Should There Be Free Health Care In The United States?

whiteflame

Given that we only have two hours to post each round, I'll keep this brief.

What does it mean to support "free health care" in the US? What we're talking about is a policy that would not require people to pay directly for health insurance, and therefore would be covered for some portion of their health care. What makes it "free" is that it is paid for via taxation, an indirect means of collecting money from a large portion of the American people in order to effectively subsidize the health care of everyone. That means people who can't pay taxes would also have access to this care, making it effectively free to them.

To make this simple, I'm just going to support the Medicare for All system. This system is pretty straightforward: expand Medicare coverage to all individuals within the US. Medicare functions as a source of health insurance for both those over 65 and those with disabilities. It's a governmental program aimed at providing coverage for these people within the US.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/07/16/what-is-medicare-for-all/#72dd97d1bd0b] That coverage would now apply to the entirety of the country, and would only require the presentation of valid identification to be eligible for care. Other programs that cover various individuals such as Medicaid would be replaced. Private health insurers could still offer plans that would go above and beyond what is available through Medicare, but everyone would have a basic medical plan through Medicare.

There are a number of reasons why this is beneficial.

At the most basic level, more people having regular coverage will improve health care outcomes. Patients that cannot pay for health insurance are often forced to use emergency medical services, which means that they have to wait for their health to deteriorate to the point that they will be taken. That puts their lives at risk, crowds emergency rooms (putting other lives at risk) and dramatically increases costs for society, as the government still foots the bill for their medical care (which is often more expensive due to their worsened medical state). By providing individuals with the capacity to see a doctor more regularly, people have no incentive to pursue this more dangerous avenue, improving the probability that their symptoms can be fully treated, making it less likely that they will have to repeatedly visit a medical center. More preventative or early care can dramatically improve medical outcomes.

Cost is often a major concern, but it's actually more stable under this system. The usage of emergency rooms, among other problems, increases premiums to the point that the inflation of medical costs far exceeds US inflation rates as a whole.[https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/behind-the-numbers.html, https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi] Those increases are far less likely under a system where everyone is ensured. Having a single payer system in the US (i.e. the government being the major insurer in the country) also provides an opportunity to cut the prices of medications and medical devices, as the US becomes far more capable of negotiating these prices down. Much as it might sound more expensive, even a Koch-backed study shows that the current spending in the US on health care far exceeds projections for spending in a Medicare for All system.[https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/] ;

Lastly, let's talk about bureaucracy. Limitations placed on access to various medical professionals are already status quo, and that would not change substantially. What would change is the number of unpaid bills. Each and every hospital visit would be covered, and doctors would no longer need to argue back and forth with a wide variety of insurance companies to ensure that they are paid for the services they are seeking to render. Essentially, the medical system shifts from numerous public and private bureaucracies to just one, streamlining the process of getting health coverage. It will almost certainly still be slow, and the government will have to hire on many more people to manage both the transition and the coverage long-term, but I still view that as far better than the mishmash system currently available.

With that, I await your response, @Evidence  

Evidence

whiteflame said:

Given that we only have two hours to post each round, I'll keep this brief.

With that, I await your response, @Evidence  

@whiteflame given that we only have two hours to post each round, I'll keep this brief.

2 hours? I can't type that fast, and think even slower.

whiteflame said: What does it mean to support "free health care" in the US? What we're talking about is a policy that would not require people to pay directly for health insurance, and therefore would be covered for some portion of their health care. What makes it "free" is that it is paid for via taxation, an indirect means of collecting money from a large portion of the American people in order to effectively subsidize the health care of everyone. That means people who can't pay taxes would also have access to this care, making it effectively free to them.

Thank you for this thoughtful opening statement, hopefully I can do justice in my reply!?

I don't see a way for this "free health care" to work in a country run by Nazi corrupt and immoral ideologies by those who own, and now police this country.

First of all, it was very good the way it was. Privatization of the health care is what made US so advanced in medicine. Surgical technology by competitors offering more precision surgical equipment's, leading to microsurgery resulting quicker recovery/less hospital stay, back to work faster and the list goes on. It WAS good as it was.

