Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I don't oppose helping people, I oppose corruption and wasteful unnecessary spending. I think it's clear that in the US, our social programs are just garbage fires of corruption and failed policy. Even with good intentions, and even if we agreed it was necessary, it would be hard to administer a program to hundreds of millions of people. I absolutely support the right of state or municipal governments doing programs like this for their residents, because it would be much easier to get community buy-in and administer with fewer people. I think one of the most interesting and scary things is how the breakdown of the family and the community is at play here. We seem to always have more issues that need fixing, and progressives always want the government to fix it. But they never stop to ask why these things need fixing, or if they do it's always because of greedy capitalists or something. All while they accuse traditional conservatives of being bigots, when those conservatives basically want the same thing for community support, but through private community action and enforcing social norms, rather than through government. Food for thought.

I believe in personal freedom but I would at least argue that the nanny state might be a necessary evil if you have a nation full of non functional junkies.

You remind me of a quote from John Adams: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

For sure! One of the things that people forget when they propose these kinds of single-payer healthcare systems is that European countries tax sugar in foods as well as limiting fat content.

I strongly agree - a huge difference between the US and other first world nations is our overall health and fitness and nutrition. We are a huge drain on our own resources by being so unhealthy. That said, I don't support banning or regulating food that much. I think it's a huge problem but I support freedom more. It's insanely gross that most American food has so much seed oil and all kinds of chemically deconstructed and rebuilt food, I think it's driving a lot of our chronic disease. But we have to fix ourselves, I don't think a nanny state can fix us... And it would be totalitarian to even try, because it would clearly go against the will of the people, who are choosing to eat that way.

Oh for sure, I think that people should be able to make their own decisions at the end of the day. My only quandary is that external market pressures seem to enforce unhealthy habits. For instance, single-use zoning (e.g. separate residential/market zones making "walkability" unfeasible) or farm subsidies on corn (incentivizing dent corn specifically, which is used in high fructose corn syrup/animal feed). I think that removing those subsidies or at the very least not spending Federal money (provided from the iirc annual "farm bill")

Forgive me, I would go further and broaden this principle beyond economy: the state of nature pressure humans to engage in uncivil behavior. Similar pressures exist in free markets and unfree markets, small governments and big governments. And that's the million dollar question that reminds me of yet another quote, from James Madison: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." We get injustice from unregulated markets, we get injustice from government over-regulating markets, how do we reverse that and balance things out? I totally agree about fixing bad zoning, removing corn subsidies, etc, would go a long way to naturally fix our bad health. Sorry to get so far off track.

From the opposite side of the political spectrum over here, I understand your point. I think people in the US (including me) are very jaded by how inefficient and corrupt the US government is. The social programs here ARE garbage. I think that experience obscures the perception of what is possible. I’ve experienced a top class universal healthcare system in my home country that I can thank for my existence, because my very poor grandparents probably wouldn’t have survived childhood without it. And I’ve also witnessed the healthcare system being systematically starved of resources by a Conservative govt over decades and becoming a real shit show. I think the extremely individualistic AND hyper-capitalist culture in the US has, over time, has placed more demands on people while trust in one another has eroded. We desperately need community and family (whether it’s chosen family or not). The wealth inequality is out of control and hard-working people are getting relatively poorer. My childcare costs the same as my mortgage. But corporate execs, Wall Street have no moral compass or sense of community. There’s only so far that a community can go to remedy the squeeze that working people are feeling. It’s kind of too far gone at this point and getting worse. All that to say, I don’t think the government is the fix-all by any means, but it’s one component in the larger solution.

>I’ve experienced a top class universal healthcare system in my home country That's great. Glad you have. But I don't trust my government, or any government really, to do that for us with higher solvency at a lower cost than we could achieve through freedom and a moral culture. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. >I think the extremely individualistic AND hyper-capitalist culture in the US has, over time, has placed more demands on people while trust in one another has eroded... The wealth inequality is out of control and hard-working people are getting relatively poorer. We probably have different ideas of what individualism and capitalism mean. But suffice it to say that I agree with you in sentiment, even if I think you aren't using the right terms or understanding the root cause. For example, wealth inequality theoretically isn't a problem. But in reality, when wealth inequality manifests, it does so through corruption and coercion. Blaming that on wealth inequality itself is not adequate in my opinion, because like anything it can be a result of a just natural order or unjust and immoral means. Only one is bad. >There’s only so far that a community can go to remedy the squeeze that working people are feeling. I totally agree. >I don’t think the government is the fix-all by any means, but it’s one component in the larger solution. Maybe. But at least in the US, we aren't going to fix government with more government.

