Repeal of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare)

[Somewhere_]

I mean, props to Paul (I guess) for being one of the few Republicans to stand up and say that you gotta have something to replace the ACA with before you repeal it, but this isn't exactly my dream team for people I'd pick to craft healthcare legislation. Remember, Paul is the guy who, when asked a few years ago what should happen to a hypothetical 30 y/o man without insurance who fell into a coma, said, essentially, he should die because people need to "take responsibility". As if anyone can take responsibility for a sudden accident, or illness, or disease, especially when they're young and can't possibly make enough money to pay for the health costs. I shudder to think about what Paul would craft as an acceptable replacement for the ACA.

While I dont think someone should die, its not my responsibility to take care of him either.

And when Paul says the man needs to take responsibility, he means buy insurance, not avoid getting a coma (which is obviously unavoidable). And he understands insurance doesnt come cheap, which is why he also works to try and get it to be cheaper.

 

[gimmepie]

While I dont think someone should die, its not my responsibility to take care of him either.

And when Paul says the man needs to take responsibility, he means buy insurance, not avoid getting a coma (which is obviously unavoidable). And he understands insurance doesnt come cheap, which is why he also works to try and get it to be cheaper.

You know what was a great method of making health insurance cheaper and more accessible? The ACA.

 

[Esper]

While I dont think someone should die, its not my responsibility to take care of him either.

And when Paul says the man needs to take responsibility, he means buy insurance, not avoid getting a coma (which is obviously unavoidable). And he understands insurance doesnt come cheap, which is why he also works to try and get it to be cheaper.

I mean, I get where Paul is coming from, his whole small-government-libertarian-thing, but I disagree with it and worry that it will influence, that is, limit any proposal that he might suggest or work on. Partially that's because he's a Republican and libertarian, but specifically because of the statement he made years ago which was unusually callous even for a politician.

 

[Somewhere_]

I mean, I get where Paul is coming from, his whole small-government-libertarian-thing, but I disagree with it and worry that it will influence, that is, limit any proposal that he might suggest or work on. Partially that's because he's a Republican and libertarian, but specifically because of the statement he made years ago which was unusually callous even for a politician.

What do you disagree with? Do you believe I have an obligation give you money if you get sick?

 

[gimmepie]

What do you disagree with? Do you believe I have an obligation give you money if you get sick?

Not directed at me but I'm answering anyway.

"From each according to their means, to each according to their need."

I believe that we all have a responsibility to contribute a reasonable amount of money to the government for our financial status that can then be used to create a healthier society. That selfish, greedy attitude to people's health is what is wrong with healthcare in your country. Especially when taxes, if done right, shouldn't effect your lifestyle at all to any noticeable degree.

 

[Somewhere_]

Not directed at me but I'm answering anyway.

"From each according to their means, to each according to their need."

I believe that we all have a responsibility to contribute a reasonable amount of money to the government for our financial status that can then be used to create a healthier society. That selfish, greedy attitude to people's health is what is wrong with healthcare in your country. Especially when taxes, if done right, shouldn't effect your lifestyle at all to any noticeable degree.

Suppose you and I are on a deserted island. I build a hut to survive the winter and you didnt.

Do I have an obligation to house you in my hut?

To expand this analogy, how much am I obliged to give society? What percent of my income? Does my income matter in this percentage?

I earn an income by providing a service to society. Why is this not enough for you?

Please answer each question and in order. Its important.

 

[Esper]

Suppose you and I are on a deserted island. I build a hut to survive the winter and you didnt.

Do I have an obligation to house you in my hut?

To expand this analogy, how much am I obliged to give society? What percent of my income? Does my income matter in this percentage?

I earn an income by providing a service to society. Why is this not enough for you?

Please answer each question and in order. Its important.

I'll just quote this instead of the other post.

