Would Andy Be Better Off If We Had Universal Health Care?

[UNI88]

Why isn't Louise Gaille a good source?

What is wrong with Gaille's list of pro's & con's? It presented what IMO is a fairly objective list.

While I think UHC should be considered, I try to be objective enough to realize that it's not a panacea and there will be issues. Those issues can be better mitigated and the resulting solution much better if we acknowledge and account for them rather than just copying some other country's system.

I'm not saying it's not objective, but it's not exactly well thought:

Pros:
5. It creates a workforce that is healthier.
In the United States, 46% of patients went to the emergency room for medical services because that was the only place they could afford to go before the Affordable Care Act was implemented. That is because an emergency room is obligated by law to care for people, whether they can afford to pay or not. With universal health care, there is a greater emphasis placed on preventative care. When people can be proactive about their health, the need for emergency interventions decreases.

Cons:
2. It may stop people from being careful about their health.
When a system of universal health care is present, the general population may not treat their health as wisely as they would if the direct costs of their choices were their personal responsibility. There is no financial incentive for someone to stay healthy in such a system. That means people might schedule an appointment for any reason at all or not take care of themselves as they probably should.

It's inconsistent and about as much as I expect from people like you, me, or some rando with a bachelor's degree.

Lots of blanket statements without the why (or citations). It'd be fine if she wrote it on a message board, but it's not a good source.

Gaille isn't just some rando with a bachelor's degree. She's an economist with experience in banking and finance. I give more credence to her opinions on the economic impacts of UHC then I would a medical doctor's. Her background also gives her just as much credence as a medical doctor when discussing the sociological impacts of UHC.

My underlying point still stands - "While I think UHC should be considered, I try to be objective enough to realize that it's not a panacea and there will be issues. Those issues can be better mitigated and the resulting solution much better if we acknowledge and account for them rather than just copying some other country's system."

[∞∞∞]

I'm not saying it's not objective, but it's not exactly well thought:

Pros:
5. It creates a workforce that is healthier.
In the United States, 46% of patients went to the emergency room for medical services because that was the only place they could afford to go before the Affordable Care Act was implemented. That is because an emergency room is obligated by law to care for people, whether they can afford to pay or not. With universal health care, there is a greater emphasis placed on preventative care. When people can be proactive about their health, the need for emergency interventions decreases.

Cons:
2. It may stop people from being careful about their health.
When a system of universal health care is present, the general population may not treat their health as wisely as they would if the direct costs of their choices were their personal responsibility. There is no financial incentive for someone to stay healthy in such a system. That means people might schedule an appointment for any reason at all or not take care of themselves as they probably should.

It's inconsistent and about as much as I expect from people like you, me, or some rando with a bachelor's degree.

Lots of blanket statements without the why (or citations). It'd be fine if she wrote it on a message board, but it's not a good source.

Gaille isn't just some rando with a bachelor's degree. She's an economist with experience in banking and finance. I give more credence to her opinions on the economic impacts of UHC then I would a medical doctor's. Her background also gives her just as much credence as a medical doctor when discussing the sociological impacts of UHC.

My underlying point still stands - "While I think UHC should be considered, I try to be objective enough to realize that it's not a panacea and there will be issues. Those issues can be better mitigated and the resulting solution much better if we acknowledge and account for them rather than just copying some other country's system."

To be honest, I don't even think she's a real person. That's how a lot of these blog websites operate. Just write down some random name with random credentials and rack up views.

My former workplace's sister-company does this for our conservative news website.

[UNI88]

Why isn't Louise Gaille a good source?

What is wrong with Gaille's list of pro's & con's? It presented what IMO is a fairly objective list.

While I think UHC should be considered, I try to be objective enough to realize that it's not a panacea and there will be issues. Those issues can be better mitigated and the resulting solution much better if we acknowledge and account for them rather than just copying some other country's system.

I'm not saying it's not objective, but it's not exactly well thought:

Pros:
5. It creates a workforce that is healthier.
In the United States, 46% of patients went to the emergency room for medical services because that was the only place they could afford to go before the Affordable Care Act was implemented. That is because an emergency room is obligated by law to care for people, whether they can afford to pay or not. With universal health care, there is a greater emphasis placed on preventative care. When people can be proactive about their health, the need for emergency interventions decreases.

Cons:
2. It may stop people from being careful about their health.
When a system of universal health care is present, the general population may not treat their health as wisely as they would if the direct costs of their choices were their personal responsibility. There is no financial incentive for someone to stay healthy in such a system. That means people might schedule an appointment for any reason at all or not take care of themselves as they probably should.

