Should There Be Free Healthcare In The United States?

Applesauce

@Outplayz
to place into context my distrust of government and the ability and desire of people to take advantage of entitlements
How much did fraud grow? It jumped to $592.7 million in 2016, up a staggering 61% from $367.1 million in 2012, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/04/04/the-facts-about-food-stamp-fraud/#1c8381f4f880
that's just food stamp fraud. one also must wonder how many aren't caught, far greater than we could ever know imo

welfare fraud
Improper welfare payments, including fraud, are estimated to be 10.6% of all federal welfare payments made and totaled $77.8 billion in fiscal year 2016.
http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-fraud.html

these number don't include investigation and prosecution of the frauds.

workman's comp and insurance fraud is probably pretty big as well.

Within about a year, Illinois had canceled benefits for nearly 150,000 people whose eligibility could not be verified — and saved an estimated $70 million.
Fraud, overpayments and underpayments in all assistance programs cost federal and state governments about $136.7 billion in 2015, out of about $2.8 trillion spent in assistance overall.  
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/05/24/what-happens-when-states-go-hunting-for-welfare-fraud

then there's medicaid and medicare fraud etc etc
the excuse is there are so many claims and so many people on these entitlements it's almost impossible to manage, so we up that number greatly and what do you think will happen then?
this is short, might be worth reading
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/09/medicaid-fraud-staggering-cost-140-billion/

it's darn close to 1 trillion (being conservative) in fraud just adding up the numbers quickly, which aren't all inclusive.  There's already too much for the government to manage, to give them even more, a lot more would be egregious.

Outplayz

@whiteflame

Yeah i agree. That's why i don't think it will be self fixing to leave the government out of it. Even if we allow more competition... i don't think that will fix it either bc these companies are too use to getting huge profits. I don't see them slashing the prices enough to help out without some kind of intervention.  

Applesauce

so this is interesting, it talks about the number of people applying for medical school vs the number accepted and there seems to be a governmental limit on how many to accept.  Hence increased demand for limited supply, increased prices/cost
"The U.S. health-care market appears to behave according to laws of supply and demand (at least until the 1980s). Assuming government subsidy of the elderly and poor serves the public good, the cause of the “U.S. health care cost crisis” appears to be that government didn’t allow the supply of doctors and hospitals to respond to increased consumer demands. Politicians from both major political parties created a self-fulfilling prophesy by assuming markets couldn’t work in health care."
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
Increasing the Supply of Doctors to Achieve a Lower Price for Health Care.

Obviously there's a lot more too it, which confuses me by the simplistic approach of UHC.  I have yet to see anyone explain how UHC will address the current issues, and why only UHC can fix them.

Ampersand

Outplayz said:

@Ampersand ;

It has to do with the culture. Places like Japan and Norway are high trust societies. It's like a big community of friends. You can have free food in a market only for people that need it and people that don't need it would find it immoral or wrong to take it. This isn't the case with America. We aren't the worst, yet we are def. not a high trust society. This is bc we have people from all types of cultures. For instance, cultures like the middle east find it to be witty or smart to cheat the system. Bc they live somewhere cheating the system is a good thing. Bc of this type of lifestyle they don't find cheating the system to be a bad thing. This is why you can't compare United States with any other place bc we truly are diverse and different. And, when it comes to implementing anything you should always look at the problem of cheating the system first... bc here, people will at a larger scale than any other place.. especially when comparing a homogeneous society to ours.    

I don't subscribe to random unevidenced claims about societies in broad strokes - but you don't seem to even have grasped the point. If the USA put in place free healthcare for all - how would people be cheating the system? if they are sick and use the healthcare then that's what's meant to happen and it's a good thing. If they're healthy and they don't need it that's also a good thing.

Applesauce said:

@Outplayz
to place into context my distrust of government and the ability and desire of people to take advantage of entitlements
How much did fraud grow? It jumped to $592.7 million in 2016, up a staggering 61% from $367.1 million in 2012, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/04/04/the-facts-about-food-stamp-fraud/#1c8381f4f880
that's just food stamp fraud. one also must wonder how many aren't caught, far greater than we could ever know imo

welfare fraud
Improper welfare payments, including fraud, are estimated to be 10.6% of all federal welfare payments made and totaled $77.8 billion in fiscal year 2016.
http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-fraud.html

these number don't include investigation and prosecution of the frauds.

workman's comp and insurance fraud is probably pretty big as well.