In short, yes, I do think that to a degree you should help pay if I get sick. Or rather, if you have the means I think you should. Most of us are not millionaires or billionaires so the amount of money we actually give to pay for things like police and medical services and all those other public services is going to be pretty low. "To each according to his ability." So if you don't really have money to spare then, no, I wouldn't expect you to pay for my medical expenses at all. If you're somewhat comfortable economically then maybe a dollar of your taxes might go to my medical expenses, but given the size of a country like the US it would probably be less than that. I think the rich should pay the lion's share because they can afford it without it hurting them.

To this post,

Why didn't I help you with the house? Was I injured, was I unable? Was I just selfish and unhelpful? The reasons are important. Another thing to consider, does it hurt you to have me around in your hut? I would argue that just earning an income doesn't necessarily mean you're contributing to society. If you pay taxes then yes, you are contributing. How much should you contribute? I dunno. I feel like people can afford to give should give until all people have enough, that is, food, shelter, health, education, and other necessities.

 

[Ivysaur]

I'm also going to add that keeping your citizens healthy is good for the society as a whole, not just for the person in particular. If I'm down with a virus, I might spread it and cause hundreds of people to get sick, causing massive pain and economic losses when it could have been solved if you had helped me to begin with. A sick person means a loss of productivity. A chronically ill person who can't get treatment because they are poor will have it tough to get a stable job, making it even less likely still that they will ever get money to pay for it. Not because they are "lazy" or "irresponsible", but because they are sick.

And then there is moral behaviour. If you tell me that by paying a small percetage of my income in taxes, I'll help cure sick people -and even myself if I ever need it in the future-, well, I can't really be mad about it. I certainly won't get on the streets saying "I'd rather have my 50€ a month in taxes back and let people die if they get sick!".

 

[Hands]

Y'all need to push to get yourselves an American NHS

 

[gimmepie]

Suppose you and I are on a deserted island. I build a hut to survive the winter and you didnt.

Do I have an obligation to house you in my hut?

I'd say we have an obligation to help each other survive/not suffer. Why even build two separate huts to begin with when we can work together to create a single, larger and altogether sturdier/safer hut in less time than it'd take us to build two shittier small ones?

Even if for some reason I hadn't built a hut out of my own folly, you have no right to let me die because it might be an inconvenience to you to house me in your hut for a while. Although by all means it'd be reasonable to expect me to work for my place like a form of taxation.

To expand this analogy, how much am I obliged to give society? What percent of my income? Does my income matter in this percentage?

Just like I said earlier; "From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs." The more you have, the greater a percentage of your income should be taxed. So how much you're obliged to give depends on how much you have to begin with since the wealthier you are, the more you can give without it affecting your lifestyle whilst poorer people can't afford to give nearly as great a percentage if they want to not starve.

I earn an income by providing a service to society. Why is this not enough for you?

Most jobs are pretty menial and don't actually contribute that much to society quite frankly. You for example, work as a waiter or something for a catering company right? How exactly is society better off because of your job compared to if people had to go and get their food themselves? You're not providing a necessary service to society, you're providing a luxury to people who can afford it in order to increase your own income. You're really not helping society. That's one reason right there.

In turn, I have a question for you. Why is it so bad to give a tiny fraction of your income, tiny in a way that will barely effect your lifestyle (if at all) to contribute to a system that will then use that money to save hundreds of lives? Personally, I think that you're getting quite a big return for your investment.

 

[Somewhere_]

I'd say we have an obligation to help each other survive/not suffer. Why even build two separate huts to begin with when we can work together to create a single, larger and altogether sturdier/safer hut in less time than it'd take us to build two ****tier small ones?

It doesnt matter why we didnt work together. I built the hut and you didnt help. @Esper It is irrelevant to the question if you were sick.

Okay, so I have an obligation to let you into my hut despite you not helping me with it? So now Im forced to let you into my hut. Great, now my labor has been stolen!

Even if for some reason I hadn't built a hut out of my own folly, you have no right to let me die because it might be an inconvenience to you to house me in your hut for a while. Although by all means it'd be reasonable to expect me to work for my place like a form of taxation.

Why do I have no right to let you die? You do not have a right to my labor.

