Health care: Government or Private insurance companies

[-Jumpman-]

As Obama's health care plan was recently deemed lawful, I thought it would interesting to see what current and prospective Debate Hall members think of the government's capabilities with regards to health care.

So what's better, government regulated health insurance, or private health insurance?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So what's better, government regulated health insurance, or private health insurance?

Depends. Are we talking from an ideological or a factual standpoint?

If we're talking from a factual standpoint, i.e. one where one's opinion is informed by the facts, and not the other way around, then it's clear: in every case we've seen thus far, a well-implemented government health plan is consistently and considerably better than private health insurance.

If we're talking from an ideological standpoint, i.e. one where the person holding it is really kinda stupid, then it depends on your ideology, much like with evolution and gravity. Shoutouts to libertarians, btw.

 

[Jam Stunna]

So what's better, government regulated health insurance, or private health insurance?

Why choose? After all, you can just use the power of government to force individuals to buy a private service!

I should clarify that the above is NOT a libertarian position, but disgust at how the power of the federal government is consistently abused to benefit corporations. I strongly support government regulated health insurance, but only so long as it's actually the government handling the money and paying the bills.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I apologize, the debate was supposed to be about efficiency and economics, not politics. Whether such a decision can be politically or ideologically justified really isn't relevant for society.

 

[Jam Stunna]

BPC already answered that question.

 

[Battlecow]

Depends. Are we talking from an ideological or a factual standpoint?

If we're talking from a factual standpoint, i.e. one where one's opinion is informed by the facts, and not the other way around, then it's clear: in every case we've seen thus far, a well-implemented government health plan is consistently and considerably better than private health insurance.

If we're talking from an ideological standpoint, i.e. one where the person holding it is really kinda stupid, then it depends on your ideology, much like with evolution and gravity. Shoutouts to libertarians, btw.

Better for who? I know that a lot of old and not-terribly-poor canadians have to come down to the U.S. to get a hip replaced if they don't want to be in a wheelchair for six months.

I mean, a lot of policies that might benefit the poor aren't implemented because many americans feel that everyone is entitled to at least some of the fruits of their own labor.

I really wish you wouldn't call things that aren't factual factual. It makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Jam Stunna]

It is factually accurate that Western countries with government funded healthcare have healthier populations than the U.S. in almost every measure. Sure, grandpa might have to wait for a new hip replacement, but Canada also has a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. That seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Jam, i see you're underinformed. Might want to read up on the dutch system. And bpc, why?

 

[Battlecow]

It is factually accurate that Western countries with government funded healthcare have healthier populations than the U.S. in almost every measure. Sure, grandpa might have to wait for a new hip replacement, but Canada also has a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. That seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

The infant mortality rate is not a result of the health care system. It's a result of socioeconomic and lifestyle factors. You might as well say that since death by hypothermia is more common in Canada, our health care system is better.

What you're doing here is making a value judgment with slippery phrases like "almost every measure" and calling it factual. It is not a "fact" that Canada's health care is "better" than ours.

This is debate 101, guys. I shouldn't have to explain how words work at length before every argument. The sooner you learn this **** the sooner we can drop the semantics.

 

[Aesir]

The dutch system looks exactly like what every single top ranking system looks like. Co-operation between government and the private sector, those systems seem to score the highest marks.

Also I would argue the socioeconomic factors in Canada? I would argue their healthcare system plays a role in those. To say it had no effect is pretty silly.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I'm leaning towards the idea that any industry that needs heavy subsidies should be nationalized. This prevents artificial price inflation from occurring.

It's kind of radical but meh.

Also definitely national healthcare, this psuedo national/private combination isn't gonna help bring our absurd prices down for various medical practices. And plus many nations with national health care do fine with it, while our health care program is completely ****ed on so many levels.

I should clarify that the above is NOT a libertarian position, but disgust at how the power of the federal government is consistently abused to benefit corporations.

'murica

It is factually accurate that Western countries with government funded healthcare have healthier populations than the U.S. in almost every measure. Sure, grandpa might have to wait for a new hip replacement, but Canada also has a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. That seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

And the cost of medical practices in many other countries with nationalized healthcare is much cheaper than here.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I'm all for government-funded health care. For starters, it shows that the government cares for the health of all of its citizens, and - as already stated - it also makes healthcare more affordable. This is why Canada's healthcare system is seen as being better than the U.S.. Only the disabled here in the U.S. receive free health insurance in the form of Medicare, and even that doesn't guarantee free healthcare; a lot of the things I receive from hospitals are discounted instead. I will admit, I may be speaking out of a little bias too, but who wouldn't when they have a $3000 debt because of a CAT scan received just to find it was merely a kidney stone a week before my insurance kicked in?