It's inconsistent and about as much as I expect from people like you, me, or some rando with a bachelor's degree.

Lots of blanket statements without the why (or citations). It'd be fine if she wrote it on a message board, but it's not a good source.

Gaille isn't just some rando with a bachelor's degree. She's an economist with experience in banking and finance. I give more credence to her opinions on the economic impacts of UHC then I would a medical doctor's. Her background also gives her just as much credence as a medical doctor when discussing the sociological impacts of UHC. The pro's and con's that she provides deal mostly with economic (costs) and sociological issues. I'm not buying that an Exercise and Sport Scientist has more credence then Gaille.

My underlying point still stands - "While I think UHC should be considered, I try to be objective enough to realize that it's not a panacea and there will be issues. Those issues can be better mitigated and the resulting solution much better if we acknowledge and account for them rather than just copying some other country's system."

[∞∞∞]

This is definitely not a real person.

There are 661 articles under her name that range a comical amount of unrelated topics. So unless she's an expert in literally everything, she's a pseudonym for ghost writers being paid by word count/content for this blog. Internet 101 they taught us in elementary school.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Yes. Let’s just send him to the VA so he can die in the hallways. That’s universal healthcare in a nutshell.

Please share with the rest of us about all those corpses you had to shove your way past to have your physicals while you were in the Navy.

Don't believe all the propaganda. Every other developed country in the world has universal healthcare. If it was so bad, at least one would have abandoned it by now and gone to a private health insurance company model like ours.

You know it's better because when Congress had the chance to pick what model they were going to have they chose universal health care. They gave up potential millions in campaign donations to go that route. What's more, they made sure that it was for life so that they didn't have to return to private health insurance if they lost their office or retired.

Excellent, cogent, and just flat out bob stylings that I miss way too much. I used to be more on the side against UHC back in the day but even with some small changes with what Obama and company did my position with health ins. is way better than it was prior and I am no longer denied. My financial position is better, my credit is excellent, and I don't have to skimp with testing or insulin or doctors visits. I never had health insurance on any long term basis until that all cam about and just from my own experience it is a step forward.

I'm a 180 on this issue and guys with well thought out arguments like you, dback, and many others on here made that an easy step to take logically.

Trip, you have some good stuff in here as well. Nice work making this your spot to do the work. It is a good thread and pretty interesting to go over.

You ever roll your eyes at me again and I will bitch slap you in front of all your friends though just so you know.

[AZGrizFan]

Please share with the rest of us about all those corpses you had to shove your way past to have your physicals while you were in the Navy.

Don't believe all the propaganda. Every other developed country in the world has universal healthcare. If it was so bad, at least one would have abandoned it by now and gone to a private health insurance company model like ours.

You know it's better because when Congress had the chance to pick what model they were going to have they chose universal health care. They gave up potential millions in campaign donations to go that route. What's more, they made sure that it was for life so that they didn't have to return to private health insurance if they lost their office or retired.

Excellent, cogent, and just flat out bob stylings that I miss way too much. I used to be more on the side against UHC back in the day but even with some small changes with what Obama and company did my position with health ins. is way better than it was prior and I am no longer denied. My financial position is better, my credit is excellent, and I don't have to skimp with testing or insulin or doctors visits. I never had health insurance on any long term basis until that all cam about and just from my own experience it is a step forward.

I'm a 180 on this issue and guys with well thought out arguments like you, dback, and many others on here made that an easy step to take logically.

Trip, you have some good stuff in here as well. Nice work making this your spot to do the work. It is a good thread and pretty interesting to go over.

You ever roll your eyes at me again and I will bitch slap you in front of all your friends though just so you know.

The only problem with UHC would be the government involvement in it.

[AZGrizFan]

This is definitely not a real person.

There are 661 articles under her name that range a comical amount of unrelated topics. So unless she's an expert in literally everything, she's a pseudonym for ghost writers being paid by word count/content for this blog. Internet 101 they taught us in elementary school.

It’s possible. JSO appears to think HE’S an expert on everything, so they’re out there.

[SeattleGriz]

Please share with the rest of us about all those corpses you had to shove your way past to have your physicals while you were in the Navy.

Don't believe all the propaganda. Every other developed country in the world has universal healthcare. If it was so bad, at least one would have abandoned it by now and gone to a private health insurance company model like ours.

You know it's better because when Congress had the chance to pick what model they were going to have they chose universal health care. They gave up potential millions in campaign donations to go that route. What's more, they made sure that it was for life so that they didn't have to return to private health insurance if they lost their office or retired.

