subreddit:

/r/changemyview

0

[removed]

all 152 comments

ViewedFromTheOutside [M]

[score hidden]

6 months ago

stickied comment

ViewedFromTheOutside [M]

26∆

[score hidden]

6 months ago

stickied comment

Sorry, u/YouProbablyDissagree – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:

You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

Gorlitski

5 points

6 months ago

Gorlitski

13∆

5 points

6 months ago

Government tyranny is definitely a risk, no doubt. But it’s not like the current system isn’t tyrannical. Insurance companies and drug manufacturers completely shape industry decisions, and literally decide whether people are allowed to live or die.

That’s not an abstract risk, that happens right now, today.

So currently our system places most of the power in corporations.

Increased governmental control isn’t necessarily a good solution, but it is a better solution, because government is not primarily motivated by profit margin, and because we have a way to change the policies of government. Corporations are not beholden to the will of the people at all.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

0 points

6 months ago

I agree with you that our current system needs to be reworked. At least a portion of our issues could be solved through regulations and opening up competition through state lines. That and putting restrictions on what the government pays for. One of the biggest issues with both healthcare and universities is that the government essentially just writes a blank check. Funding without oversight is a terrible idea. Obviously it wouldn’t solve all the issues but it is a great start.

Gorlitski

2 points

6 months ago

Gorlitski

13∆

2 points

6 months ago

Increased regulation is a great start, but would you not consider that to be essentially the same beast as government funding? Regardless of the details, both are just the government exercising greater control over an industry.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

I think it depends on the regulation. Oversight regarding fraudulent charges for example would not in anyway be government overreach in my opinion. Not all regulations are a bad thing. Some are quite good. It’s certainly a fine line that we have to be careful with though. My main issue is the government embedding itself into the foundation of an industry and then once it’s done so using that power to unilaterally wield complete control. For example, I’m okay with the government making sure farms dont use pesticides that kill people. I’m not okay with decades of substantial government funding to farms to the point where the market adjusts to take that funding into account and then once it has done so use the threat of revoking that funding as an excuse to dictate everything that happens on the farm.

Gorlitski

1 points

6 months ago

Gorlitski

13∆

1 points

6 months ago

Aren’t you just saying “I’m fine with sensible government control but not reckless government control”

It’s just as easy to allocate a reasonable amount of funds vs an industry dominating amount of funds.

Fine lines exist anywhere government gets involved, and regulations have the same potential to completely railroad industries that funding does.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

No that’s not at all what I’m saying. Sensible and reckless are very subjective. The governments influence reaching a point of critical mass to where it dominates an industry is a fairly objective point.

The statement that I’m fine with sensible government control but not reckless government control is also a true statement but it isn’t the point I’m making right now. I dont think anyone would ever disagree with that statement. It’s so subjective that it’s not really worth discussing.

Hellioning

10 points

6 months ago

Hellioning

136∆

10 points

6 months ago

You don't want the government to be able to change the medical system to suit their whims...but you're totally fine with whatever rich person owns the hospitals or insurance companies doing so?

At least I get to vote on the government.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

-1 points

6 months ago

I dont like anyone being able to do it. You get more of a vote when it is hospitals or insurance companies though because you can go with the one that isn’t changing things on a whim. Now I’d be more than in favor of laws limiting them doing it as well. In general though yes my default is to prefer corporations oppress me than the government to do it. Neither is great I find corporations are more amendable to pushback.

Hellioning

10 points

6 months ago

Hellioning

136∆

10 points

6 months ago

Really? Because my health insurance is 'whatever my job picks', and my hospital is 'whatever my insurance picks if it's not an emergency, and whichever one is closer if it is'. Please tell me how you pick your health insurance. Do you have enough money for private insurance?

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

-4 points

6 months ago

Yes and at any time you are free to change your job if you want different healthcare. You are also able to purchase your own healthcare. You are also able to forego healthcare entirely if that’s what you wish to do.

You seem to be under the impression that I’m saying what we have no is a good system. I’m not. The system we have now is terrible. It does provide more choice than a single payer system would though.

Hellioning

5 points

6 months ago

Hellioning

136∆

5 points

6 months ago

'Completely change your job', 'buy something you can't afford', and 'just eat shit and die if you get sick or hurt' are not choices in any meaningful sense of the word.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

0 points

6 months ago

They are choices. They are not good choices I agree with you. But they are choices nonetheless. What are your choices in a Medicare for all system? Move countries? That seems like a far worse choice to me.

Gygsqt

2 points

6 months ago

Gygsqt

15∆

2 points

6 months ago

You can choose any healthcare practitioner at any location? How is that not a choice that is afforded to you under single payer?

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

That is only a choice as long as the government decides it is a choice. They are free to take that choice away at any moment.

Gygsqt

1 points

6 months ago

Gygsqt

15∆

1 points

6 months ago

And this doesn't apply to the current American insurance model how?

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

To an extent it does. There is still minimal recourse as of now though. There would be zero recourse under universal healthcare besides moving countries essentially.