Just like I said earlier; "From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs." The more you have, the greater a percentage of your income should be taxed. So how much you're obliged to give depends on how much you have to begin with since the wealthier you are, the more you can give without it affecting your lifestyle whilst poorer people can't afford to give nearly as great a percentage if they want to not starve.

First answer this question: What percentage of my income do I owe society? And at what income do you think I owe a greater percentage of my income?

Most jobs are pretty menial and don't actually contribute that much to society quite frankly. You for example, work as a waiter or something for a catering company right? How exactly is society better off because of your job compared to if people had to go and get their food themselves? You're not providing a necessary service to society, you're providing a luxury to people who can afford it in order to increase your own income. You're really not helping society. That's one reason right there.

Yes I work as a waiter. Sure, I dont get paid much, but that is because my service isn't worth much to society like other jobs. Society is better off because i am providing them a luxury.

In turn, I have a question for you. Why is it so bad to give a tiny fraction of your income, tiny in a way that will barely effect your lifestyle (if at all) to contribute to a system that will then use that money to save hundreds of lives? Personally, I think that you're getting quite a big return for your investment.

Im not making a moral statement or economic argument, thus the words "bad" are useless adjectives.

And actually I'm taxed approximately 14% for federal withholdings, social security, and medicare. Do you understand how much money that is out my paycheck? Its a lot! Tiny fraction my ass.

Anyways, it doesn't matter that it "doesnt affect my lifestyle." Which it actually does because now I have less money to save for college.

Lets see how great this investment is: I'm not old enough for medicare. Nope! I will never get social security. Nope! And unless you are going to tell me the money that goes towards federal withholdings help more more than the money I put in, that would be wrong as well. And thats assuming it goes to anything that actually benefits me. I think it goes to paying interest off the debt that I was born into. So, nope!

Maybe you can argue that my grandparents on medicare/social security and my parents that will be on social security count, but I would argue they would be better off without these programs and less taxation. But lets avoid the economic argument for now.

 

[gimmepie]

It doesnt matter why we didnt work together. I built the hut and you didnt help. @Esper It is irrelevant to the question if you were sick.

Okay, so I have an obligation to let you into my hut despite you not helping me with it? So now Im forced to let you into my hut. Great, now my labor has been stolen!

It actually does matter. Because in this analogy, building the one good hut together is the ACA. A single, strong and effective system that's good for everyone instead of a system that may or may not benefit individuals. Similarly, being sick also matters in your analogy, because we're discussing healthcare. So obviously the reason I don't have a hut is because I was unwell or injured and unable to build my own. Sorry, but my life (and the lives of pretty much anyone else) is more valuable than your labour. There's more to the way the world works than property and labour.

If you drive past someone bleeding out on the side of the road, you're breaking the law by not helping them. It's immoral to not help them. It's selfish to not stop and help them, even if it'll make you late for work or something. In that situation, I can pretty much guarantee that you'd stop and try to help in some way. So why do so many people, especially in the US, advocate for a healthcare system that is the same thing as driving past that person?

Why do I have no right to let you die? You do not have a right to my labor.

Let me put it this way, reverse the situation. If you're unable to build a hut and I have, are you going to freeze to death or get mauled by a wild animal without me letting you in, are you really going to be okay with me letting you die because you didn't help build the hut? If you say yes, you're lying.

First answer this question: What percentage of my income do I owe society? And at what income do you think I owe a greater percentage of my income?

I did. This will not be the same for every person. The amount you owe depends on how much you have. I can't give you a specific number because it would depend on things like your personal income and the cost of living/cost of your lifestyle.

Yes I work as a waiter. Sure, I dont get paid much, but that is because my service isn't worth much to society like other jobs. Society is better off because i am providing them a luxury.

If you think the service a waiter provides has any actual baring on society, you have a very narrow and misguided perspective. Your job has exactly no baring on anything of any actual importance. Most jobs don't. Society would not be in a worse position if there were no waiters.