That is until the full take over of our government described perfectly by John F. Kennedys speech here:



general public was forced into accepting "legalized abortion". Introduced to, and fell in love with TV shows like the "The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" thus we fell into a stupor, from TV Soap's to science fiction space, to making us believe the globe-earth is over populated, and dying.

We are already the highest taxpaying country in the world, and the money is taken by Nazi organizations like NASA, funding fake science fiction missions to none existent places in the heavens called space, visiting imaginary gods like Mars. If with the present Government we were to switch to "free health care", it would be a forced one, as we are seeing it today, where elderly with little or no immediate family are being put down like animals the third day after being admitted to the hospital anything from an infected papercut, to the flu.

whiteflame - To make this simple, I'm just going to support the Medicare for All system. This system is pretty straightforward: expand Medicare coverage to all individuals within the US. Medicare functions as a source of health insurance for both those over 65 and those with disabilities. It's a governmental program aimed at providing coverage for these people within the US.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/07/16/what-is-medicare-for-all/#72dd97d1bd0b] That coverage would now apply to the entirety of the country, and would only require the presentation of valid identification to be eligible for care. Other programs that cover various individuals such as Medicaid would be replaced. Private health insurers could still offer plans that would go above and beyond what is available through Medicare, but everyone would have a basic medical plan through Medicare.

Medicare is coming to an end, as is Social Security, as I just mentioned above, those elderly women with little or no immediate family collecting Social security are being put down like animals the third day after being admitted to the hospital, anything from an infected papercut, to the flu. Men finishing up their last year putting in all kinds of overtime to receive the highest SS-benefit six months prior to six months after are diagnosed with colon cancer, or dozens of the most publicized cancers on TV, and are gone within a year of their retirement, and what is mind boggling to me is that the only thing the family will respond with, is a sigh: "Oh poor John, just when he was getting his boat ready for retirement too! How sad, got cancer, and died just (snap their fingers) like that!"
So Medicare or any form of "Free Healthcare" is like "communism", I know what it says and supposed to stand for, only I have seen and felt what it really is. Same with "No-Fault Car Insurance", where now "everyone is at fault", so the rates go higher with every accident, or even just a claim that is not even covered on your insurance.

Yes, if the citizens of this Once Great Country could have responded to JFK execution, and taken back the Government "for the people and by the people" I would agree to free health care, but only to those who are disabled, the orphans, the elderly, .. those who we as citizens are to care for, and still keep that competitive spirit for advancement. But from what I learned from that incident, this country has long lost it's fight with the devil.

whiteflame - There are a number of reasons why this is beneficial.

At the most basic level, more people having regular coverage will improve health care outcomes. Patients that cannot pay for health insurance are often forced to use emergency medical services, which means that they have to wait for their health to deteriorate to the point that they will be taken. That puts their lives at risk, crowds emergency rooms (putting other lives at risk) and dramatically increases costs for society, as the government still foots the bill for their medical care (which is often more expensive due to their worsened medical state). By providing individuals with the capacity to see a doctor more regularly, people have no incentive to pursue this more dangerous avenue, improving the probability that their symptoms can be fully treated, making it less likely that they will have to repeatedly visit a medical center. More preventative or early care can dramatically improve medical outcomes.

What I see is two extremes, all this talk of preventive medicine, preventive checkups, "reaching your health goals" is a FRONT, but behind it is the most brutal, and extreme effort to get us all sick. I mean come on, 5-G all around school yards?? What about Chem Trailing, GMO our foods, additives that are causing all the heart and other organ failures, these are carefully planned and executed by those who have made up their minds that the human animals must be reduced at all cost from 7.5 billion to 500 million. There is politics and there is reality, and live in that reality that I'm talking about.

whiteflame - Cost is often a major concern, but it's actually more stable under this system. The usage of emergency rooms, among other problems, increases premiums to the point that the inflation of medical costs far exceeds US inflation rates as a whole.[https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/behind-the-numbers.html, https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi] Those increases are far less likely under a system where everyone is ensured. Having a single payer system in the US (i.e. the government being the major insurer in the country) also provides an opportunity to cut the prices of medications and medical devices, as the US becomes far more capable of negotiating these prices down. Much as it might sound more expensive, even a Koch-backed study shows that the current spending in the US on health care far exceeds projections for spending in a Medicare for All system.[https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/] ;