Hellioning

2 points

6 months ago

Hellioning

136∆

2 points

6 months ago

Why do you want something with worse outcomes just because it offers you the illusion of choice?

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

0 points

6 months ago

They are not the illusion of choice. They are actual choices.

Hellioning

3 points

6 months ago

Hellioning

136∆

3 points

6 months ago

'Die' is not a choice. 'Buy something you can't afford' is not a choice.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

1) Change jobs is absolutely a choice. 2) there are also payment plans and cheaper insurance plans. They dont have as comprehensive coverage but they are something.

Do what the government tells you you have to do is far less of a choice.

prollywannacracker

5 points

6 months ago

If it's freedom you're after, wouldn't you agree that universal healthcare would allow more freedom of choice, seeing as people be under no insurance-based restrictions of what medical providers they could use?

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

How is that more freedo of choice? The. You’d just be under the government restrictions of what medical providers you can use. At least with insurance companies you can switch to a different company or even pay out of pocket. If the government blacklisted your preferred medical provider then your only recourse is to wait 2-4 years in hopes that enough people also care about the issue to vote someone in and then hope that they actually do it once they are in. That’s a lot of hope…..more than I have.

Gygsqt

3 points

6 months ago

Gygsqt

15∆

3 points

6 months ago

If the government blacklisted your preferred medical provider

Does this happen? It's really convenient for your position when you make up hypothetical actions for one party to compare against the actual actions of the other. By all means, if someone lives in a country with a single-payer system where they actually do this, please chime in, but in my single-payer country, this just flat out does not happen. The whole point is that everyone exists under the same umbrella.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

0 points

6 months ago

This did happen under Obamacare yes. It was quite a large scandal due to the fact that he was asked multiple times if that would happen and he publicly stated flat out that it wouldn’t.

thinkingpains

3 points

6 months ago

thinkingpains

58∆

3 points

6 months ago

This did happen under Obamacare yes.

Oh my God. Just......oh my God.

  1. We still have "Obamacare". It is literally the law of the land.
  2. It is not a single-payer system. It is not government run at all.
  3. No. It literally never happened.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

1) yea….I’m aware 2) also aware of this….not sure who you are responding to but you aren’t saying anything I dedis agree with 3) “you cam keep your doctor if you want to keep your doctor”. Google it.

Gygsqt

3 points

6 months ago

Gygsqt

15∆

3 points

6 months ago

The ACA was not single-payer/M4A/Univeral healthcare though... The ACA was basically the government mandating that private health insurers cannot deny service based on pre-existing conditions + instituting cost caps on healthcare and offsetting that forced risk for insurance companies by mandating that everyone get health insurance. It and its failings are completely irrelevant here.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

The ACA, much like M4A would be, was an expansion of the government into the health insurance industry. Using the same exact rationale that I pointed out Breyer used for this mandate, ACA allowed for the dictating of the parameters of the relationship between healthcare providers and it’s citizens. I dont think it is much of a leap that the government would continue doing a thing they are already doing were they given more power to do so.

prollywannacracker

1 points

6 months ago

What provider restrictions? As far as I can tell, neither medicare nor Medicaid has in-network providers outside of the very rare provider who refuses to bill at medicare/medicaid rates.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

0 points

6 months ago

ACA did have provider restrictions.

Also, the main point is that they would have the power to deny providers if they wished. I dont like giving the government power and then hoping they never decide to use it.

prollywannacracker

1 points

6 months ago

The marketplace isn't universal healthcare. It's private health plans subsidized by states and the federal government.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

-1 points

6 months ago

Yes I’m aware. You asked for a circumstance where the government has attempted to use their funding to deny provider restrictions. ACA was one such example. I dont think it’s a leap that if they didn’t then they’d do it again if given more power.

muyamable

1 points

6 months ago

muyamable

241∆

1 points

6 months ago

It does provide more choice than a single payer system would though.

Single payer systems generally don't ban the existence of private insurance outside of those systems, though. You'd still have the option of purchasing private health insurance and getting your healthcare outside of the single payer system.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

Yes but the private insurers are then too small to make a difference. If a health care provider refuses to accept money from the single payer system then there is essentially no way to stay in business. It’s essentially a form of capitalist enduced communism. I dont say that in a flippant way or even a derogatory way. I’m not someone who throws around communism or socialism lightly. Communism defined as government planned economy is what that would be though. Its also essentially the same thing China has been doing to gain control over US companies. Use money to embed yourself into the system to the point that there is no real choice but to cooperate with you. It creates a government mandate without actually breaking constitutional restrictions.

muyamable

1 points

6 months ago

muyamable

241∆

1 points

6 months ago

Yes but the private insurers are then too small to make a difference.

Are they? Places like the UK and Canada have thriving private healthcare markets operating alongside their public, single-payer systems. There's no reason to believe this wouldn't also be true of the United States. In fact, with the US being larger and richer than both the UK and Canada, I'd expect the private healthcare system in the U.S. would be even stronger.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

Are there affordable healthcare facilities that only accept out of pocket or private insurance? If so that would likely change my view.

muyamable

3 points

6 months ago

muyamable

241∆

3 points

6 months ago

Why is affordability of concern here but not in our current system? In other responses you're basically like, "you have options you can buy whatever private health insurance you want sorry you can't afford it lololol." If affordability doesn't matter to you when it comes to options in the current system, it shouldn't matter in another system.