Within about a year, Illinois had canceled benefits for nearly 150,000 people whose eligibility could not be verified — and saved an estimated $70 million.
Fraud, overpayments and underpayments in all assistance programs cost federal and state governments about $136.7 billion in 2015, out of about $2.8 trillion spent in assistance overall.  
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/05/24/what-happens-when-states-go-hunting-for-welfare-fraud

then there's medicaid and medicare fraud etc etc
the excuse is there are so many claims and so many people on these entitlements it's almost impossible to manage, so we up that number greatly and what do you think will happen then?
this is short, might be worth reading
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/09/medicaid-fraud-staggering-cost-140-billion/

it's darn close to 1 trillion (being conservative) in fraud just adding up the numbers quickly, which aren't all inclusive.  There's already too much for the government to manage, to give them even more, a lot more would be egregious.

Take this post for example which also seems to miss the point entirely. I'm not even going to get into Applesauce's poor logic and use of sources because he seems to just ignore you when you prove him wrong - but the biggest issue is that his entire argument is irrelevent.

His argument can essentially be summarised as:

"When group A receive benefit X and group B don't receive it, a subsection of group B will fraudulently try and claim it."

The great thing about free healthcare for all though is that there is no group B, everyone receives free healthcare. There is nothing to con or defraud your way into - which is an issue with the current system where people struggle to achieve even basic human necessities like good health.

Really this seems to be nothing but another positive point in favour of free healthcare.

Outplayz

@Ampersand

Just research for two seconds and you can find everything i said has a source. Plus, i went to an actual source on top of that since 90% of my family members are doctors. I talked to two of them and they said people abuse things like Obama care and medicaid. He said there are people that leave his office in Mercedes but say they are too poor to buy their own insurance. They often time put money in someone else's name, they lie about their income, etc. to get the cheaper health care, or free healthcare. People cheat the system all the time... you have to be living under a rock to not see that. Health care fraud costs us 68 Billion.

But, your argument is... "well they needed health care anyways" -- "they're sick so it's all good" ... so, you want me to pay more taxes for people that just want to abuse it and get a doctor for every time they have a cough? Why do you think we have co-pays... to prevent that from happening.  Even worse yet to me is... i will be feeding the opioid epidemic. If there is no co-pay, shopping doctors will be worlds easier. Therefore, yes... there will be abuse. I have personal experience in shopping doctors and i would have loved it if it was free.   

And, the thing on high trust societies... do i really have to research for you? I am at work and don't have the time to look up sources for you. Or, use your brain a little. You can imagine in societies with higher trust that there will be less violence and crime among other correlations that i mentioned early, and etc. We are a high trust society overall but no where near places like Japan and Norway. Compared to them we are low trust. Therefore, the implementation of any law shouldn't be compared to them. You might be able to compare Vermont to them... but, not all of America.   

Ampersand

Outplayz said:

@Ampersand

Just research for two seconds and you can find everything i said has a source. Plus, i went to an actual source on top of that since 90% of my family members are doctors. I talked to two of them and they said people abuse things like Obama care and medicaid. He said there are people that leave his office in Mercedes but say they are too poor to buy their own insurance. They often time put money in someone else's name, they lie about their income, etc. to get the cheaper health care, or free healthcare. People cheat the system all the time... you have to be living under a rock to not see that. Health care fraud costs us 68 Billion.

But, your argument is... "well they needed health care anyways" -- "they're sick so it's all good" ... so, you want me to pay more taxes for people that just want to abuse it and get a doctor for every time they have a cough? Why do you think we have co-pays... to prevent that from happening.  Even worse yet to me is... i will be feeding the opioid epidemic. If there is no co-pay, shopping doctors will be worlds easier. Therefore, yes... there will be abuse. I have personal experience in shopping doctors and i would have loved it if it was free.   

And, the thing on high trust societies... do i really have to research for you? I am at work and don't have the time to look up sources for you. Or, use your brain a little. You can imagine in societies with higher trust that there will be less violence and crime among other correlations that i mentioned early, and etc. We are a high trust society overall but no where near places like Japan and Norway. Compared to them we are low trust. Therefore, the implementation of any law shouldn't be compared to them. You might be able to compare Vermont to them... but, not all of America.   

"I'm right because I say so and because my uncle works at Nintendo" which is how your argument can be summarised is not an actual legitimate argument. if you want to support your claims then do so, it's not my job to make your arguments for you and if it only takes 2 seconds of research you should have no trouble. Until you do you haven't backed up your claims with even a single iota of evidence so there's no reason anyone would take your claims seriously.

Not only that but you still haven't understood the point. the debate is about switching to free healthcare for all. People cannot abuse it because under that system they would be entitled to it. If someone feels ill and wants to go to the doctor, that's their right under the system. It specifically does away with the situation you describe where some people are ineligible for healthcare and try and cheat their way onto the system.

