[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by potatobroth

But ya can get cancer is what we're saying. Not only people who abuse dangerous vices get cancer.

Yes, this is true. I am well aware. (not being mean or sarcastic)

Before I post my little thing...

Do we all agree that Universal Health Care in the United States is a system in which the Federal government creates a bureau that uses taxpayer money to put money in the pockets of hospital employees and staff which in return for the unconditional health care of all who step foot into the hospital, regardless of their health context or taxpayer status? If coverage is not desired by an individual, is it possible for this individual to opt out of paying the tax that sponsors this universal health care bureau? Is health coverage absolute, or is cost split between private HMO and federal government? Give the context for split coverage, if so.

If this definition is in-line with all of yours', there are a few problems I have with Universal Health Care.

First and foremost, I do not believe that health care is a fundamental human right. I understand that health care is an important part of being alive, and that life is a fundamental human right. While these views seem somewhat contradictory, putting health care in line with other crucial-for-life resources such as food, water, and shelter reveals that health care does not warrant a federal government bureau to ensure its availability to all humans; plenty of Americans go to bed malnourished and unsheltered each night. Perhaps the desire for universal health care stems from citizens who live decently well aside from health care, because health care is an unreasonably priced commodity that is necessary for life, or maybe these citizens who campaign for universal health care don't empathize enough with the fact that a lot of people go to bed on the side of the road each night and consequently have not thought about creating government agencies to end the practice that does not immediately affect them in addition to overpriced health care. I do agree that health care is very unreasonably priced...

Combating the overpriced nature of health care using government money, as opposed to an individual combining the over-time and upon-treatment bills, does not actually lower prices but merely means everyone's pockets get fucked over a little bit instead of the ill minority citizens getting impaled with bills and the totally healthy being totally unaffected. Sure, HMO's have salaries to pay for their employees and they are the obvious middle man in health care. A federal bureau to collect taxes and redistribute the funds to hospitals also has employees to pay, as well (to my understanding, a lot of the money collected by the IRS is used to fund IRS operations). As to which one is more efficient, HMO or Government, I am not sure. If cost is the issue, perhaps a better way to reduce the cost of medical coverage is to limit frivolous law-suits against doctors and increase the efficiency of a currently existing government agency: the FDA.

One of the illusions that is being created in this thread is that without universal health care many people in emergency situations will die. The federal government already requires anyone who enters a hospital under emergency circumstances will receive coverage. If federal paperwork is added pre-treatment as it is in certain countries, hospital wait-times may be longer than they are today. Of course there are circumstances that a few hours will not make or break, such as cancer, but the inconvenience may still exist if universal health care is not put into effect while taking this concern into account.

While universal health care does provide coverage for those who genuinely cannot afford health care under their own abilities, universal health care also removes some cause-effect accountability in the individual. When the group (Nation) is footing the bill, it is not impossible to conceive of a citizen who does not take monetary costs associated with unhealthy lifestyle choices as seriously as he would if he were solely responsible for coverage through HMO monthly bills and upon-treatment bills. Another potential problem associated with universal health care could occur when coverage is given to individuals who do not pay taxes; if the group pool of money is to avoid any one member of the group being severely affected by bills, what is the point of covering those who have not committed to the group?

Some still prefer the group pool of money, even if some individuals are not using the money in accordance with common sense (ie alcoholics getting liver transplants and hitting the bottle afterword). Even if you do not believe in "common sense"...at a certain point, with certain conditions and certain specific ways to contract those conditions, there are direct causations between deliberate human activity and the presence of a disease. As a registered voter, I choose to vote against this communal-money-pool school of thought because I do not want others to be held accountable for my actions and choices and I do not want to be held accountable for the actions and choices of others (when choices lead to illness), even if it means higher prices for me as an individual down the line. Obviously this accountability argument does not apply to pathogens, unpreventable diseases, unforeseeable/unpreventable/uncushionable illnesses or states of being sick. My intro into this thread had to deal with this issue of accountability; because certain people do not want to pay for lifestyles they have smugly deemed unacceptable, they will pressure for laws to limit your freedom of lifestyle or deny you health care coverage under the universal health care system.

I personally believe limiting the individuals freedom of lifestyle by propping up smoking bans in private places or denying smokers health coverage because I do not deem their health choices acceptable violates multiple amendments to the Constitution. Be careful to not confuse my beliefs; if there is universal health care, everyone should get coverage or else the institution is illegally discriminatory. If there is not universal health care present, I will keep voting against it because it would create the (unnecessary) dilemma of paying for the (un)health(y) choices of others or illegally denying them coverage.

If citizens really feared smoking as much as the government would want you to believe, free market solutions tell me bars that ban smoking on principle, by choice, should be more popular than they are

Aside from all of these potential issues, health care is not outlined as a government responsibility in the Constitution and is therefore illegal at the federal level. If no faith can be put in the free market solutions by dirty readers, I believe government regulation on HMO business practices and ethics is the most reasonable solution in place of free market ones. The only free market solution, in practically any debate, is the success of companies that do what people want the companies to do for them. If I'm going to be an ideologue... While health care is an essential part of health, health care is still treatment. Perhaps prevention, in the form of education about diet, exercise, and public sanitation could at least limit some of the strain on tomorrow's hospitals.

I understand criticisms that I simply debated against universal health care instead of supporting the free market, but I'm not sure I care at this point. I don't have a thorough solution that I can outline for you, I just believe universal health care is not it. Free market is pretty self-explanatory, though, and simplicity may be an asset. If you want to learn more, or learn anything, read a book about it.

For the record, my insult toward Sarcasmo was about him being so God damned unnecessarily angry and hostile, but not angry and hostile about one particular decision in his life. I do not take the insult back, but I will say that I respect the man's right to think individually and express himself accordingly.