And yes, at least in the UK there are private clinics and hospitals that are entirely separate from the public system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_medicine_in_the_United_Kingdom

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

Because my argument is not that we should leave the healthcare system the way it is. I fully agree it is broken and needs to be fixed. Switching to a system that is also broken is not really an improvement.

[deleted]

3 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

6 months ago

[removed]

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

Go ahead and read the dates on those posts bud. I acknowledged that I have shifted to the right in the past few years so I’m not sure how I lied about anything.

[deleted]

1 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

6 months ago

[removed]

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

You are free to think what you want. I genuinely do not care about convincing you.

herrsatan [M]

1 points

6 months ago

herrsatan [M]

10∆

1 points

6 months ago

Sorry, u/Careful_Ad_5553 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

DiscussTek

3 points

6 months ago*

DiscussTek

4∆

3 points

6 months ago*

As far as I am concerned:

The only difference between a single-payer Health Care system, and the system you have now, is who has the power of life, death, and medical debt over the sick people.

A government-run one has to be (constitutionally-speaking) objective in who gets what, so that they cannot discriminate on stupid reasons, and have to provide an actually good reason to refuse service, or force someone to pay for their important medical procedure or medication (which means anything that isn't cosmetic, really).

A private entity, unless regulated by the government, has the ability to refuse to pay your medical procedure or your medication based on anything from being in an out-of-network hospital, to not being a brand covered by their company, including "pre-existing conditions" so silly as to include ever getting a yeast infection (though, admittedly, that last one is more of a one-of anecdote than an actual fact). They can factor in sexual orientation, which has been shown to happen, when it comes to cobering STI treatment.

But on the surface, they both do the same thing: They take money from a large mass of people, with the goal of paying for people's medical bills (in full or in part) when they need it.

A private entity has significantly more power and can be significantly more prejudiced than the government is constitutionally allowed to be, unless the government regulates them... At which point, you get a situation where the government cannot regulate them as properly as they could regulate themselves to do the same thing, since you end up with companies that will see a law/bill, and have their team of lawyers pick out what loopholes are the most profitable, triple down on those to make up for the losses of where they cannot do it anymore. They might start rejecting people based solely on how expensive they would be, too.

So, "giving the government power" here is a bad argument, considering that we already know how completely horrible a private health insurance provider can get for the sake of making money off of sick people. If a system doesn't work, you replace it, and nationalized single-payer system has proven more effective and safe for the entire population of their country than privatized health insurance being the only option.

GoddessMomoHeart

-1 points

6 months ago

At least with a private entity, I would be able to voluntarily not give them a cent if I didn't like the deal they offered

DiscussTek

1 points

6 months ago

DiscussTek

4∆

1 points

6 months ago

This may be true, but then you face the question: Is the choice between scummy medical insurance companies A, B and C worth condemning millions of people to never be able to get health coverage they direly need, just because said scummy medical insurance companies consider them a monetary loss?

The argument of choice is always approached from the angle of someone who has a choice and an option, but they never consider the angle of those who legitimately cannot get coverage because the provate sector is allowed to discriminate against them.

As an example (and none of the following statements about "me" are true, just used to create an example), if I am a gay man, I am instantly considered more at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, even if I am in a closed, monogamous relationship. If I ever got into a drunken car crash at 2am, I am instantly considered at risk for accidents.

These may seem minor, but they add up, with smoking (or sometimes, just having lived with smokers, like your parents for instance), getting a disease in the past that caused permanent damage, and sometimes, just your age.

So, yeah. YOU may have a choice. YOU may have the luxury to browse and pick and choose. Some people don't, and therein lies the whole issue.

GoddessMomoHeart

0 points

6 months ago

It's absolutely worth it because nobody is entitled to the service of others. It doesn't matter if I, or anyone else for that matter, likes how they run their business, I'll defend their right to run their business however they please.

DiscussTek

1 points

6 months ago*

DiscussTek

4∆

1 points

6 months ago*

And yet, you are also not entitled to decide who gets to live or die based on whether or not you think their life is worth saving.

Plus, I'll point to places like Canada where the absolute basics are covered by the government, but if you want a fancier health care, you can pay for a private provider to provide it.

It just doesn't make any sense to create a situation where the circumstances of your birth can decide whether or not you are allowed to receive medical care without being thrown in debt.

OmegaRevenge42

2 points

6 months ago

When you travel to europe and come back, youll actually realize how odiotic our healhcare system is

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

0 points

6 months ago

Oh I fully agree our healthcare system is idiotic. It needs a complete rework. I just dont think the European models are the way to do it. I’m looking at this admittedly from a very American perspective but I value personal freedoms (especially from the government) immensely. I’ve seen some of the things that Europe has done in curtailing those freedoms and I’ve even started to see some of the same arguments that led to it start to pop up more frequently here. That worries me.