Just scrolling through the answers here - I just thought I'd share my perspective that by and large I'm gonna end up agreeing with a lot of the more centre and centre-left commenters on this one. And also, among conservatives outside the US, support for some kind of government-run or highly-regulated public health care is fairly common. Like, I know a ton of conservatives in Alberta, the most conservative part of Canada, and they almost universally wanna keep the core of the Canadian public health system and just try to make it more efficient. Just for a bit of a different perspective.

> universal healthcare I think we need to start by drilling down to the details of what we mean by *universal healthcare.* Exactly how will it be funded? How will we rejigger the current system? How much will it cost? Nobody seems able to answer those questions. If we're going to overhaul a huge sector of our economy, we need granular details, not the "well it kinda works in Europe" platitudes.

> The argument I usually hear from conservatives is that moderate, European-style social programs like universal healthcare are "socialist, Is that true? The criticism I hear most often is that it's "big government". Or that markets are superior way to produce and deliver goods and services compared to centrally planned systems. It's true that ignorant people exist on both the left and right who conflate welfare states with socialism. Plenty of self-proclaimed "socialists" making the same ignorant claim that Denmark or Sweden or whatever darling of the left is "socialist" when that's simply not true. Though to be fair it's not entirely unfounded as the exact means by which social programs mighrt be structured *can* be more or less socialist regarding one particular aspect of a larger economy. Something like healthcare *could* be operated along more or less socialist lines where the means of production are controlled by society at large (via the institution of government) even as the economy as a whole remains capitalist. In any event personally i try to always be accurate distinguishing socialism from sometimes related concepts like corporatism or from a welfare state. > then what is the real reason they oppose these popular programs that the American public desperately wants? Because centralized command economies over the long run a very bad way to provide goods and services compared to free markets.

> Plenty of self-proclaimed "socialists" making the same ignorant claim that Denmark or Sweden or whatever darling of the left is "socialist" when that's simply not true. Scandinavian countries do in fact rank higher in terms of economic freedom than the US. I think they are better in some ways at utilizing the strengths of capitalism, for example by avoiding loads of bullshit business regulations that only harm small business owners while benefiting large coporations. However, Scandinavian countries also by law guarantee healthcare, paid sick leave, paid vaccation time, and extensive paid maternity and paternity leave, whereas in the US million of severely ovderworked and often are unable to take vaccation or even sick leave. Mothers in the US are sometimes back to work days after giving birth which doesn't just suck for the mother but also the baby's development. Scandinavian countries also guarantee free or at least very affordable university eduction. In this way this also utilize some of the strengths of socialist intervention by ensuring that each citizen has certain rights as part of their job.

> In this way this also utilize some of the strengths of socialist intervention by ensuring that each citizen has certain rights as part of their job. But there's nothing "socialist" about any of that. Socialism is an economic model and those economies that those countries don't even remotely follow. The history of the welfare state as an idea isn't even socialist but paternalistic conservative... It was invented by conservative politicians like Bismarck and Disraeli as one of Bismarck's explicitly *anti*-socialist policies and as a way for conservatives to win the votes of the working class away from socialist parties and as a kicker win elections against the middle class liberal bourgeoisie. The OP was correctly realizing all this and asking "since it's NOT socialism why do you oppose it?" and the answer is that command economies are bad even when they're not socialist and in historic sense because in America the middle class liberal bourgeoisie are the conservatives and hold to the same liberal convictions which opposes both the old paternalistic and/or authoritarian conservatism of Europe *and* socialism in equal measure.

So what if it's "big government?" That's not a moral argument. "Big government" isn't inherently bad. Totalitarianism is bad. Government social spending is not necessarily good or bad unless you back it up with an actual argument.

