have enough autonomy as they do in Singapore. This stifles competition.

And Singapore disenfranchises against the poor.

Why should someone's health be a profit margin?

Jesus healed the sick for free.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I agree but it seems politicians will keep listening to the lobbyists ahead of what the people want.

Actually, it is OK to have a public option for necessary procedures with average doctors and a private option for unnecessary procedures. The private hospitals likely would have higher paying doctors and be better quality and this is OK. I am fine with wealthier people having better quality care but lower class people should have adequate care at least.

Fucking why should the rich have better quality care?

If they didn't, nobody would. Then there would be no highly funded 'bleeding edge' to advance medicine overall.

Someone should have better quality care, maybe not the rich. Maybe the youngest? Or we could hold a lottery.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Jesus healed the sick for free.

If you believe what it says in his biography.

[Kowani]

Fucking why should the rich have better quality care?

If they didn't, nobody would. Then there would be no highly funded 'bleeding edge' to advance medicine overall.

Sure there would! It’d be the government’s literally limitless pockets, because this is America, which has enough fiscal space to build a space hotel.

[Celritannia]

Jesus healed the sick for free.

If you believe what it says in his biography.

This is true, I do not believe he could heal people.

[Estanglia]

I think the US needs universal healthcare. I'm leaning to a single-payer system, but I think a National Health Insurance system is both more feasible and more likely.

[Sundiata]

I support public and private forms of insurance. The reason why private insurance should exist is because everyone should own private property, including stock in private health insurance companies.

Every person in the world should be rich unless they choose not to be.

You know what this is? This is housing profiteers in Solomon's temple. Why should they be run out of business while people profiteering on others' misery aren't?

Don't you dare compare me to the Pharisees.

My position on this matter is completely consistent with the ethos of the Catholic Church as practiced by the prelature of Opus Dei. Private property is a right and private ownership should be spread as widely as possible without the state overstepping it's boundaries. There's nothing wrong with a person being rich or a country being rich, just as long as they give to others as much as, if not more than they receive. A public option is a solid bulwark against the externalities of the marketplace.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If they didn't, nobody would. Then there would be no highly funded 'bleeding edge' to advance medicine overall.

Sure there would! It’d be the government’s literally limitless pockets, because this is America, which has enough fiscal space to build a space hotel.

Government 'research hospitals' and equipment manufacturers perhaps. I'm trying not to be too idealistic though.

[Vistulange]

A large-scale campaign to tell people that EpiPens don't actually cost $600 might be a good starting point.

[Celritannia]

If they didn't, nobody would. Then there would be no highly funded 'bleeding edge' to advance medicine overall.

Sure there would! It’d be the government’s literally limitless pockets, because this is America, which has enough fiscal space to build a space hotel.

A national health system is good for everyone, but private healthcare is good to an extent.
One good thing private healthcare does, is those that can afford it, decreases the number of people who use the public system.

If I had the money, I would go onto BUPA, not because I agree with private healthcare, but because I have the resources to, and thus allow those who cannot afford private health care to use the public system in place.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You know what this is? This is housing profiteers in Solomon's temple. Why should they be run out of business while people profiteering on others' misery aren't?

Don't you dare compare me to the Pharisees.

My position on this matter is completely consistent with the ethos of the Catholic Church as practiced by the prelature of Opus Dei. Private property is a right and private ownership should be spread as widely as possible without the state overstepping it's boundaries. There's nothing wrong with a person being rich or a country being rich, just as long as they give to others as much as, if not more than they receive. A public option is a solid bulwark against the externalities of the marketplace.

You do understand that what props up the healthcare insurance sector is ordinary people betting against them becoming sick right? And that betting essentially is people betting against their own inevitable ill-health and misery.
So... why should the healthcare insurers profit off the inevitable masses of sick and miserable human beings?

[Sundiata]

So does Singapore, but the issue with the UK is that private health insurers don't have enough autonomy as they do in Singapore. This stifles competition.

And Singapore disenfranchises against the poor.

Why should someone's health be a profit margin?

Jesus healed the sick for free.

Singapore does not disenfranchise the poor. The government of Singapore provides healthcare options to the poorest of the poor that are free at the point of service.

[Celritannia]

And Singapore disenfranchises against the poor.

Why should someone's health be a profit margin?

Jesus healed the sick for free.

Singapore does not disenfranchise the poor. The government of Singapore provides healthcare options to the poorest of the poor that are free at the point of service.

Again, I shall link this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26349689

[Ifreann]

You know what this is? This is housing profiteers in Solomon's temple. Why should they be run out of business while people profiteering on others' misery aren't?

Don't you dare compare me to the Pharisees.

My position on this matter is completely consistent with the ethos of the Catholic Church as practiced by the prelature of Opus Dei. Private property is a right and private ownership should be spread as widely as possible without the state overstepping it's boundaries. There's nothing wrong with a person being rich or a country being rich, just as long as they give to others as much as, if not more than they receive. A public option is a solid bulwark against the externalities of the marketplace.

You simply cannot have rich people without poor people. Do you think anyone would work in a sweatshop if they were rich? Do you think that Nike could make anyone rich without using sweatshop labour?

[Nuroblav]

I'm in favor of amending the affordable care act and adding a public option, this way people who need healthcare get healthcare and Americans get to retain their freedom of choice via different private options for insurance.

^^This would be a good idea. I come from a country with universal healthcare so the fact that the US still hasn't really got round to it does baffle me. That would - as you say - allow people who need healthcare to be able to have access to it, while those who wish to continue with it can do so. Private healthcare, I'm not a big fan to be honest and ideally - from my perspective - we'd be looking at more worker-managed healthcare rather than simply placing it in the hands of the government. But that's not gonna happen any time soon in the US, so given that your solution sounds good to me, there we go.

[The Black Forrest]

Don't you dare compare me to the Pharisees.

My position on this matter is completely consistent with the ethos of the Catholic Church as practiced by the prelature of Opus Dei. Private property is a right and private ownership should be spread as widely as possible without the state overstepping it's boundaries. There's nothing wrong with a person being rich or a country being rich, just as long as they give to others as much as, if not more than they receive. A public option is a solid bulwark against the externalities of the marketplace.

You simply cannot have rich people without poor people. Do you think anyone would work in a sweatshop if they were rich? Do you think that Nike could make anyone rich without using sweatshop labour?

I was once at a security conference and met a computer manager from Nike. Even he commented if people knew what we pay to make a shoe; people would stop buying them.