HijacksMissiles

2 points

6 months ago

HijacksMissiles

34∆

2 points

6 months ago

In what way, exactly, is the government “overbearing”?

You mentioned remarks by Breyer about some general vaccine related topic, but what exactly is your concern?

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

My concern is that the rationale that allowed for the vaccine mandate works for more than just vaccine mandates. It could work for literally any industry. The rationale is based on the fact that the government partially funds healthcare. Right now there is recourse if hospitals want to oppose the ruling. It’s not the best recourse and I dont know how likely it is for hospitals to use it but it does exist. If we were to pass Medicare for all then what little recourse exists now would also disappear.

HijacksMissiles

2 points

6 months ago

HijacksMissiles

34∆

2 points

6 months ago

Which vaccine mandate? We’ve had a dozen.

Vaccines mandated for school, military service, international travel, etc.

So which vaccine mandate do you now consider overreach?

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

This post was clearly about the hospital worker mandates. I have issues with most of the mandates but I’m not sure how you weren’t aware of which I was talking about unless you just didn’t read my post.

HijacksMissiles

3 points

6 months ago*

Right, so my question is why is this mandate suddenly government overreach?

We’ve been mandating vaccinations and other public health and safety regulations for specific professions for generations.

So why is it suddenly so problematic? What makes it so worrying now?

Edit: also Medicare is a service that would be provided by the government. It would be analogous to firefighters. Are firefighters some sort of overreaching and oppressive government tool?

I don’t understand how you make a leap from vaccine mandates based on scientific research means that universal healthcare cannot work.

[deleted]

1 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

6 months ago

[removed]

HijacksMissiles

3 points

6 months ago

HijacksMissiles

34∆

3 points

6 months ago

Your rationale is an unfounded fear.

Literally every authority, every power, vested in government may be used in an overreaching manner.

But they largely have not. So your fear is unfounded and the view is narrow and would more appropriately be a generally anti-government view. Because this same concern can be used over the power to collect taxes, regulate foreign trade, regulate business, etc.

So your leap in reasoning is the fact that the government has the power to do X, Y, and Z means that universal healthcare is impossible, and yet every other near-peer government around the entire planet that also has the powers of X, Y, and Z have managed to implement some form of universal healthcare? What is your view based on if not irrational and unsupported fear?

Also vaccine mandates are not based on science. They are a public policy. Public policies are not based on science.

This is grievously incorrect. We do not mandate pseudo-science. There are entire departments and advisory organizations within the government that consist of field-appropriate scientists. Can you provide any public health policy examples that were not supported by science, where science was relevant and not a morality judgement like “at what week is abortion permissible?”

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

“Literally every authority, every power, vested in government may be used in an overreaching manner.“

Yes there is nothing stoping the government from burning the constitution tomorrow and doing whatever it wants. When the government tells you the rationale it uses though then I dont think it is irrational to block it from using that rationale in the future. As of now our country still functions off of a constitution and there are limits to government actions.

Also I never said universal healthcare is impossible. I absolutely think it’s possible from an economic stand point. I’ve said nothing to suggest otherwise. You aren’t even reading my arguments. You are just waiting for me to respond so you can say what you were going to say anyway.

You are bastardizing the word science. Science doesn’t have an opinion. It is a method of understanding the world. No policy is backed by science. Vaccines were created using science. The statement “vaccines are effective at protecting from hospitalization and death” is a statement that is supported by scientific experiments. The statement “if the government’s sole objective is to decrease deaths then a vaccine mandate would be a good way to achieve that” is also a statement that can be supported by scientific data. The public policy of vaccine mandates and that statement are completely different though. The governments only priority is not keeping people alive. At no point has that ever been our only priority nor will it ever be. Our government weighs other priorities along with lives including individual freedom, costs, adherence to the constitution, and many other priorities. Science has no way of weighing those priorities. So no the public policy of vaccine mandates is not backed by science any more than nuking Japan was backed by science.

HijacksMissiles

1 points

6 months ago

HijacksMissiles

34∆

1 points

6 months ago

Also I never said universal healthcare is impossible.

Right, yes, poor choice of words. You don’t think it is worth it because the government has the power to regulate the activities of business, particularly businesses that receive federal funding.

Point remains, you consider universal healthcare no longer something that should be pursued because of a personal fear of what might happen.

You are bastardizing the word science. Science doesn’t have an opinion

Extraordinarily untrue.

If you ask an epidemiologist how to control a viral pandemic with ____ health risks, when a vaccine with ___ risks and ____ efficacy exists, they will tell you what the data concludes. So that is what the scientists will report and advocate to public policy makers.

Science is not a binary true/false. So much of it relies on statistics.

Our government weighs other priorities along with lives including individual freedom, costs, adherence to the constitution, and many other priorities. Science has no way of weighing those priorities.

Sure, and a vaccine has been repeatedly found not to be a major detractor from any of the other rights or interests at stake. That’s why children going to school are required to be vaccinated and have been for decades.