Im not making a moral statement or economic argument, thus the words "bad" are useless adjectives.

Really because everything you say reads like an economic argument and morality is implied in the topic. So what kind of argument are you making?

And actually I'm taxed approximately 14% for federal withholdings, social security, and medicare. Do you understand how much money that is out my paycheck? Its a lot! Tiny fraction my ass.

Specifically, no. I don't know how much you earn during any period of time. In general, yes. Because I'm an adult human being who has had to hold a job before.

Anyways, it doesn't matter that it "doesnt affect my lifestyle." Which it actually does because now I have less money to save for college.

That's because your education system is almost as bad as your healthcare system. But ultimately, I don't think that 14% is really making a huge difference to your life. Meanwhile it is making a big difference to society as a whole which is much more important than you as an individual member of that conglomerate.

Lets see how great this investment is: I'm not old enough for medicare. Nope! I will never get social security. Nope! And unless you are going to tell me the money that goes towards federal withholdings help more more than the money I put in, that would be wrong as well. And thats assuming it goes to anything that actually benefits me. I think it goes to paying interest off the debt that I was born into. So, nope!

You've never had a serious injury or illness before have you? First and foremost, you're going to age. Plus, are you sure that you don't qualify for medicare? I'm not really sure but here minors under the age of sixteen are simply counted as depends on their parents' account.

Either way, you're trading almost nothing for hundreds of lives. Those lives are worth more than your convenience and labour. Not to mention, one day, you could easily be one of those lives that are saved because of access to affordable care. That's a good investment no matter how you look at it. Right now your mindset is so self-centred and narrow and doesn't contain an ounce of forethought. It's harmful to society and potentially harmful to you as an individual.

 

[Somewhere_]

It actually does matter. Because in this analogy, building the one good hut together is the ACA. A single, strong and effective system that's good for everyone instead of a system that may or may not benefit individuals. Similarly, being sick also matters in your analogy, because we're discussing healthcare. So obviously the reason I don't have a hut is because I was unwell or injured and unable to build my own. Sorry, but my life (and the lives of pretty much anyone else) is more valuable than your labour. There's more to the way the world works than property and labour.

No, I'm talking about positive obligations. The ACA has not entered yet.

Also, I said you didnt help build the hut. Rights are universal. You have a right to my hut regardless if you are sick or not (applying your ideas consistently).

If you drive past someone bleeding out on the side of the road, you're breaking the law by not helping them. It's immoral to not help them. It's selfish to not stop and help them, even if it'll make you late for work or something. In that situation, I can pretty much guarantee that you'd stop and try to help in some way. So why do so many people, especially in the US, advocate for a healthcare system that is the same thing as driving past that person?

If you believe in rights, they exist regardless if a government exists or not. The government is merely a tool to secure these rights. The law is irrelevant in this context.

So its selfish? Okay. Not an argument.

Its immoral to not help them? This is a statement, not an argument. Why is it immoral not to help them?

I personally I would help them, but that is irrelevant.

Let me put it this way, reverse the situation. If you're unable to build a hut and I have, are you going to freeze to death or get mauled by a wild animal without me letting you in, are you really going to be okay with me letting you die because you didn't help build the hut? If you say yes, you're lying.

Im not okay with you letting me die, but I recognize its not your problem. But I sure as hell would break down the doors to your hut because the alternative is death.

And this statement does not contradict my argument. I am saying you/me/anyone have no right. I am not saying you/meanyone will not act on it.

I did. This will not be the same for every person. The amount you owe depends on how much you have. I can't give you a specific number because it would depend on things like your personal income and the cost of living/cost of your lifestyle.

say I make 12k/year (barely above poverty for 1 individual)
55k/year? (average family household income)
100k/year? (a shit ton of money)

How much do each of these tax brackets owe to society assuming they live in the same moderately priced city.

If you think the service a waiter provides has any actual baring on society, you have a very narrow and misguided perspective. Your job has exactly no baring on anything of any actual importance. Most jobs don't. Society would not be in a worse position if there were no waiters.