Lastly, let's talk about bureaucracy. Limitations placed on access to various medical professionals are already status quo, and that would not change substantially. What would change is the number of unpaid bills. Each and every hospital visit would be covered, and doctors would no longer need to argue back and forth with a wide variety of insurance companies to ensure that they are paid for the services they are seeking to render. Essentially, the medical system shifts from numerous public and private bureaucracies to just one, streamlining the process of getting health coverage. It will almost certainly still be slow, and the government will have to hire on many more people to manage both the transition and the coverage long-term, but I still view that as far better than the mishmash system currently available.

Yes, what you describe is a dream long lost. This is now about survival of the human race, NOT "free health care". I actually dread the thought of "Free Health" care. I see it where the Government will come into your home, take your children to be sterilized, or like it was in China under the One child policy, take them and leave you with one boy, whom you will be given 10 days to take for a sex change, .. Free!

I am sorry, but this is how I see, the Only Way I could see this country providing "free health care", where we wouldn't even have to pay taxes, .. just work in our assigned little cubicles, and go home to city 345 made up of 100 story studios.
The German movie "Metropolis" is upon us.




Sorry for the late response.

whiteflame

The entirety of Con’s argument is a series of assertions. He doesn’t source a single relevant claim he’s making, which is problematic given that many of his claims are based in facts about how the world is and not logical deductions (which are scant as well). It leaves every argument he’s made vulnerable to even the barest of response.

 Con’s arguments are largely red herrings meant to distract from the debate at hand. That debate is very simple: should access to the health care system be expanded to every citizen in the US? The following points have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

- He talks about the government being “run by Nazi corrupt and immoral ideologies”, but doesn’t explain what those ideologies are, how they are pushed in the status quo, or how they would be pushed by the government following the implementation of a Medicare for All system. Just because you slip in the word “Nazi” doesn’t mean that you’ve provided a clear harm, nor does it make your argument relevant to this debate.

- There’s some vague link to “legalized abortion” (his quotes, not mine), which has nothing to do with my case, nor do organizations like NASA or the various TV shows he rails against. It’s not clear how I exacerbate these harms, nor is it even clear how these are harmful beyond these organizations costing us something.

- He talks about the “execution” of John F. Kennedy as some kind of tipping point that could have led to “tak[ing] back the Government ‘for the people and by the people’”, but this is entirely unclear, both in its relation to the topic and in its establishment of what would have been sufficient circumstances to warrant providing free health care. I’ll come back to this at the end, as I feel Con has inadvertently conceded something important.

 But let’s get onto some more relevant responses. Con essentially has 4 points that address potential issues in my case, and none of them are fleshed out.

1. Con briefly mentions that Medicare and Social Security are “coming to an end,” to which he provides absolutely no support. He’s incorrect on both fronts.

For Medicare: “The 2018 report of Medicare’s trustees finds that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2026. Even in 2026, when the HI trust fund is projected to be depleted, incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will still be sufficient to pay 91 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.[1] The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 78 percent in 2042 and then rise gradually to 85 percent in 2092. This shortfall will need to be closed through raising revenues, slowing the growth in costs, or most likely both.”

For Social Security: “As long as people continue to work and pay taxes, Social Security will not run out of money… The numbers fluctuate depending on tax revenue and Social Security benefits, but the system brings in enough money each year to cover roughly three-quarters of the benefits it pays out… That’s assuming no changes are made to the retirement age, Social Security payments, or FICA taxes.”

The last two sentences in both of those posts are rather important because they’re the reason why, even if you buy Con’s views on both Medicare and Social Security (not that SS is applicable to my case at all), these status quo concerns are not applicable to my case. People would be paying increased taxes, meaning the budget shortfalls that afflict Medicare would be filled. This would be about a 5% increase in the Medicare payroll tax, which is admittedly substantial, but far less costly than the current funds spent on health care.

