[Split]Right or Privilege?

[Ferno]

I wonder how scary "the right to not die" or "the right to not suffer preventable illnesses" or "the right to have serious injury repaired" sound.

[Spidey]

If it’s the government’s job to provide healthcare then it should provide healthcare the same way it provides defense…directly, not through a third party.

It simply amazes me how people get all upset when someone goes to the hospital, and leaves the government with the bill, but has no problem paying for the exact same treatment via a more expensive route…insurance.

If health care is the actual issue, then let the government provide health care.

IE:

You need a flu shot…you go to the local government run clinic and get your flu shot.

Or alternatively…you go to any local clinic, get your flu shot and the government pays for it…directly.

In other words…the ACA is crap.

[callmeslick]

No one ever argued that the ACA was anything past the best compromise our system could yield at that single point in time, Spidey. You are correct, single payer(which is what you describe) is both the most efficient, and, as you note, ideologically consistent with the core assumption. The problem the US faces, and this extends into a lot of areas is that we have not, as a society, settled on the role or responsibility of government. For decades, all involved accepted that general premise, but over that past 20 the notion got eroded by an onslaught of propaganda, largely. Until the idea is firmly established(and this, to my mind would require a series of rather decisive election cycles), you have what you have, and best hope folks don't dismantle the feeble social support that currently does exist.

[Tunnelcat]

If it’s the government’s job to provide healthcare then it should provide healthcare the same way it provides defense…directly, not through a third party.

It simply amazes me how people get all upset when someone goes to the hospital, and leaves the government with the bill, but has no problem paying for the exact same treatment via a more expensive route…insurance.

If health care is the actual issue, then let the government provide health care.

IE:

You need a flu shot…you go to the local government run clinic and get your flu shot.

Or alternatively…you go to any local clinic, get your flu shot and the government pays for it…directly.

In other words…the ACA is crap.

I agree with you 100%. To have to have "insurance" for something that's needed for society's health and survival is absurd and only feeds a vulture-like middleman system that doesn't contribute that much to actual health care.

But you did make a point one time about "Why don't we have food insurance"? Is there an equivalence between that and health care? Both are needed for survival aren't they? However, the difference between our health care system and our food industry is quite drastic. Food can be obtained quite easily from multiple sources, gives the consumer plenty of choice with transparent costs and choices, has many cheaper alternatives to expensive foods if a person can't afford it, has market pressures to keep prices affordable for most people and can also readily expand when demand for more food increases. Our health care system as it currently stands comes nowhere near that free market ideal at all, and sadly, it looks like Republicans in Congress are not going to move things even remotely in that direction. They abhor all things government run, especially a single payer system, even one that's already set up, is currently in use, can be modified to fit everyone and could be made more solvent in order to get past the Boomer Bulge if the powers to be actually put some effort into it instead of whining how it's broke and needs privatizing, Medicare.

[Spidey]

No one ever argued that the ACA was anything past the best compromise our system could yield at that single point in time, Spidey. You are correct, single payer(which is what you describe) is both the most efficient, and, as you note, ideologically consistent with the core assumption. The problem the US faces, and this extends into a lot of areas is that we have not, as a society, settled on the role or responsibility of government. For decades, all involved accepted that general premise, but over that past 20 the notion got eroded by an onslaught of propaganda, largely. Until the idea is firmly established(and this, to my mind would require a series of rather decisive election cycles), you have what you have, and best hope folks don't dismantle the feeble social support that currently does exist.

NO, single payer is NOT what I describe...we already have a health care system in this country, the government only needs to fill in the gaps and provide some sane regulations so the private system can do its job better.

[callmeslick]

you clearly stated, "need medicine, go pick it up the government pays" and so on. Where is that NOT single payer health coverage? I didn't say the first thing about the delivery system in place.

[Vander]

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the entire industry being government run. In other words, the hospital is a government building, doctors are government employees, etc.

But healthcare discussion should go somewhere else unless it addresses the topic.

[callmeslick]

.

If health care is the actual issue, then let the government provide health care.

IE:

You need a flu shot…you go to the local government run clinic and get your flu shot.

Or alternatively…you go to any local clinic, get your flu shot and the government pays for it…directly.

In other words…the ACA is crap.

this, Spidey, was what I was referring to. Now, you seemed to suggest the highlighted version as preferable. The other option you cited would NOT be single payer, it would be nationalized health care, and I've never sensed ANY groundswell of support for that idea in the US.

[Spidey]

Single payer is where the government pays for "everyone's" health care, my solution would have the government running health care services along side the private systems...including government run services and reimbursement for the needy and people without insurance.

JFTR I don't and never did support single payer, but I do support government programs that insure health care for all.

[callmeslick]

wouldn't the side by side thing be inherently inefficient and redundant?

By every definition I've ever heard, single payer is defined as government insurance for healthcare, in which the ability to restrain prices throughout the chain is maintained at one central point. I'm not quite sure I understand the nuts and bolts of what you call a government program based thing, but are you saying you just want to ensure ACCESS to healthcare, or ensure that everyone can get everything they reasonably need?