Libertarians would stand by and watch someone die rather than help someone caught in a bad spot. I suppose if someone gets a flat tire and they need a jack you'd laugh and drive off?

Comment by Gaytor on September 16, 2011 at 9:07pm

We wouldn't have to raise taxes more than we currently pay for these services as a society. Most of us would see a savings. 

 

Currently we pay 26% of GDP in taxes if we include state taxes. We pay 16.7% of GDP in health care. About 42.7% is what we pay for these services. If we were to shape our program similar to any other system in the world (everyone pays at least 5% of GDP less than us) we would see a savings as a country. Compared to other countries, we should be looking for 36 to 38% in taxes. May sound like a lot, but this is less than we are currently paying for the same services. 

Comment by Brady on September 16, 2011 at 9:29pm
Too bad we have to waste our money on this military industrial complex and wasting money on failing companies and banks. Oddly, Ron Paul is the only person really considering fixing our economic problems by ending the wars.
Comment by kris feenstra on September 16, 2011 at 10:04pm

Great, raise taxes as high is you want.

 

As Gaytor mentioned, it's restructuring the same costs in a different payment system.  In theory, it could very well reduce the actual amount you spend.  Currently, you already spend tax money on Healthcare whether you are insured or not, as do I.  There's not a whole lot that can be done about that.  The taxes I do pay directly on my provincial health care plan come in the form of a premium, which is about 1.5% of my income.  I doesn't matter to me in principle if I pay taht through taxation or directly out of pocket.

 

Furthermore, there are multiple models for universal healthcare that are not all modeled on single-payer systems.  Simply having universal healthcare does not equate to raised taxes.  The system could use private insurance.

 

Currently, a general social welfare system where people's needs are given to them regardless of level of responsibility.

 

That's not what universal healthcare is.  The system is based entirely on people paying in. Some concessions are made for people with financial difficulties.

 

All insurance companies are in the business of gambling.

 

Which is one of the points of objection.  I buy health insurance to cover my medical needs should they arise.  That cost gets distributed and absorbed across a user base.  It should be a function of need and available resources, not a gamble of any sorts.

 

I'll offer up my thanks for providing the info I requested.  It adds some insight.  Doesn't seem like the best plan, though I suppose it's not the worst either. 

Comment by Unseen on September 16, 2011 at 10:24pm

The word "gambling" has been mentioned. People who buy insurance are betting they will need it. The insurance companies, in order to make a profit, have to bet that they can rig the system so that the house wins. People who buy insurance are betting that their claims will be paid and will not be so high that the insurance company will try to get out of paying them. They are also betting that their insurance will always be there. In other words, they are sure they will always have a job and/or the income required to keep insurance. I guess they are betting that if the day comes they don't have insurance they won't need it. Which is flat out stupid.

Comment by Anonymous on September 17, 2011 at 4:20pm

My favorite health plan to date has covered 100% of all medical expenses occurred, including dental, chiropractics, alternative medicines and preventive care.  The plan provider was instantly accessible, very agreeable, and treated me with respect, courtesy, and like a human being. Actually, I could honestly say that I was treated the way I expected to be treated every time a condition arose.  Not only that, the plan I had had no deductible and had a customized premium that fit exactly what I could and wanted to afford. No premium due dates and if my medical costs didn't exceed my premium I was always left with the difference. 0% bureaucratic waste and under the plan I was able to take advantage of the countless exercise and nutritional resources at no additional monetary cost. Through this program I was able to go from 24% body fat to 11% (and declining) and feel healthier than I have in the last 10 years.

 

What I am starting to realize that this plan is actually a universal health care plan in the sense that it is available to anyone in or outside the USA. The health care plan I used is a savings account and personal responsibility.

 

Health insurance or universal health care does not mean good health. And purporting such adds to the real problem while just hopefully only relieving the systems.  The sooner the government can stop assuming people's individual responsibility for themselves, the sooner we will see the real change we have been hoping for but never see. The federal government is no magic bullet, but for some reason we allow them to use real bullets in foreign sovereign territories on a daily basis without objective reason. They are super wasteful, super slow, non-inventive, have a terrible track record, are awful examples to its citizens in the sense that they spend more than they receive, give out trillions to businesses that also don't take personal responsibility and are heading quickly to bankruptcy.  They are being a hindrance to economic growth, they are constantly exchanging our liberties for their comfort and are creating powerful enemies around the globe.

 

What entity do you really want to assume our individual health care responsibility? Please don't tell me its the federal government. Health Insurance does not equal good health. I'm sorry but people still die and still get sick with or without health insurance. And in too many instances when people equate health insurance as magically having good health, they forgo their personal responsibility for making good healthy lifestyle choices.

Comment by Arcus on September 17, 2011 at 4:30pm

"And in too many instances when people equate health insurance as magically having good health, they forgo their personal responsibility for making good healthy lifestyle choices."

By the extension of that logic, people in countries with universal health care systems should have lower average health.. which is no the case. One proxy of public health could be life expectancy. See any outliers below?

Comment by kris feenstra on September 17, 2011 at 5:03pm

The health care plan I used is a savings account and personal responsibility.

 

In most people's cases, the amount they could put into savings pales in comparison to the cost of treating severe illness, which can mean medical expenses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Younger members of the population are especially unlikely to have this kind of cash or credit available to them.  I know a couple of people who finished school around the time the whole economic collapse hit.  They were left with student debt (over $10,000) and limited job opportunities.  How much do you think they were able to put into savings at the time?  

 

Health insurance or universal health care does not mean good health.

 

If it's done well, it means a method of making medical care accessible and financially viable for individuals, which in turn means overall health improvements.  Certainly, there are many other factors contributing to good health, but I don't know of any significant correlation between those factors and the availability of healthcare.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 5 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service