 

[Morin0]

I know that this may be a bit irrelevant, but why in the world IS health care so Damn expensive that you basically need health insurance so that it doesn't leave you broke? For example, $3,000 CAT scan? I went to see my doctor because my lymph node was swollen and wanted to see what was wrong. The doctor asked me a few questions, felt where the area was swollen, also checked our the other nodes etc. He said I was fine and sent me home. The co-pay was $20. I can't imagine what the real cost would be just to be asked a few questions and getting touched.

Edit: unless I had a really expensive weight measurement and blood pressure test.

 

[rvkevin]

I know that this may be a bit irrelevant, but why in the world IS health care so Damn expensive that you basically need health insurance so that it doesn't leave you broke? For example, $3,000 CAT scan? I went to see my doctor because my lymph node was swollen and wanted to see what was wrong. The doctor asked me a few questions, felt where the area was swollen, also checked our the other nodes etc. He said I was fine and sent me home. The co-pay was $20. I can't imagine what the real cost would be just to be asked a few questions and getting touched.

Edit: unless I had a really expensive weight measurement and blood pressure test.

You are paying for the procedures that other people get. Hospitals are legally required to accept and stabilize anyone that enters through their doors. Not everyone is able to cover their medical bills so their bills go unpaid. In order for the hospital to remain in the black, they pass along those costs to other patients who are able to pay (i.e. you, health insurance companies, etc.). Another factor is that in this system those who are accepted could have been easily treated using less resources by preventative measures instead of waiting for an episode that requires an ER visit, but chose not to because they don't have health insurance and couldn't afford a visit. This is one of the driving factors in the healthcare debate. We're in effect, going for the more expensive option because 'we' think that they should be punished for not seeking treatment when it was most beneficial (i.e. "not being responsible"); and that is why I find politics depressing.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Another factor is that in this system those who are accepted could have been easily treated using less resources by preventative measures instead of waiting for an episode that requires an ER visit, but chose not to because they don't have health insurance and couldn't afford a visit.

What about those moments that came out of nowhere? Moments that couldn't be prevented due to lack of foresight? My kidney stone is a pretty good example; getting one was the last thing on my mind, and then it hit me out of nowhere during the most inconvenient of times. I can understand those who show symptoms of something bad and refuse to go due to lack of insurance, but for those who show no symptoms at all, just for their ailment to hit like a truck in a sudden instant, surely they can't be to blame too, are they?

This is one of the driving factors in the healthcare debate. We're in effect, going for the more expensive option because 'we' think that they should be punished for not seeking treatment when it was most beneficial (i.e. "not being responsible"); and that is why I find politics depressing.

Does U.S. healthcare punish the non-responsible? By the way you described earlier in the post, it sounds like the ones who can pay for it are given the task of taking care of the bill anyway, so the only ones being punished are the responsible ones. Unless I missed something.

 

[rvkevin]

What about those moments that came out of nowhere? Moments that couldn't be prevented due to lack of foresight? My kidney stone is a pretty good example; getting one was the last thing on my mind, and then it hit me out of nowhere during the most inconvenient of times. I can understand those who show symptoms of something bad and refuse to go due to lack of insurance, but for those who show no symptoms at all, just for their ailment to hit like a truck in a sudden instant, surely they can't be to blame too, are they?

No, they don't contribute to a higher cost to the system. Yes, they add to your bill. If they can't pay their bill, it gets transferred to you. This is a major argument in favor of the mandate. Everyone uses healthcare, just not everyone pays for it. If you don't have health insurance and have an incident, you are going to use healthcare and may not pay for it. With the mandate, you will be paying for the service that you are expected to use (IIRC, 95% use healthcare, so its like asking to opt-out of paying taxes for highways).

Does U.S. healthcare punish the non-responsible? By the way you described earlier in the post, it sounds like the ones who can pay for it are given the task of taking care of the bill anyway, so the only ones being punished are the responsible ones. Unless I missed something.

What if I mentioned that everyone should be insured, even those who can't afford it? This is directly opposed by the Republican party. It's right in line with Republican philosophy. If you don't experience the negative outcomes of your actions, you won't learn from it. According to them, if you can't afford the medical bills, you should be left to die since you were irresponsible about getting health insurance. However, since we are legally bound to stabilize them, it results in these higher costs. It's a lose-lose situation, which is why it's aggravating to listen to those who advocate.