Link in comments

When people advocate need based systems being universal on the grounds that they want to help those in need- one should be suspicious. If this is to benefit those in need... why is it universal? Why doesn’t it only apply to people who can’t provide it for themselves?

The funny thing is- that many people believe that such systems will “take” from the rich and “give” to those with less. Historically that isn’t how these things work. The primary benefit is to the middle class. Who is saving the most money by decreasing tax burdens for things like emergency care taxes must cover st a higher rate than regular care? Primarily the middle class- the people who’s taxes hold up the revenue system. But when the middle class gets universal healthcare- this offsets the costs in taxes. In other words- if you make $50k a year and I make $10k- our tax bracket is the same (round numbers). I probably already qualify for government healthcare at $10k a year. If not- I should. But you... if you are now getting free healthcare- even with the increased taxes (they’d increase for everyone remember?) you now have more discretional income compared to me than you already did before.

So what I’ve actually done, is that I’ve taken someone already in need and likely Recieving government benefits, and given them nothing except higher taxes, and I’ve taken a middle class person and given them more usable income- increasing economic disparity.

This is magnified as income increase until we reach the point where a person easily can afford and likely would opt to use private care, without an impact to their overall economic situation. Which those people are already doing. The wealthiest people will already limit their tax liabilities anyway- and there is no reason to think that wouldn’t be the case here- so we see minimal impact to the highest and lowest income brackets- the people who get the “win” are primarily people who are looking for gravy on their potatoes- not people who are eating shoe leather because they ant afford otherwise.

The other side of course- is that it brings security. Not having to worry about an unexpected medical bill ruining credit or costing you the house. Except you’ll also note- those are predominantly middle class problems as well. The lowest brackets won’t have houses to worry about losing or perfect credit scores to keep in order to maintain their status of living.

So it’s complex. Plenty of Americans NEED healthcare. We could save lots of money by not having the homeless need to have unpaid ER visits and many times the regular rates- and by using preventative care to get problems treated when they are less expensive to treat than when they become emergencies. But that isn’t “universal” health care. That is needs based social services. That’s not what most people are asking for. The popular movement is universal.

Also of note- the government lacks regulatory powers to control a private healthcare industry- and in a free market they can’t just seize the existing healthcare providers and their staff and infrastructure- nor set a price they must sell their business at. Where private contractors are left to bill the government on an open tab- things tend to get muddy. How does the government control negotiations on pricing and such with these companies? Ensure tax payers aren’t getting stiffed and just feeding money into a private system?

And unless we socialize medicine- aren’t we STILL just having private payers funnel money to private companies- but with more hands and extra steps and costs? What’s different between that and just getting one big insurance plan that covers everyone in the country and making everyone chip in and pay blue cross or whoever? If we DO socialize medicine- you still don’t have a choice in providers and such if you don’t like the care or you don’t live near a socialized provider right? Unless you pay- which defeats the purpose since healthcare that is free but you can’t access isn’t any better than healthcare you don’t have is it?

And then what? Can private providers refuse service without payment as opposed to now where they must treat? What happens when homeless folks without cars and such don’t want to or can’t go across town or wait 6 weeks for an appointment and just wander into the ER anyway?

And a BIG question.... if the government pays for your healthcare- if I’m a tax payer paying in to this system and we are asking “why do I have to pay for joes bandaids...” what happens when joe is an IDIOT? When Joe drinks like a fish and sits on his ass eating mayonnaise- when Joe has free preventative care but doesn’t use it... how is that handled when Joe needs a million dollars in surgeries and after care?

If Joe decides to jump off a building holding fireworks on July 4th to be awesome- that’s ok? The government and the people won’t want any form of a responsibility to mitigate ones cost to the system? You can literally throw a Corona party and get 30 people infected and cost the system hundreds of thousands of millions- for “lulz” and that flies?

Because the problem there- is that if we DO set a precedent for mandated health and safety requirements- then people who can’t afford healthcare still end up without it if they need it. If we don’t... well... people ARE LITERALLY HAVING CORONA PARTIES. People are stupid. So we can’t REALLY say that “universal” healthcare would save us money because that is betting on people to be smarter than they are. You must always bet on people being dumber than you think- or else you will lose more than you win. At least the other way, those rare times you lose the bet, you’ll still be pleasantly surprised someone did something smart.

public health care system seems to work in nearly every other country it's implemented in. only a handful it doesn't, no conspiracy on that. just change is not welcomed.

Public transit systems work in other countries too. Other countries don’t have the mass shootings we do. Most other countries militaries work on less than half our military budget. Most countries have less road fatalities and stricter controls on who can drive.... the list goes on. The fact is that we can’t say “it works in other countries” and call it a day. I mean- what works for Donald Trumps is multiple bankruptcies and asking a bank for a multimillion dollar loan. If you were cash strapped- would going into an international bank asking for millions work for you? Many POC, women and others say the system isn’t working for them- and a white male could say- “I dunnoh- doing this worked for me...” So what works for one- does not work for all.

To be clear- I’m not saying we don’t need healthcare reform and access. We ALREADY have state and Federal needs based healthcare. How is that working out? If we can’t provide adequate care for the minority of the population on these programs- how can we manage an entire population? Why do we need to invent a new system as opposed to expanding the existing system- loosening the criteria to qualify, extending benefits? If we can’t get the support to expand these programs let alone run them adequately- how can we get it to be able to expand the scale 100 fold?

And that’s the problem to me. NOT that we shouldn’t take care of people- as a society we should advance beyond a point where people worry about basic needs. That’s progress. But- the issues underlying healthcare are complex and touch on the housing and lending industries, insurance, the economy. We have programs for social services that are supposed to catch people when they stumble or fall. They aren’t. They are failing. If we ant make those work- why would we believe the government can make this work?

A CRITICAL point here: even f you have NO money- you already have access to critical care. If you have very little money, you have access to government funded healthcare. So we aren’t talking about “giving healthcare to people who can’t afford it...” we are talking about making sure that people who are overstretched in a country where the majority of people use credit to live outside their means and don’t practice financial responsibility- don’t lose their homes or lifestyles when something bad happens.

And that’s fine. I don’t want people losing their homes- even if objectively they shouldn’t have bought that home or lived in due to their budget. People owning homes is important. We need safety nets- and that is what social services are supposed to provide. You aren’t supposed to lose your home because you got a virus or Timmy has cancer. But “universal healthcare” is a bandaid for that. It is 2 dimensional thinking. It doesn’t actually solve those problems- it just removes ONE possible cause, but Americans would still be just at risk from a natural disaster or a death in the family or a roof that needs fixed- because it doesn’t take care of those unforeseen expenses.

Simply put- if you’re paying $500 a month for medical today- how much less do you think the taxes would be for universal healthcare? Let’s say that it’s a very optimistic $100? Now you have an extra $400. Ok. Is the average person going to take that money and start saving it, open a small business, or are they going to spend it? Spoiler: spend it. There’s a reason we have so much personal debt and it isn’t because Americans on average are frugal and forward thinking.

So when a catastrophe comes- most people are still going to be in the same boat they are right now. Living paycheck to paycheck, little or no savings, and they won’t have to worry if they get lupus- but they’ll still be screwed if their industry starts laying people off or the car breaks down. We need safety nets to catch people when they fall- but Just because I need training wheels doesn’t mean Lance Armstrong does, does it?