How do you view rights?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
This has been refuted many times, but I'm happy to do it again: universal health care is cheaper.

Go ahead and refute, but just making an assertion isn't a refutation.

Estimates of what "universal care" is going to cost are never even close to accurate. For example, when in the US Medicare was introduced. the first year costs were understated by about 10X! The "benefits" are always overstated, and the tangential harm is never considered. The numbers are cooked and fraudulent.

What is never accounted for is human nature. If I have a limited capacity to purchase any commodity, say food. I will choose food that fits my budget. If food is universally provided, I will choose the food I like regardless of the cost. Bring on the Prime Rib, Lobster Tails, etc. When my second child was born several decades ago, ultrasound technology was in its infancy. It was used in rare problem pregnancies. Today, the same technology is used rather frivolously, cost not even a consideration, as long as the patient is insured.

Universal health care turns out to be not so universal in actual practice. Every country that has it has of necessity limited, rationed or denied services, sometimes based on age, or the utility of the person involved. Sometimes the care is postponed, often until the patient no longer needs it because they're dead. And eventually the matter of euthanasia becomes an issue for the government, as costs escalate.

How can it be cheaper? It is argued preventative care is cheaper than corrective. That was the same argument made by HMOs in the US decades ago, and it simply didn't work out. People either don't use it, or ignore the doctor's advice, (why prevent when the correction is guaranteed?) and in some cases there is evidence that the "preventative care" actually harms the patient and causes the disease.

Cost containment? Earnings limitations? Equals shortage of professionals entering service, and lack of incentives to produce new technologies and medicine. Another actual cause of escalating cost, you remember, supply and demand.

Soaking someone else to pay for the care and hiding the real costs? Yes, that's the most likely outcome. Finance the program through soaking the rich, or gasoline taxes, or something unrelated to health care. Separate the benefits from the costs, so that the suckers think their getting a freebie, when we all know in truth there isn't any such thing. Someone pays, and it's better that it's the one demanding the service. Anything else is just hiring the government to steal and redistribute earnings.

Originally posted by whodey
I thought I would start a thread after discussing the right to health care in a previous thread. It got me thinking about rights in general. For example, we have the right to bear arms and a right to property but what of health care? Obama says that he considers health care to be a right even though it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but ...[text shortened]... nd without universal health care it seems that people will fall through the cracks, so to speak.

This discussion about "the right to healthcare" could go on forever. I'll be content to see what laws are passed (if any) about this, then decide. 😏

Originally posted by Wajoma
Just saying so, doesn't make it so.

Cheaper than what? The US model? That is far from free market and the health insurance industry is far worse for regulation.

And I'll again point out the true test of your uhc is to make it voluntary. Let people opt into it, those that do believe in 'free health care' are welcome to sign in to it and pay for it.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Originally posted by frogstomp
The United Nation does

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights an ...[text shortened]... disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The trouble with such egalitarian ideals as are promoted by the UN, is that they presume that the "have nots" may force or coerce the "have" to provide for them what they can't or won't for themselves.

Remember, third world nations have as much say in the UN as do industrialized ones. Why not dip into the deep pockets?

It is the same Marxism which pervades US politics, where the top 10% or producers fund the government, and the bottom 45% consume most of the services. From those who have to those that need.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
This has been refuted many times, but I'm happy to do it again: universal health care is cheaper.

But you failed to do so.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Just saying so, doesn't make it so.

Cheaper than what? The US model? That is far from free market and the health insurance industry is far worse for regulation.

And I'll again point out the true test of your uhc is to make it voluntary. Let people opt into it, those that do believe in 'free health care' are welcome to sign in to it and pay for it.

I love the proposal. It is the same thing I tell my fellow seniors in America about Social Security. If it is so great, why not make it voluntary?

Anything that requires the force of government to make it work, can't be that appealing.

Originally posted by bill718
This discussion about "the right to healthcare" could go on forever. I'll be content to see what laws are passed (if any) about this, then decide. 😏

If you live in a country which enjoys at least partly free markets, and sit by and watch while nationalization of whole industries takes place, you deserve what you get.

The reason a heated debate takes place is that there is a valid difference of opinions. Get involved, and think about the arguments.

We have only to look at the socialized or communized systems of distribution of goods and services in the 20th century to know the ultimate results of placing such power in the hands of government. Socialized distribution of anything can only happen by the government coercing, dictating, limiting, and deciding who gets what. The notion that everyone gets everything they want free, is totally preposterous on its face. Why would any thinking person buy into such a plan?

If you want liberty, and oppose tyranny you must be willing to stand up and fight for it if necessary, at least participate in the discussion rather than wait for the train to roll over you.

Originally posted by normbenign
But you failed to do so.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

Talk about scoring an own goal, I recommend this book:

"How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff

...at least then you could tell better lies. Your graph puts healthcare in the US as the most expensive, there are are number of factors that can influence this, the wealth of the country being one, the amount of regulation health care providers have to operate under is another, but the doozy is that health care in the US is not entirely free market there is an element of UHC there, so your comparison amounts to a big 0.

Then as if that wasn't bad enough, there are are bunch of countries right down the bottom (i.e. the cheapest) who have no UHC yet health care there is cheaper?

In other words Mr Statistically Illiterate, you've chosen the wrong graph to make your point. haha.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Talk about scoring an own goal, I recommend this book:

"How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff

...at least then you could tell better lies. Your graph puts healthcare in the US as the most expensive, there are are number of factors that can influence this, the wealth of the country being one, the amount of regulation health care providers have to ...[text shortened]... r words Mr Statistically Illiterate, you've chosen the wrong graph to make your point. haha.

No, you can compare the US to, say, Sweden, which has full universal health care, comparable GDP per capita, comparable quality for those who do receive care, but at half the cost and without leaving 20% of the population to die when they get sick.