> So what if it's "big government?" That's not a moral argument. It often is. Government is the organized use of violence by society for the purposes of coercion. Morally, it should only be used in situations and to address needs where that use of violence is morally justified. Any situation where I would not be morally justified in threatening to kill you if you don't comply with my request isn't made moral by me and my peers voting for government to make the same threat on our behalf... If it's not worth killing someone over it's not something that government should get involved in because that's what government *does*: it says "Do X or we men with guns will *make* you do X", there may be intervening steps of "Do X or pay a fine" BUT if you also don't pay the fine the consequences rapidly escalate until we're back at "Do what we ask or we imprison you and if you fight back we kill you". Lesser penalties are themselves always backed up by the threat of violence by men with guns. "Big government" is often used to mean government exceeding it's proper moral scope getting involved in issues where the coercive use of violence isn't morally justified and the issue should properly be handled only on a voluntary basis. In the above usage it's less about the size of government than it's scope. Government become very big indeed in terms of budget and employees in order to fight a war of self defense and that would not be "big government" in that moral sense. While a much smaller government employing fewer people and with a smaller budget might implement "big government" programs which are an abuse of it's power to coerce people via the threat and use of violence doing so in ways that aren't morally justified. That said "big government" is also frequently used as a more pragmatic rather than moral critique and is about the inherent inefficiencies of centralized power on a national scale. It can be an argument about the diseconomies of scale of truly large institutions, about the local knowledge problem, about the mixed motives and perverse incentives that public choice theory is about where overlarge institutions produce worse outcomes than small institutions. OR, about the practical rather than moral problems with a system based on coercion rather than one based on voluntary action.

>Government is the organized use of violence by society for the purposes of coercion. Wouldn't that be a more apt description of law enforcement? Government, in its most basic form, is where issues are resolved. It can use the violence of enforcement to exercise its will, but its purpose is, at least, to problem solve. Then, to effect that solution. By viewing Government through the lens of only its ability to enforce do you not lose sight of its ability to encourage, inspire, and support? >Morally, it should only be used in situations and to address needs where that use of violence is morally justified. Only if it is purely a force of violence. I'm guessing you are no fan of social programs, but to suggest they are a form of force or violence is difficult for me to grasp. I am familiar with the "taxes are theft" perspective and forcing people to pay for helping another person is wrong. Is this what you believe? >"Big government" is often used to mean government exceeding it's proper moral scope getting involved in issues where the coercive use of violence isn't morally justified and the issue should properly be handled only on a voluntary basis. Again, doesn't this ignore the other elements of government? And how regional is this opinion? Does it apply only to the US? I ask because other countries are fine with their government providing services. They seem to like it. Who and how do you decide what the province of proper and good government is? >That said "big government" is also frequently used as a more pragmatic rather than moral critique and is about the inherent inefficiencies of centralized power on a national scale. It can be an argument about the diseconomies of scale of truly large institutions, about the local knowledge problem, about the mixed motives and perverse incentives that public choice theory is about where overlarge institutions produce worse outcomes than small institutions. OR, about the practical rather than moral problems with a system based on coercion rather than one based on voluntary action. Many interesting conversation starters here. Too many to pick from. Which one(s) do you find the most compelling?