 

2. Con argues that “[w]e are already the highest taxpaying country in the world”, insinuating that Americans would pay more as a whole into the system in a country where Medicare for All is the law of the land. Again, he’s wrong on both fronts. To start, we rank #16 in the world, at around 26%. More importantly, despite paying so much less in taxes than countries like Belgium and Germany, we pay far more for health care (Belgium: $4,751 per capita, Germany: $5,356, US: $9,237). Despite all of that extra spending, we also have lower life expectancy [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html], higher obesity rates [https://renewbariatrics.com/obesity-rank-by-countries], higher infant mortality rates [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html], and are generally ranked lower on a variety of health outcomes [https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/new-health-rankings-of-17-nations-us-is-dead-last/267045]. Other studies corroborate this, and point to several short-comings in our system, including access to care and equity of care, both of which are markedly improved by my case. Note that many of these countries function under a universal health care system, which means they’re paying less for better health care outcomes, largely because they don’t pay for health care costs out-of-pocket.

 

3. Con argues that privatization of health care is what led to the advancement of medical technologies and techniques worldwide. It’s honestly not a bad argument, but Con fails to provide any reason why my case would harm this. Hospitals could still be private under a Medicare for All system. There would still be medical device, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. None of that is going away, nor is the drive to continue the process of improving on medical equipment or practices. All that Medicare for All is changing is the ability of people in the US to receive treatments with these advanced technologies and techniques. The idea that this will stunt further advancements in care has no basis whatsoever.

 

4. Con asserts that people would be actively killed under a Medicare for All system. This is probably Con’s most egregious claim, and yet he repeats it twice: large swaths of elderly people are being executed in hospitals three days after being admitted for… well, anything. I honestly don’t know how to respond to such a specific and unsupported claim because it beggars belief. If this was widespread practice, regardless of the lack of family ties, such an abhorrent practice would be all over the news. Yet, despite repeated searches, I have not been able to find any supporting information for Con’s claim. The notion that colon cancer is somehow purposely transmitted to men about to receive Social Security payments is, similarly, lacking any support.

This kind of argument – claims about how the health care system is trying to “get us all sick” – seems to pervade much of Con’s case, and it always lacks any support. Con wants you to believe that people seeking a means to prevent their illnesses from getting worse by seeking out medicine are being actively hurt by the medical system, that there’s some massive and pervasive effort to use the medical system to end lives. Even if he did have some support for this string of claims, none of them are harms resulting from my case. Remember, these purported harms are all status quo – Con is claiming there’s a massive medical conspiracy at play, and it’s happening in a system where there is a large and active private health insurance sector. Expanding access to health care won’t increase the number of elderly people being killed off since they already have Medicare. All it will do is add a bunch of younger people to the system, and if they suddenly expand their efforts at execution to this younger group, it is all the more likely to lead to an uproar that ends this purported practice.

 

Lastly, I’d like to come back to a statement Con made.

Con clearly believes that there are circumstances where people should receive such care, but is entirely unclear about what those circumstances are, and why people do not deserve it in the status quo. This appears to be a clear concession on Con’s part, since he’s admitting that there’s nothing wrong with the policy of expanding free coverage to needy people. So that means Con has two reasons why he’s not supporting the resolution:

1) Other people should still have to buy it to further “that competitive spirit for advancement”, arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand without any reasoning beyond a statement that we should care for them.

2) The resulting health care “would be a forced one,” where people are the elderly “put down like animals”, again without support.

The impacts of these harms are nebulous at best, their links to my case are non-existent, and I’ve already addressed both in detail. Meanwhile, Con completely drops my case, which he supercharges with his concession. By arguing that certain people in the population should be supported with free health care, he’s conceding that bringing the costs of their care down is also beneficial. He’s proposed absolutely nothing that will manage those costs, whereas mine solves completely. More importantly, by conceding that there’s a benefit to ensuring that the most vulnerable in society need health care, he’s conceded the health care outcome impact. The vast majority of us will spend some of our lives disabled by injury or illness. If the goal is to increase productivity (kind of need people to be healthy to push that “competitive spirit” and help the most vulnerable, then the health care that provides the most coverage and, thus, ensures that most people are healthy and well accomplishes that goal better than any other.

 

Maybe Con thinks we’ve lost our “fight with the devil” (whatever that means), but the fight against preventable illness, injury and death is ongoing, and Con’s unsubstantiated theories are only distractions.