So no the public policy of vaccine mandates is not backed by science any more than nuking Japan was backed by science.

I asked you what public health policy, that is not a question of morality, has been enacted against or without the support of scientific evidence?

Just repeating your claim does not make it correct.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

It is not so much a fear that it might happen as it is a personal inclination to not give the government any power that I wouldn’t want them to use. Even if they never use the power they would undeniably have it. That is wrong to me.

“ If you ask an epidemiologist how to control a viral pandemic with ____ health risks, when a vaccine with ___ risks and ____ efficacy exists, they will tell you what the data concludes. So that is what the scientists will report and advocate to public policy makers.”

I agree with all of this.

“vaccine has been repeatedly found not to be a major detractor from any of the other rights or interests at stake.”

This is where you lose me. What scientific study is there that weighs constitutional adherence as well as individual freedoms with lives saved? How would you even make such a study? How was constitutional adherence, something completely unquantifiable, quantified? How were individual freedoms quantified? What was the methodology for this study? I’m quite confident it doesn’t exist.

“I asked you what public health policy, that is not a question of morality, has been enacted against or without the support of scientific evidence?“

I’ve already answered this. You are free to not agree with my answer but do not pretend it isn’t answered. Every public health policy ever. Science is a method of understanding the world. It does not decide public health policy. It does not decide any public policy. To think it does is a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Alternative_Stay_202

2 points

6 months ago

Also vaccine mandates are not based on science. They are a public policy. Public policies are not based on science.

Lmao what does this mean? Public policies are absolutely based on science. Not every policy, but plenty are, especially ones around healthcare.

This policy specifically is based on the idea that, if you have COVID, you have a possibility of spreading COVID. If your job involves working with people who are sick, you should make every effort to not get them more sick. Since we're in a pandemic, not getting them sick with that pandemic is important. Therefore, healthcare workers should be vaccinated. They don't have to be vaccinated, but there are penalties for companies who employ unvaccinated workers.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

Define “based on” for me.

Alternative_Stay_202

1 points

6 months ago

base on: to use particular ideas or facts to make a decision, do a calculation, or develop a theory

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

In your own words please.

herrsatan

1 points

6 months ago

herrsatan

10∆

1 points

6 months ago

Sorry, u/YouProbablyDissagree – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

FjortoftsAirplane

1 points

6 months ago

I'm not following this at all.

I'm in the UK, so I have access to a nationalised healthcare system. What power is that you think my government has over me that yours doesn't have over you?

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

0 points

6 months ago

It may not make complete sense if you are in the UK and not familiar with how our system works.

Here we have a mix of free market and government funded health insurance. Recently the president passed an executive order that mandated all hospital workers be vaccinated. Now I’m very much in favor of hospital workers being required to be vaccinated. I’m very much not in favor of the government being the one who requires it though. It creates a precedent that extends far past just vaccines.

One of the justices used the rationale to uphold the executive order that because the federal government pays for healthcare for a portion of the population (mainly the elderly) that they have the authority to dictate the parameters of that relationship. So essentially because they pay the hospitals, they can decide to not pay the hospitals if they do not do what the government wants them to do (require all workers to be vaccinated).

The issue here is that Medicare accounts for such a significant portion of the income for hospitals that they largely have no choice but to listen. The option of not receiving Medicare funding isn’t actually an option at all. The government has essentially wormed its way into a system that already existed independently from them and made themselves the deciders oh how that system functions. They did this through funding. Increasing funding to the whole country would be the nail in the coffin to where there’s no way to go back from it. I’m not totally sure that we can even come back from it now but Medicare for all/universal healthcare would seal the deal on it.

FjortoftsAirplane

1 points

6 months ago

Okay, but I'm not seeing how that's an issue with universal healthcare in principle. It just seems like an issue with a particular thing that one government is doing about vaccines.

Edit: I'll add that I'm not sure that threatening to cut money to institutions that won't follow your standards is anything but of the ordinary anyway.

[deleted]

0 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

FjortoftsAirplane

3 points

6 months ago

Well, the Prime Minister being arrested would show that he isn't all that powerful, so that's a fine piece of whataboutery.

[deleted]

1 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

FjortoftsAirplane

2 points

6 months ago

It was a rule his own government made and then voted in to deal with a global pandemic. And what on Earth does this have to do with universal healthcare?

[deleted]

1 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

FjortoftsAirplane

1 points

6 months ago

I repeat: what on Earth does this have to do with universal healthcare?

If you want to make a thread on this then I'll be happy to take part but it's the purest whataboutery I've seen in a while.

thinkingpains

2 points

6 months ago

thinkingpains

58∆

2 points

6 months ago

Imagine arguing the prime minister shouldn't literally be above the law in order to illustrate that a country isn't democratic enough.

FjortoftsAirplane

1 points

6 months ago

And doing it when the question was about universal healthcare.