Excellent, cogent, and just flat out bob stylings that I miss way too much. I used to be more on the side against UHC back in the day but even with some small changes with what Obama and company did my position with health ins. is way better than it was prior and I am no longer denied. My financial position is better, my credit is excellent, and I don't have to skimp with testing or insulin or doctors visits. I never had health insurance on any long term basis until that all cam about and just from my own experience it is a step forward.

I'm a 180 on this issue and guys with well thought out arguments like you, dback, and many others on here made that an easy step to take logically.

Trip, you have some good stuff in here as well. Nice work making this your spot to do the work. It is a good thread and pretty interesting to go over.

You ever roll your eyes at me again and I will bitch slap you in front of all your friends though just so you know.

Miss you bro.

[SeattleGriz]

Another SG story. Back when I was getting ready to go to Airborne school before I was to get my commission in the Army, I was diagnosed with a detached retina I had for 18 years. The loss of vision prevented me from getting that commission. Total bummer because at that point I had been in the Army Reserves for 6 years.

Of course it happened the one semester in school I decided to pass on student health insurance to save some bucks, so I was going to have to pay out of pocket. $30k for the surgery.

My wife, who grew up on the Canadian border said I should go to Regina and see how much it would cost. $3K. I of course had to wait around 6 months for the surgery, but it hadn't closed in on my macula over 18 years, so we weren't too worried.

[UNI88]

This is definitely not a real person.

There are 661 articles under her name that range a comical amount of unrelated topics. So unless she's an expert in literally everything, she's a pseudonym for ghost writers being paid by word count/content for this blog. Internet 101 they taught us in elementary school.

Maybe Louise Gaille is just a pseudonym for IBM's Miss Debater ...

A debate on UHC between Miss Debater and Harish Natarajan would be interesting.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Excellent, cogent, and just flat out bob stylings that I miss way too much. I used to be more on the side against UHC back in the day but even with some small changes with what Obama and company did my position with health ins. is way better than it was prior and I am no longer denied. My financial position is better, my credit is excellent, and I don't have to skimp with testing or insulin or doctors visits. I never had health insurance on any long term basis until that all cam about and just from my own experience it is a step forward.

I'm a 180 on this issue and guys with well thought out arguments like you, dback, and many others on here made that an easy step to take logically.

Trip, you have some good stuff in here as well. Nice work making this your spot to do the work. It is a good thread and pretty interesting to go over.

You ever roll your eyes at me again and I will bitch slap you in front of all your friends though just so you know.

The only problem with UHC would be the government involvement in it.

Yeah I know I have always had that attitude for the most part as well but most things government does are hard things to do and after they do them others tend to come in with ideas and for profit ways to capitalize on investments...and mistakes we as a people made to move us forward. That seems good for commerce to me and every business either one of us has been in has relied on previous government investments/mistakes to get that shit to where it is.

So, I accept your premise but I think it is necessary...to the smallest extent possible to move our civilization forward.

[AZGrizFan]

The only problem with UHC would be the government involvement in it.

Yeah I know I have always had that attitude for the most part as well but most things government does are hard things to do and after they do them others tend to come in with ideas and for profit ways to capitalize on investments...and mistakes we as a people made to move us forward. That seems good for commerce to me and every business either one of us has been in has relied on previous government investments/mistakes to get that shit to where it is.

So, I accept your premise but I think it is necessary...to the smallest extent possible to move our civilization forward.

That’s a good one….to the smallest extent possible.

[SDHornet]

Why isn't Louise Gaille a good source?

What is wrong with Gaille's list of pro's & con's? It presented what IMO is a fairly objective list.

While I think UHC should be considered, I try to be objective enough to realize that it's not a panacea and there will be issues. Those issues can be better mitigated and the resulting solution much better if we acknowledge and account for them rather than just copying some other country's system.

I'm not saying it's not objective, but it's not exactly well thought:

Pros:
5. It creates a workforce that is healthier.
In the United States, 46% of patients went to the emergency room for medical services because that was the only place they could afford to go before the Affordable Care Act was implemented. That is because an emergency room is obligated by law to care for people, whether they can afford to pay or not. With universal health care, there is a greater emphasis placed on preventative care. When people can be proactive about their health, the need for emergency interventions decreases.

Cons:
2. It may stop people from being careful about their health.
When a system of universal health care is present, the general population may not treat their health as wisely as they would if the direct costs of their choices were their personal responsibility. There is no financial incentive for someone to stay healthy in such a system. That means people might schedule an appointment for any reason at all or not take care of themselves as they probably should.