Outplayz

@Ampersand

I understand what you are saying. But you are presenting it without any thought to the negative implications. Everything could sound good on paper. But implementing is a different story. You must always consider how people will abuse it and take advantage of it. You are saying it isn't... sure, i agree it isn't in the sense you are portraying. It's fine since everyone gets it. But, how about demand? Will there be enough doctors? How will these doctors be paid? Will they be paid less? Will that decrease the amount of people working hard to become doctors? ... you must think of all this. The one scenario i gave above is one huge problem if people can take advantage of narcotic drugs... and they will. There isn't any evidence of that i can give you bc we haven't done it. But it is logical that these people will have an easier time doctor shopping if it is free. When i use to doctor shop i could only see enough doctors that selling a portion of the drugs i got could pay for. Then i had to wait till next month. If the appointment was free... holy god my house would be a drug factory. 

I can't start researching what you are looking for bc you are just painting a Utopian image of health care. That there is no abuse bc it's free and these people need it. You are not considering the abuse that will happen... so i don't know where to start if you are completely ignoring this reality.  

MayCaesar

I think, on the other hand, that greed is a necessary contributor to an effective healthcare system. However much we might want to defy nature, greed is the main driver of our action. Without greed, without the desire to improve our situation, we would not lift a finger to do anything. And this is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, government-controlled healthcare tends to be so cost-ineffective and unreliable. When the company (the government, in this case) does not get economical profit out of what it does, then, unless its staff is really-really-REALLY passionate about it (and we all know that this is not the case with governmental bureaucrats appointing budgets), it will do bare minimum it needs to fulfill the legal requirements - and it shows. Long, often years long, queues for certain services are a regular occurrence in every public-funded healthcare system I am familiar with, for example. Many cutting edge technologies are not implemented, and many recent developments in medical field are not offered, simply because there is no incentive to improve the quality of something that already works and consumes an incredible fraction of the state budget. I think people strongly overestimate what they get for their money in terms of healthcare in such countries as France, Sweden, Denmark... It is easy to romanticize those systems from the outside, but people actually living there and having to use those healthcare systems regularly will have a lot of stories to tell about them.

The US healthcare is extremely overpriced, it is true. But I do wonder if demolishing the private sector and handing the industry over into the hands of an infamously incompetent and bloated government (the "an" part instead of "the" is because it applies to every government, not just the US one) would not amount to replacing a serious problem with an even bigger one.

What needs to be done instead, in my view, is removal of regulations making it difficult for small clinics to enter the game, enforcement of anti-lobbying laws to prevent large healthcare corporations from installing their agents into the government, and also serious reforms in the insurance industry to deal with the situation where insurance companies are expected to provide insane coverage, and where the hospitals use this situation to crank up their prices to the level that would make Bradbury weep. Free market healthcare system can and does work, it simply needs to be left on its own (as was the case decades ago), and controlling bureaucrats should stick to writing regulations on chicken pens and not deal with the problems they cannot comprehend.

Applesauce

@MayCaesar
the countries compared to don't have the population or diversity (in most cases) that the U.S. does, that includes diversity of problems.  Someone in government thought it would be beneficial to spend a few million to study shrimp walking, these are the "innovators" they want to come up with new medication and treatments?  Perhaps I can become a witch doctor or spiritual healer and cash in.  I could see the government paying for that, I don't think that's too far fetched, if you know the right people.
here's the thing, socialism and communism can be made to look good on paper/theory, I see UHC in the same light.  It's totally presented in the best possible light and no one is looking for unintended consequences, much like the ACA.
UHC could work in a perfect world, could it work in the U.S.?  I don't see how it possibly could, in reality.  Much like "you have to pass it to know what's in it"  you have to try it to see if it works, only problem is if it doesn't the results could be extreme and there's no going back.

MayCaesar

@Applesauce

I think that in a perfect world we would not need UHC in the first place. In a perfect world the market would take care of everything, people working in the healthcare industry would care both about profit and their patients' well-being, and patients would maintain a healthy lifestyle and have very few health issues to begin with.

Regardless, I think the current culture of decision-making in most governments is leading down a rabbit hole. People face a problem and try to solve it by introducing regulations. Then they introduce new regulations by solving the problems created by those regulations. This keeps on going forever, until the system becomes so bloated and restricted that no sensible business can exist without charging a fortune for their services.
Then, a short illumination comes, "Maybe we should reconsider the whole system". Regulations are slashed, and the system becomes more-or-less reasonable. Then again people find some problems to solve, and the cycle repeats itself forever.

Some shift of collective consciousness is needed. We should realize that there are better, more intelligent ways to solve most problems, than "Let's ban the behavior leading to this problem". Indirect solutions through awareness campaigns and creation of economical incentives favoring the desirable outcome are generally much more effective, than any possible set of regulations.

We did not eliminate alcoholism with any of the prohibition laws (in fact, they have been shown systematically to lead to the adverse effect), but we did reduce smoking significantly through awareness campaigns and technological evolution creating harmless alternatives to smoking. I wish people focused more on creating the environment in which the desirable outcomes appear naturally, rather than trying to bring them in artificially via brute-force lawmaking.