I barely have an impact. Its incredibly negligible. But its there nevertheless.

Do you understand why waiters exist? Because people want them because they increase quality of life as a luxury. So if waiting was outlawed, society would be deprived of thousands of people's labor. By definition, society would be worse off.

I think you are conflating quality of life and basic necessities. You do realize there is more to life than just food, water, clothes, access to various facilities, and shelter?

Really because everything you say reads like an economic argument and morality is implied in the topic. So what kind of argument are you making?

I'm saying you have no right to my labor. I'm saying that positive obligations do not exist.

That's because your education system is almost as bad as your healthcare system. But ultimately, I don't think that 14% is really making a huge difference to your life. Meanwhile it is making a big difference to society as a whole which is much more important than you as an individual member of that conglomerate.

So if I make $100 in a night, the $14 is making a huge different to society? What a mathematically false statement:

That $14 translates to $4.3 x 10^-8 /person. That $14 is of much more use to me than it is to society. And that is assuming any percentage of the money isn't sucked up my inefficiency or bureaucracy.

You've never had a serious injury or illness before have you? First and foremost, you're going to age. Plus, are you sure that you don't qualify for medicare? I'm not really sure but here minors under the age of sixteen are simply counted as depends on their parents' account.

Medicare is for being 65 and older. Im years away from qualifying. And regardless, that $14 will never cross paths with me ever again.

Either way, you're trading almost nothing for hundreds of lives. Those lives are worth more than your convenience and labour. Not to mention, one day, you could easily be one of those lives that are saved because of access to affordable care. That's a good investment no matter how you look at it. Right now your mindset is so self-centred and narrow and doesn't contain an ounce of forethought. It's harmful to society and potentially harmful to you as an individual.

$14 is not saving hundreds of lives.

My mindset is self-centered and narrow? 10/10 argument i praise your intellectual superiority

I dont contain an ounce of forethought? Well, provide evidence please. Its not an argument.

Its harmful to me as an individual because I dont want my labor taken? Well, I have no problem voluntarily giving away my labor for free because I do lots of charity work. But I guess I'm such a self-centered selfish person that I am unredeemable in your eyes. What a tragedy.

And stop trying to take the moral high ground here. Because you dont have the moral high ground. If we are defining virtue as giving away one's one labor for the benefit of society (we will assume its beneficial for argument's sake), then one must voluntarily give his own labor. Forcing others to give up their labor is NOT virtue.

 

[gimmepie]

No, I'm talking about positive obligations. The ACA has not entered yet.

This thread is literally about the ACA repeal. Everything in it stems from the ACA.

Also, I said you didnt help build the hut. Rights are universal. You have a right to my hut regardless if you are sick or not (applying your ideas consistently).

The world is not as simple as you seem to want it to be. It can't be as straight forward as assuming everything is universal without any outside facets affecting things. Although definitions tend to be pretty universal

I don't see any part of that definition that says rights must be universal.

If you believe in rights, they exist regardless if a government exists or not. The government is merely a tool to secure these rights. The law is irrelevant in this context.

The law is irrelevant on your imaginary island but that's not where we live. Rights as we know them exist because we created them through politics and law. They are not an intrinsic part of human development.

So its selfish? Okay. Not an argument.

Selfish behaviour like that doesn't benefit society in any way. That's the argument. You as an individual are worth next to nothing compared to the entirety of the society you live in. Whatever minor inconvenience it is to you, the ACA is a benefit to society as a whole which is far more important.

Its immoral to not help them? This is a statement, not an argument. Why is it immoral not to help them?

I'm not going to get into a pointless debate discussing the origins of morality. Why something is moral or not is irrelevant to this conversation.

I personally I would help them, but that is irrelevant.

Oh but it is! Because according to your philosophy you wouldn't because they have no right to your labour. You don't owe them anything. The minor inconvenience to you is worth more than their life. That is the philosophy you are championing right now.

Im not okay with you letting me die, but I recognize its not your problem. But I sure as hell would break down the doors to your hut because the alternative is death.