It's inconsistent and about as much as I expect from people like you, me, or some rando with a bachelor's degree.

Lots of blanket statements without the why (or citations). It'd be fine if she wrote it on a message board, but it's not a good source.

I wouldn't mind seeing unhealthier people (due to poor health decisions/lifestyles) pay more for their coverage...kinda like when shitty drivers get thrown in the shittier car insurance pool.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Yeah I know I have always had that attitude for the most part as well but most things government does are hard things to do and after they do them others tend to come in with ideas and for profit ways to capitalize on investments...and mistakes we as a people made to move us forward. That seems good for commerce to me and every business either one of us has been in has relied on previous government investments/mistakes to get that shit to where it is.

So, I accept your premise but I think it is necessary...to the smallest extent possible to move our civilization forward.

That’s a good one….to the smallest extent possible.

Government does huge things as I mentioned...as you know so the smallest extent possible may be my wish but even at that it won't be small. It can't be.

[AZGrizFan]

That’s a good one….to the smallest extent possible.

Government does huge things as I mentioned...as you know so the smallest extent possible may be my wish but even at that it won't be small. It can't be.

Government does huge things very, very very poorly and inefficiently. Everything they touch quadruples in price and you get 1/4 the service. Healthcare is literally the LAST thing we should want them involved in.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Government does huge things as I mentioned...as you know so the smallest extent possible may be my wish but even at that it won't be small. It can't be.

Government does huge things very, very very poorly and inefficiently. Everything they touch quadruples in price and you get 1/4 the service. Healthcare is literally the LAST thing we should want them involved in.

Sure man. Except they have done many things that have made your life what it is today by giving you and me and many others certain opportunities that we would not have had otherwise. Insurance is one of them that I personally am in a better situation than I ever was before. Still a lot of problems that could b e solved for sure but it is better now than it was 15 yrs. ago.

[AZGrizFan]

Government does huge things very, very very poorly and inefficiently. Everything they touch quadruples in price and you get 1/4 the service. Healthcare is literally the LAST thing we should want them involved in.

Sure man. Except they have done many things that have made your life what it is today by giving you and me and many others certain opportunities that we would not have had otherwise. Insurance is one of them that I personally am in a better situation than I ever was before. Still a lot of problems that could b e solved for sure but it is better now than it was 15 yrs. ago.

I’m happy for you. Seriously. I know it’s been a long road.

[Winterborn]

It's not that simple. You can't just look at a problem and think that a fix won't cause problems elsewhere. There are a lot of people in the healthcare field that are willing to "treat" people with things they don't really need so that they can profit from it. Healthcare is not an exact science and differing opinions come into play. There are bad actors on all sides of the field, including "patients" and providers. Universal Healthcare would help solve the problem for some, but it will likely create problems in other areas.

Flaggy is correct about unintended consequences but Trip's post was excellent and I'd like to see if anyone can rebut his arguments ...

From an economic standpoint, universal healthcare is proven to work:

1) The economy of scale is built-in and brings down prices of treatment.
2) It makes it easier for people to seek better jobs and maximizes abilities being used where best suited in the overall economy.
3) It encourages entrepreneurship (and innovation) as people don't need to worry about insurance. People can take more risks.
4) It makes small businesses significantly more attractive as they don't have to worry about non-competitive insurance benefits.
5) It removes the administrative costs for companies as they don't have to worry about insurance; they can better use this time elsewhere.
6) It largely removes administrative time required from healthcare workers and allows them to better focus on patients.
7) It incentivizes preventative care. Not only does this keep costs down for everyone, but a healthier society increases an economy's output, efficiency, and tax base.
8) It makes for a happier society, especially when mental health care is provided. Better physical and mental health treatments decrease suicide rates, homicide rates, substance abuse rates, and crime rates. All this effectively adds to your economic output and decreases tax burdens.

I'm sure I'm missing a few points, but we don't even need to reinvent the wheel on this one. It won't be perfect (nothing is), but it would absolutely help Andy, help most Americans, help ease the burden off loved ones, and boost the economy as a whole.

1) Government paperwork and bureaucracies drive up costs (see 99.693% of all government programs)
2) Business will pass on said costs of increased workload (just because they do not have to offer insurance does not mean the paperwork will go away, it will just shift) in the form of lower wages or benefits
3) More risks, means more claims, translates into higher program costs i.e. more funding needed
4) More of a wash but there will still be some accounting that has to be done (so slight benefit)
5) See point 2
6) See what is happening in the UK, it has lead to a decrease in patient time as everything is regulated and doctors hands are tied
7) Why does it incentivize healthier people? If anything it will increase un-healthy behavior as people will just say, insurance will cover it, so why should I care? (see what examples of long term welfare recipients)
8) Disagree. If I am paying more in taxes that leaves me with less money to spend how I would like on things I enjoy.