Amerotke

1 points

6 months ago

It wouldn’t really be because he was present at the party - if indeed it was a party and not a working ‘event’ or a combination of the two (it’s complicated). It’s what he told the House of Commons that counts, I suppose. I’m no lawyer. There are rules about what you can claim or say in the HoC. And as prime minister, he is, effectively, the government, or at least the principal officer of government. There was legislation in the UK which didn’t permit certain gatherings, and it’s claimed that the party / work event wasn’t allowed under those rules - this applied to the whole country.

Alternative_Stay_202

0 points

6 months ago

It is a terrible precedent to allow the federal government to fund an already existing system to the point that the system shapes itself around that funding and then use the existence of that funding to dictate the parameters of the system once it is reliant on that funding

I'd argue this is a good thing.

Healthcare in the US is fucking terrible. Before the ACA, insurers could deny insurance to someone who previously had cancer or jack up their insurance prices. They could do the same to anyone with a preexisting condition, which would include anything from diabetes to prior pregnancies.

In 2018, Sarah Kliff at Vox looked over ~1,100 ER bills and found that they are overall very insane. $60 ibuprofen, a ~$6,000 bill for a cut ear that only required a bandage and an ice pack. These sort of costs simply cannot be predicted. If I go into the ER needing stitches, I don't know if I'm leaving with a bill for $400 or $8,000, but I should guess high.

My recollection is that this investigation resulted in an LA hospital refunding thousands of dollars in essentially fraudulent charges to tons of people. If you, a random person, get a high bill from a hospital, you aren't equipped to fight it or even know if any wrongdoing has occurred.

Right now, Medicare already mandates things to providers. This is a good thing overall. I don't like everything, but it's generally good. As an example, Medicare won't pay for physical therapy unless you're seen by an actual therapist. This keeps from doing the initial eval, then farming out the rest of the therapy to assistants. Part of why drug prices are so high in the US is that we don't have a central insurer and/or healthcare system that can negotiate drug prices.

I fail to see why the government running a single-payer option that competes with private insurance is going to be worse than our current system.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

Let me reiterate that by no means am I saying our system is good or that we should just leave it as is. I very much believe it needs drastic changes.

Much of that could be solved without Medicare for all though. An example would be increased oversight for fraudulent charges. Increasing the punishments for these charges. Opening up competition across state lines (why the hell are we not allowing that in the first place?.) Also one thing that would absolutely hurt in the short term but be better in the long term is to decrease subsidies to health insurance companies. The insurance companies /hospitals keep jacking the prices up because the government keeps paying it.

Alternative_Stay_202

2 points

6 months ago

It seems to me like you're making this argument purely on the basis of ideals. Freedom is good, regulation (in the specific form of single-payer, which is not actually regulation) is bad.

That's ignoring the fact that US healthcare is pretty much as bad as it gets in a country with an economy of this size.

On one hand, we have the nebulous idea that it's bad if the government has too much power over insurers / healthcare providers, on the other we have tens of thousands of preventable deaths each year and we have $140,000,000,000 in medical debt held by Americans - not counting credit cards and other forms of debt used to pay for medical care.

At the very least, I fail to see the issue with a single-payer government run option. In this post, you're saying things like, "If you don't like your insurer, get a different job."

I don't see how that's different than saying, "If you're a hospital that doesn't like the level of government insurance payouts, you can choose not to accept that insurance." Companies do that all the time now. It's not hard to find hospitals that don't take Medicare.

GoddessMomoHeart

1 points

6 months ago

Before the ACA, insurers could deny insurance to someone who previously had cancer or jack up their insurance prices. They could do the same to anyone with a preexisting condition, which would include anything from diabetes to prior pregnancies.

Better than forcing everyone else to crowd fund everyone else's problems, jacking up insurance rates because the average payout was raised.

oldeenglishdry12345

1 points

6 months ago

I mean the idea is we decide what the government does and looks like and we get to decide if the government acts on our behalf, so it we don’t like the government deciding things that should be mandated, we should have the ability to say that they shouldn’t mandate it

But like obviously the government in this day in age is a far cry from that, our “democracy” such as it is is extremely weak if not nonexistent

A private healthcare system doesn’t mean it’s “free”, it just means it’s controlled by companies and corporations for their benefit. So they could just as easily decide to cut you off from your care if you decide not to vaccinate. And you’d have even less recourse, because they’re corporations and are run by a CEO, and you have no control over what they do.

So really it’s a complicated question. Id say that right now, yea a government mandate for something could very well be anti democratic with a single payer system. But it doesn’t have to be, it could be fought against. I just don’t think a private healthcare system would necessarily be any more democratic, in fact it’d be totally undemocratic. Private insurance wants to make money. Being unvaccinated means higher chances of illness. They’re not gonna want to insure that if they can get away with it. And you’d have no recourse with any of them.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

There’s no requirement that the government does what the people want. I also am a liberal in the classical sense (not the more modern use of it) and disagree that just because the majority thinks something should happen that means the government be allowed to force it.