The hypocrisy here is highly amusing.

And this statement does not contradict my argument. I am saying you/me/anyone have no right. I am not saying you/meanyone will not act on it.

It's completely contradictory and you aren't going to fool anyone by glossing over things like that. the bottom line is you're saying one thing but your actions in that situation would be completely opposite to the philosophy you're supporting.

say I make 12k/year (barely above poverty for 1 individual)
55k/year? (average family household income)
100k/year? (a shit ton of money)

How much do each of these tax brackets owe to society assuming they live in the same moderately priced city.

What's a moderately priced city? If you want me to give you a hypothetical number I'm going to need numbers to work with. I'm assuming you're talking US dollars.

I barely have an impact. Its incredibly negligible. But its there nevertheless.

It's not an impact large enough to get you out of doing something that actually supports society.

Do you understand why waiters exist? Because people want them because they increase quality of life as a luxury. So if waiting was outlawed, society would be deprived of thousands of people's labor. By definition, society would be worse off.

In the grand scheme of things the impact would be meaningless. Scale is important.

I think you are conflating quality of life and basic necessities. You do realize there is more to life than just food, water, clothes, access to various facilities, and shelter?

Considering that I am in fact alive and living in society, yes. I am aware of that. I'm not conflating anything.

I'm saying you have no right to my labor. I'm saying that positive obligations do not exist.

It's not about individuals. Society is entitled to your labour and I, and others, in turn benefit from it as members of society. As a member of society, you benefit too by being able to have access to affordable healthcare.

So if I make $100 in a night, the $14 is making a huge different to society? What a mathematically false statement:

That $14 translates to $4.3 x 10^-8 /person. That $14 is of much more use to me than it is to society. And that is assuming any percentage of the money isn't sucked up my inefficiency or bureaucracy.

It would be false if you were the only person giving $14, but you're not. Millions of others are also contributing which results in a much greater sum which is of use to society. In the case of the ACA and similar, it means many people get medical treatment that they otherwise wouldn't have access to which is much more important than anything you'd spend $14 dollars on.

Medicare is for being 65 and older. Im years away from qualifying. And regardless, that $14 will never cross paths with me ever again.

It very well might. Much like conservation of matter, once money has been created it isn't destroyed it is just moved somewhere else.

$14 is not saving hundreds of lives.

I didn't say it was. However when millions of people are giving $14, it's not just $14 dollars anymore.

My mindset is self-centered and narrow? 10/10 argument i praise your intellectual superiority

It wasn't so much an argument as a statement of fact. The argument is that looking at the world like that is ultimately not beneficial to society. I get that it's not easy to think of society as a whole over the self, human beings are not wired like that. However if we want to continue to prosper as a society and as a species, we need to make ourselves make that shift.

I dont contain an ounce of forethought? Well, provide evidence please. Its not an argument.

You're completely ignoring that a fairer, cheaper healthcare system is better for both you and society in general in the long term because you're hung up on that $14 now. Went explained a part of this really well earlier, but there's also the part where you could very easily end up in a situation yourself where the ACA saves your life.

Its harmful to me as an individual because I dont want my labor taken? Well, I have no problem voluntarily giving away my labor for free because I do lots of charity work. But I guess I'm such a self-centered selfish person that I am unredeemable in your eyes. What a tragedy.

Oh please, let's not get all melodramatic here. You know damn well I have no personal problem with you.

And stop trying to take the moral high ground here. Because you dont have the moral high ground. If we are defining virtue as giving away one's one labor for the benefit of society (we will assume its beneficial for argument's sake), then one must voluntarily give his own labor. Forcing others to give up their labor is NOT virtue.

It's not about the moral high ground. It's about what is better for society as a whole vs the individual. society as a whole trumps (no pun intended) the individual. That's also the fundamental difference in our view points. You tend to focus on the individual, I focus on what is better for the group so to speak.