My questions on this are the following:

1) Why should I pay for services that I do not need or for people I do not know?
2) For those in favor of a UHC, why not start a charity for those that need help? (Andy's example)
2.a) Large charities do negotiate special rates and other perks. If all gifts are tax deductible, why not fund a private organization? Good press for insurance companies, hospitals and much more efficient (everybody is accountable).


And to answer Ursus question, my intuition (based on my experiences with UHC in other countries and research) is that he would have been denied or only partial coverage given (i.e. at a substandard facility).

[AZGrizFan]

Flaggy is correct about unintended consequences but Trip's post was excellent and I'd like to see if anyone can rebut his arguments ...

1) Government paperwork and bureaucracies drive up costs (see 99.693% of all government programs)
2) Business will pass on said costs of increased workload (just because they do not have to offer insurance does not mean the paperwork will go away, it will just shift) in the form of lower wages or benefits
3) More risks, means more claims, translates into higher program costs i.e. more funding needed
4) More of a wash but there will still be some accounting that has to be done (so slight benefit)
5) See point 2
6) See what is happening in the UK, it has lead to a decrease in patient time as everything is regulated and doctors hands are tied
7) Why does it incentivize healthier people? If anything it will increase un-healthy behavior as people will just say, insurance will cover it, so why should I care? (see what examples of long term welfare recipients)
8) Disagree. If I am paying more in taxes that leaves me with less money to spend how I would like on things I enjoy.


My questions on this are the following:

1) Why should I pay for services that I do not need or for people I do not know?
2) For those in favor of a UHC, why not start a charity for those that need help? (Andy's example)
2.a) Large charities do negotiate special rates and other perks. If all gifts are tax deductible, why not fund a private organization? Good press for insurance companies, hospitals and much more efficient (everybody is accountable).


And to answer Ursus question, my intuition (based on my experiences with UHC in other countries and research) is that he would have been denied or only partial coverage given (i.e. at a substandard facility).

Exactly. I stopped reading his "list" at item #1, because ANYONE who thinks government involvement is going to bring DOWN prices obviously doesn't know how the government operates.

And I stand by my conviction that as long as we're the world's policeman and pay for the defense of the entire "free" world, it's easy for those quasi-socialist countries to provide healthcare. We can NOT do both. There's not enough money to do both. And given where this world appears to be headed, I don't think we're going to stop being the world's policeman anytime soon.

[Winterborn]

1) Government paperwork and bureaucracies drive up costs (see 99.693% of all government programs)
2) Business will pass on said costs of increased workload (just because they do not have to offer insurance does not mean the paperwork will go away, it will just shift) in the form of lower wages or benefits
3) More risks, means more claims, translates into higher program costs i.e. more funding needed
4) More of a wash but there will still be some accounting that has to be done (so slight benefit)
5) See point 2
6) See what is happening in the UK, it has lead to a decrease in patient time as everything is regulated and doctors hands are tied
7) Why does it incentivize healthier people? If anything it will increase un-healthy behavior as people will just say, insurance will cover it, so why should I care? (see what examples of long term welfare recipients)
8) Disagree. If I am paying more in taxes that leaves me with less money to spend how I would like on things I enjoy.


My questions on this are the following:

1) Why should I pay for services that I do not need or for people I do not know?
2) For those in favor of a UHC, why not start a charity for those that need help? (Andy's example)
2.a) Large charities do negotiate special rates and other perks. If all gifts are tax deductible, why not fund a private organization? Good press for insurance companies, hospitals and much more efficient (everybody is accountable).


And to answer Ursus question, my intuition (based on my experiences with UHC in other countries and research) is that he would have been denied or only partial coverage given (i.e. at a substandard facility).

Exactly. I stopped reading his "list" at item #1, because ANYONE who thinks government involvement is going to bring DOWN prices obviously doesn't know how the government operates.

And I stand by my conviction that as long as we're the world's policeman and pay for the defense of the entire "free" world, it's easy for those quasi-socialist countries to provide healthcare. We can NOT do both. There's not enough money to do both. And given where this world appears to be headed, I don't think we're going to stop being the world's policeman anytime soon.

Until our elected leaders are put on the same system as the common voters, nothing is going to change. And that goes doubly for any UHC proposals.