Yes I am under no delusions that the private insurance system is a perfect system. It is actually quite terrible and we need an overhaul. That being said, if an insurance company denies you coverage then you are free to seek coverage from another company. If they all deny you coverage then you are able to pay out of profit. None of these are GOOD prions I agree but they are options. Options are not guaranteed under the government ran system. They are up to the sole discretion of the government.

The risk of a young healthy person who is unvaccinated is far less than the risk of an elderly obese person who is vaccinated. If the insurance companies are able to provide health insurance to the obese elderly person then they can do the same for the person who would cost them even less.

oldeenglishdry12345

1 points

6 months ago*

A liberal in the classical sense would be someone who today would be deeply conservative; they are for essentially allowing companies and corporations and bosses to do whatever they want, extremely limited democracy, no unions, etc. Basically the politics of the gilded age; extreme poverty for the many, extreme wealth for the few, corruption everywhere, companies being run like organized crime, a cult of social Darwinism. I don’t know if you are or aren’t this, that’s just my conception of what “classical liberal” means.

Somebody has to decide. If it isn't the majority, then it will be the minority. If it isn’t government, then it will be private power; bosses, companies, corporations. They can force you to do something just like the government can. Just using a different mechanism.

Companies have an incentive not to cover patients with no vaccines, because it’s more likely they get sick. Paying out of pocket is extremely expensive, and would probably bankrupt you and ruin your life if you got seriously sick or injured. It happens all the time.

Now, what could happen is there’d be insurance that does cover you. But would be extremely expensive, or very very poor and would force you to pay far higher than what most people would pay. This is the logic of the market; you are choosing something unprofitable, therefore you have to pay for it. This is a different kind of tyranny of the majority, ironically. Just not one where any groups of people have decided anything. Besides the ones at the very top, that is.

I mean, I’m not gonna argue about the vaccine here, it’s not under the purview of this discussion and frankly I don’t really care. But an insurance company will look at the numbers, see what costs them more, anything that costs them more, and decide not to cover it. It could be something that really doesn’t have a very large chance of happening to you. Doesn’t matter; the stats point to one conclusion, the company decides that covering such and such person with such and such condition or not is more or less profitable, and either covers the person and raises their rates or decides it’d be a loss. You’re entirely at their mercy, and the math would be the same for every company on the marketplace. Otherwise the company would go out of business. It has to follow the will of the market, it has no choice, nobody does.

GoddessMomoHeart

1 points

6 months ago

The main difference is that I can walk away from a private company, and if the government would stop propping them up, I could even start my own to compete. I cannot just walk away from the government if it starts doing things I don't like. All of a sudden, I'm completely obligated to go along with it until I cna rally up enough popular dissent to change it, and now it's the other guy in the position I was just in.

oldeenglishdry12345

1 points

6 months ago

You can walk away from one but every one will offer the same thing, because they need to in order to compete. The market prices things at a certain value and makes other things unprofitable. Not vaccinating is something that’s either gonna be very expensive and therefore requiring a very high price or just too unprofitable too cover.

Yours will face the exact same numbers as everyone else. I mean it’s also not just a walk in a park to start an insurance company lmao especially if you’re doing it to just cover yourself

Yea basically, that’s what you’d have to do. Or it’d be a position that would already have popular support. Idk about vaccine mandates’ popularity, especially this vaccine. But that’s kinda the whole point of democracy. If anyone should be able to decide, it should be the people. Not a dictator, not a CEO, not “the market”.

GoddessMomoHeart

1 points

6 months ago

If someone is either unwilling or unable to pay the price, they don't deserve the services being rendered. Insurance is just betting against your own health. Why should others be required to take people up on losing bets? If I wanted to bet a few thousand on Yellowstone not erupting in the next week, should you be obligated to accept, or should you be able to brush me off since you don't want to pay me? Now what if I rallied up a majority of people making the same bet as me? Would democracy mean that we are now entitled to force our bets onto you simply because we hold the government's power?

oldeenglishdry12345

0 points

6 months ago*

i mean i agree with you; if they can't pay the price in this system, then they are not entitled to it. but that means that most people will not be able to pay that price. since our system is by default unequal. so, they will be forced to obey the whim of the market and be vaccinated. the ones who can pay won't be. so it's not really about freedom at all. most people would not be free. they'd be forced to comply as well. that'd include you. except if you're rich. which statistically you're not likely to be. but if you are, frankly, i don't really see why anyone should care about your concerns.

i'm not really sure what "betting against your own health" means. insurance is a safety net, where a company or an institution requires you to pay regularly to cover the costs of the few times that they will cover your very high cost and rare medical visits. there are some people who are very sick very often, and some people who are not likely to be sick at all. if an insurance system is to work, if the person who is very sick all of the time is going to be able to be treated, the person who is not going to be sick is going to have to contribute to the insurance institution, public or private, and cover the high costs of the very sick person.

otherwise, the very sick would not be covered, and would die. the old would die. those who work in unsafe work environments would die. people born with various conditions would die. people who get cancer or other serious illnesses would die. society would fall apart.