 

[Esper]

It seems from a leaked recording that Republicans are worried about the repeal. Some at least are concerned that a quick repeal could come back to bite them in the rear come next election because people might feel they've had the rug pulled out from under them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...s-Republicans-worry-about-replacing-Obamacare

That gives me some small sliver of hope that they won't just repeal the law and leave nothing in its place. Also, it gives me hope that some of them are still at least somewhat tethered to reality.

 

[Sektor]

I'll throw some coins in the cup for shits and giggles. I think that one of the most damaging problems to the American health care system isn't the health care system itself. There is one thing that people tend to avoid discussing and the health care aspect isn't it. Part of, if not the main reason, health care is not affordable is due to heavy pharmaceutical control. If you don't believe that it isn't an issue, then feel free to look for yourself. When companies have the right to buy and trade 'blueprints' of drugs freely and hold domain and possession of said drugs then it is damaging to the system regardless of which system has been in place. Chief example of this is the EpiPen debacle that happened last year, while Obamacare was still active. The costs sky rocketed from around $100 (insurance often covered this cost) to close to $500 and over.

No, for those that claim that Obamacare was 'the best ever' do keep in mind that Obama had the full capability of interacting with these companies and preventing such things from happening. It was perhaps, a fluke, but such things happened and I think it'd be safe to say that it'd happen again regardless of what system was put in place unless something is done about the companies prescribing the care, not providing it.

There were huge gaps in the system and to be honest, it needed to be fixed or rebuilt. People did fall through cracks and they weren't picked up. People at and below the poverty line were crushed when they couldn't afford to live in their residence and have health care at the same time. It happened to more than a few and as a whole I feel that it was a 50/50 deal which in my opinion isn't enough.

Worst of all is that people seem to have forgotten the fact that if you didn't have health care you'd be taxed. Heavily. Noice.

Health care is tricky and not an easy thing to do. With our entire system the way it is an overhaul is nigh improbable. Companies do own the rights to the drugs they invent and in doing so can control the price, thereby they control the health care system.

TL;DR Not the worst, far from the best.

 

[Ivysaur]

I'll throw some coins in the cup for ****s and giggles. I think that one of the most damaging problems to the American health care system isn't the health care system itself. There is one thing that people tend to avoid discussing and the health care aspect isn't it. Part of, if not the main reason, health care is not affordable is due to heavy pharmaceutical control. If you don't believe that it isn't an issue, then feel free to look for yourself. When companies have the right to buy and trade 'blueprints' of drugs freely and hold domain and possession of said drugs then it is damaging to the system regardless of which system has been in place. Chief example of this is the EpiPen debacle that happened last year, while Obamacare was still active. The costs sky rocketed from around $100 (insurance often covered this cost) to close to $500 and over.

You are... completely right! That is the weakest point of the private-first healthcare system in the US. Public systems (or private systems under heavy public supervision) force pharmaceuticals to negotiate directly with the Government, who has massive pricing power and can force them to drastically slash their prices under threat of being left outside of the entire market. The US, on the other hand, not only allows the companies to privately deal with hospitals or customers alone, completely turning the tables and giving the entire power to the companies (pay me or you die) - US law specifically bans the Government from ever negotiating with the pharmaceuticals directly.

The US will never have a normal healthcare system until that part is dealt with.

 

[Sektor]

You are... completely right! That is the weakest point of the private-first healthcare system in the US. Public systems (or private systems under heavy public supervision) force pharmaceuticals to negotiate directly with the Government, who has massive pricing power and can force them to drastically slash their prices under threat of being left outside of the entire market. The US, on the other hand, not only allows the companies to privately deal with hospitals or customers alone, completely turning the tables and giving the entire power to the companies (pay me or you die) - US law specifically bans the Government from ever negotiating with the pharmaceuticals directly.

The US will never have a normal healthcare system until that part is dealt with.

Which, of course, is why losing Obama Care isn't the worst thing in the world. It didn't function properly and with the way the system worked premiums were at an all time high and with the system being broken several doctors preferred if you had anything other than Obama Care. Taxing people $700 for not having health care, I feel, is wrong.