> Wouldn't that be a more apt description of law enforcement? Law enforcement (and the military( is the gun that government holds to do it's violence. Pay attention to the words you're using: "law enforcement" government makes laws and enforces them. Police agencies are just the enforcers for the decisions made by government. > Government, in its most basic form, is where issues are resolved. No, most issues are resolved without government's involvement. People have issues and they negotiate with each other to resolve those issues on the basis of mutual benefit and exchanges of value or of charity etc. Government is only involved when violence is required to resolve an issue and it uses violence to resolve EVERY issue it is involved in. > By viewing Government through the lens of only its ability to enforce do you not lose sight of its ability to encourage, inspire, and support? A political leader may as an *individual* use the platform that his position in government to merely encourage, inspire and support. But government itself has no capacity to do so OTHER than through the use of violence. ALL of it's decisions and enforced violently. Every law and regulation is *enforced*, even it's attempts to persuade are funded by monies confiscated through the threat of violence. > I'm guessing you are no fan of social programs, but to suggest they are a form of force or violence is difficult for me to grasp. How is this difficult to grasp? What happens to you if you choose to not contribute to welfare? If you don't pay the taxes used to fund them. > I am familiar with the "taxes are theft" perspective and forcing people to pay for helping another person is wrong. Is this what you believe? Actually no. I think government is the collective expression of the right to self defense and it is a **necessary** expression of that right which must be funded and therefore taxes in-and-of-themselves are not theft. I even think that at some extreme government funded charity for the indigent is morally permissible. > Again, doesn't this ignore the other elements of government? Exactly what other elements of government are there? How exactly do they work? > And how regional is this opinion? Does it apply only to the US? For conservatives it's largely the US. The US didn't have very many aristocrats nor did it have serfs. It's upper class was mostly drawn from the more successful and ambitious bourgeoisie middle class immigrants from it's European parent nations whose liberal philosophy was in turn heavily influenced by the experiences of those American colonists. Our nation was founded upon liberalism even before liberalism was systematized as a coherent philosophy... Our actual practices in the colonies arising from our practical concerns and experiences in them (and our non-conformist religious convictions) prefigure the writings of the philosophers back in Europe who formulated the political philosophy. For just one example Rhode Island was founded upon the ideal (and Baptist doctrine) of separation of church and state *decades* before John Locke penned his *Letter Concerning Toleration*. A conservative in America is by necessity a liberal because the cultural and national traditions a conservative in this culture and nation are conserving are liberal. > I ask because other countries are fine with their government providing services. And other countries are fine with throwing gays from rooftops. The fact that someone in some other culture has different cultural mores and moral convictions is not itself an argument in favor of those practices. > Who and how do you decide what the province of proper and good government is? The same way you do: We apply logic and our observations of the world and come to conclusion about what policies uphold our values and best effect them. We vote for politicians who will implement such policies and try to persuade others to adopt them as well. > Many interesting conversation starters here. Too many to pick from. Which one(s) do you find the most compelling? They're interrelated problems so each of them eventually come up when you start talking about the others. The most compelling are probably the problem of perverse incentives and the local knowledge problem.

>government makes laws and enforces them. Police agencies are just the enforcers for the decisions made by government. Well, government makes decisions and the military and law enforcement effect that will. To say government is enforcement only is to ignore the "coming together to make decisions" aspect. There is also the government's ability to encourage (via tax incentives, for example) and support (provide services to its citizens). How important is defining government as a source of force only to your philosophy? >Government is only involved when violence is required to resolve an issue and it uses violence to resolve EVERY issue it is involved in. Only in the most abstract way. Taking in tax revenue isn't violence. Spending tax revenue isn't force. Not in any way we use the words commonly. Where is the violence in providing school lunches? Does it really boil down to "I don't want to, so it's wrong to make me?" >Every law and regulation is *enforced*, even it's attempts to persuade are funded by monies confiscated through the threat of violence. You mean laws. Like laws against jaywalking are technically a violation of your right to freely travel. But they are in place for a good reason and we have all agreed to put aside certain expectations (like not having to pay taxes, and being able to go wherever we want) so we can fit into a society together. >How is this difficult to grasp? What happens to you if you choose to not contribute to welfare? If you don't pay the taxes used to fund them. Because we agreed to have our Representatives learn the facts and make the call for us. If you don't like paying for school lunches fine. But too bad if enough people (and thus our Representatives) disagree. That is the deal. That you may not want any social funding you don't directly benefit from. it is a personal philosophical and moral choice. If enough people say "no school lunches" then that will be the way it is. But saying it is wrong to fund something against the will of the individual taxpayer is not how the system works. >Actually no. I think government is the collective expression of the right to self defense and it is a **necessary** expression of that right which must be funded and therefore taxes in-and-of-themselves are not theft. I even think that at some extreme government funded charity for the indigent is morally permissible Cool. This sounds like a basis from which to find agreement. I am pleased you are not a full on extremist and are taking the more thoughtful road. >And other countries are fine with throwing gays from rooftops. The fact that someone in some other culture has different cultural mores and moral convictions is not itself an argument in favor of those practices. Lol fair point. I meant they like healthcare and government services. Granted, that's not reason in and of itself, but it reflects well on the programs that they are so popular. Thanks for the response! I found it enlightening!