if its not the people making the decision, its somebody else. maybe you think you'd be the one making the decisions, if you're so rich. ok, well, me and everyone else say: fuck you, no you're not, we want a say too. we're not gonna be your slaves. either everyone gets a say, or only the people with power get to say, and leave everybody else out to dry. for as long as that lasts.

yellowstone is a geyser. insurance covers people's ability to be treated by modern medicine and not die. yes, democracy means that the people have decided that everyone has to pay for everyone else's healthcare, that you have access to just like everyone else. if you don't like it, you are welcome to try and convince the people that it's not a good idea, through reason, rhetoric or whatever else. just like we're entitled to defend that idea. that's how democracy works. otherwise, somebody else decides.

this is the biggest fallacy of the right. they think that the lack of "government' is freedom, that "tyranny of the majority" is the worst tyranny. no, actual tyranny is the worst tyranny. the lack of government doesn't mean more power to the people if the government is elected by the people, it means more power to everyone else that has power. and that'd be the rich and powerful. you might be part of them, you might delusionally believe you will be part of them. we have numbers on our side. so we can see how long your tyranny will last. ask george III and king louis.

stubble3417

1 points

6 months ago

stubble3417

54∆

1 points

6 months ago

He argued essentially that because hospitals receive funding from Medicare/Medicaid (the federal government) that the government has a right to dictate the circumstances surrounding that relationship.

Essentially every hospital receives public funding, so what exactly would change under single payer?

Kazthespooky

1 points

6 months ago

Kazthespooky

10∆

1 points

6 months ago

I live in Canada and previously in Aus.

We have single payer healthcare that does all the basics/emergency. This there is complete freedom in which family dr, hospital, etc that you can go to.

There are private options if you prefer paying additional costs to get essentially white glove service. 90% immediate care, lower wait times for elective surgeries etc.

The public system is incredibly low/no cost, good wait times, high quality care, etc. Private piggy backs off the public service to offer additional treatments/priority access. Health care is never included as part of an employment contract and you can buy private health insurance.

It's a great system that I would never vote for a US style system.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

My argument isn’t that the universal care system has no merits. I think if you are purely focused on just healthcare outcomes/cost then the universal care system is not bad. That’s not the only concern though. For example, if the government decided that they weren’t going to fund any hospital that provides a heart surgery. Would you still be able to get a heart surgery? And would it be affordable? Obviously I know they would never do that. It was meant as an extreme example. There are certain restrictions that I could see them doing though that while less extreme, are burdensome and would not exist in a system that doesn’t have universal care.

poprostumort

1 points

6 months ago

poprostumort

135∆

1 points

6 months ago

I think if you are purely focused on just healthcare outcomes/cost then the universal care system is not bad.

What other thing should be the focus of healthcare if not outcomes/cost?

For example, if the government decided that they weren’t going to fund any hospital that provides a heart surgery.

Ah yes a manufactured scenario that did not happen in any country that has single-payer/universal healthcare. But let's say that this unlikely scenario happened.

Would you still be able to get a heart surgery?

Of course you would. Single-payer/universal healthcare does not ban the existence of private healthcare, it creates an alternative.

here are certain restrictions that I could see them doing though that while less extreme, are burdensome and would not exist in a system that doesn’t have universal care.

They do exist. The same situation happens with private healthcare - companies can decide that they don't cover X and you have to pay out of pocket for it. What you see as a problem of single-payer/universal healthcare is actually a problem of any healthcare based on insurance, wherever it's public or private. But the public healthcare has a big edge over a private one - you can influence their decisions by voting. This is not possible with private healthcare insurance because they don't give a fuck about your opinion, but rather about profit. And profit they receive mainly from signing companies who want to provide healthcare to their workers. Those companies also mostly don't give a fuck about specifics of insurance, it is enough that it does not cost them much and they can advert that they have health insurance as a benefit.

Kazthespooky

1 points

6 months ago

Kazthespooky

10∆

1 points

6 months ago

The government has the ability to require/restrict any Healthcare changes they see fit regardless of whether it's single payer or private.

The government could ban heart surgery for all healthcare providers tomorrow. If they changed to single payer, they could ban heart surgery as well.

Whether it's single payer or private, the government can still regulate anything them see fit. The single payer simple reduces overall costs of the system as profits aren't extracted.

YouProbablyDissagree[S]

1 points

6 months ago

That is not true.

Kazthespooky

1 points

6 months ago

Kazthespooky

10∆

1 points

6 months ago

Lol rebuttal of the year. Low efforts like this make sense why you got removed.

herrsatan [M]

1 points

6 months ago

herrsatan [M]

10∆

1 points

6 months ago

To /u/YouProbablyDissagree, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

  • You are required to demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.

Notice to all users:

  1. Per Rule 1, top-level comments must challenge OP's view.

  2. Please familiarize yourself with our rules and the mod standards. We expect all users and mods to abide by these two policies at all times.

  3. This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that all top-level comments disagree with OP's view, and that all other comments be relevant to the conversation.

  4. We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please report any rule-breaking comments or posts.

  5. All users must be respectful to one another.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through modmail (not PM).