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.∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:58 pmI'm not saying it's not objective, but it's not exactly well thought:UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 11:31 am
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.
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.
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."