The only people harmed by it are those that pay taxes and the reasoning for this tax was to keep costs down, but as always, transients, illegals and others that wind up in the ER are taken care of regardless. They might not get meds but your certainly can't let a stabbing victim bleed out in your ER. A complete overhaul is needed and Obama Care didn't do that and until someone can manage these Pharmaceutical companies (I doubt it would have been Hillary or Obama) the situation will much be the same.

I would also care to know which congressional official actually has Obama Care. I don't think any do, and if it was supposed to be so great then why don't they have it? It doesn't work and we gave it a fair go.

 

[Somewhere_]

I know I cut a bunch out, but it was far too long to reply to lol. And most (if not all) was not productive anyways.

The world is not as simple as you seem to want it to be. It can't be as straight forward as assuming everything is universal without any outside facets affecting things. Although definitions tend to be pretty universal

I don't see any part of that definition that says rights must be universal.

Its not in the definition, but its an inconsistent stance to say rights are not universal. If I have a right to healthcare, then I have it regardless of how healthy I am or not healthy. Whether I'm 10 years old or 60 years old. To say I have a right to healthcare at 10, but not at 12 is inconsistent. It is impossible to objectively decide where the line should be drawn. Similarly, say I become rich over the course of my life. At what income does my right to healthcare go away?

It's not about individuals. Society is entitled to your labour and I, and others, in turn benefit from it as members of society. As a member of society, you benefit too by being able to have access to affordable healthcare.

Here is what I need from you for us to have a better discussion. You need to prove how I objectively have an innate positive obligation to provide a service to another individual or group of individuals, and if I do, how much in money or time (or with any metric you want) I owe to that individual or group of individuals.

Ill set it up for you. Im alone on a bus with a stranger. The stranger has a heart attack (lets use easy numbers here) and the operation to save him costs $50.

Note that these amounts are 100% of what we own. Nothing on hand or in savings. Just that amount. I know its totally made up, but it seems easier just to do it that way.

How much do I owe the stranger to help him if I have:
-$10 (can't afford)
-$100 (can afford, but barely)
-$1000 (can easily afford)

And does the amount I owe depend on the wealth of the stranger? Lets say he is homeless and has $1. And lets have a second example where he has $500.

In short, why do i have a positive obligation and how much of an obligation do I owe.

 

[gimmepie]

Its not in the definition, but its an inconsistent stance to say rights are not universal. If I have a right to healthcare, then I have it regardless of how healthy I am or not healthy. Whether I'm 10 years old or 60 years old. To say I have a right to healthcare at 10, but not at 12 is inconsistent. It is impossible to objectively decide where the line should be drawn. Similarly, say I become rich over the course of my life. At what income does my right to healthcare go away?

It doesn't. The whole point of socialised healthcare is to provide decent healthcare to you regardless of your income.

Here is what I need from you for us to have a better discussion. You need to prove how I objectively have an innate positive obligation to provide a service to another individual or group of individuals, and if I do, how much in money or time (or with any metric you want) I owe to that individual or group of individuals.

Ill set it up for you. Im alone on a bus with a stranger. The stranger has a heart attack (lets use easy numbers here) and the operation to save him costs $50.

Note that these amounts are 100% of what we own. Nothing on hand or in savings. Just that amount. I know its totally made up, but it seems easier just to do it that way.

How much do I owe the stranger to help him if I have:
-$10 (can't afford)
-$100 (can afford, but barely)
-$1000 (can easily afford)

And does the amount I owe depend on the wealth of the stranger? Lets say he is homeless and has $1. And lets have a second example where he has $500.

In short, why do i have a positive obligation and how much of an obligation do I owe.

Well you see, if you're in a system of socialised healthcare you wouldn't need to fork over any money directly in either situation since a minute fraction taken from your taxes (and everyone else's) would already have covered the cost leaving you free to do as you please with your spending money. I would recommend giving the man having a heart attack CPR though.