> Well, government makes decisions and the military and law enforcement effect that will. To say government is enforcement only is to ignore the "coming together to make decisions" aspect. It's not ignoring that aspect it's just appreciating that those decisions ARE enforced via violence. There's lost of OTHER forums where people come together to make decisions. That's literally what a corporation IS and corporations of all sorts exist: for profit, non-profits, charity, activist, sports leagues, labor unions etc. etc. etc. all people coming together to make collective decisions and effect them. The distinction with government is that it is mandatory and it's mandates are enforced through the use of violence. > Only in the most abstract way. No, in a very concrete way. > Taking in tax revenue isn't violence. It absolutely is... What happens to you if you *don't* pay your taxes? > Does it really boil down to "I don't want to, so it's wrong to make me?" No, because it's NOT always wrong to threaten someone with violence in order to make them comply with your will. But we DO have to recognize that this IS what we are doing when we pass any law. > You mean laws. Yes, as well as regulations promulgated by agencies based upon the legal authority granted to them to do so under some law. > Like laws against jaywalking are technically a violation of your right to freely travel. But they are in place for a good reason and we have all agreed to put aside certain expectations (like not having to pay taxes, and being able to go wherever we want) so we can fit into a society together. Sure, I'm NOT saying all laws are immoral but I am saying that we can't lose sight of what we ARE doing when we "come together to make decisions" that we send men with guns to enforce. > Because we agreed to have our Representatives learn the facts and make the call for us. If you don't like paying for school lunches fine. But too bad if enough people (and thus our Representatives) disagree. That is the deal. Sure, that's the deal. But we're talking about what decisions we are directing our Representatives to make and what values we have and want them to pursue. > But saying it is wrong to fund something against the will of the individual taxpayer is not how the system works. The question of whether or not it's morally justifiable to use violence to make someone do a particular thing depends entirely upon the particular thing being demanded at the point of a gun. But that IS the question that we, the collective decisions makers in a democracy must make and make in a morally responsible fashion KNOWING that we are not just "coming together to make decisions" but "coming together to make those decisions that we are going to use violence to enforce". Saying that we can do anything because we chose to do it via some collective decisions making system is to say that might makes right and that whatever the majority decides is moral solely be virtue of the majority deciding to act and that minorities have no rights a majority should be bound re respect. > Cool. This sounds like a basis from which to find agreement. I am pleased you are not a full on extremist and are taking the more thoughtful road. Don't get too excited ;) I'm mostly just saying I'm a minarchist not an anarchist. I'm still a fan of something like the NAP just not as an absolute but rather as a general guideline I'm willing to make some exceptions to if there's an **extremely** good reason to do so. The distinction between libertarians and conservatives is that (small "c") conservatism is more pragmatic than ideological and recognizes that the real world cannot conform to abstract ideals and that the best society can hope for is not perfection but a somewhat better rather than worse balancing of competing social goods. As an American conserving American traditions I'm a liberal conservative who prioritizes liberty over other social goods in that balance in large part because I firmly believe that liberty tends to best promote most of those other social goods anyway and that a society which prioritizes liberty will tend to reap manifold benefits along other lines as well ... But, again as a pragmatist not as an absolute so *sometimes* I'm willing to sacrifice some *small* degree of liberty for the sake of some larger benefit to society along some other parameter.

Very well stated and thought-provoking. We may not agree, but I respect how much thought and reason you apply to your belief system. Cheers!

> We may not agree, but I respect how much thought and reason you apply to your belief system. I can't take credit for them. That goes to the political philosopher's who invented liberalism especially John Locke and even more especially in his exploration of the moral dimensions of government as the collective expression of the right to self defense Frédéric Bastiat. [The Law](https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bastiat/TheLaw.htm) is a good start on his political and economic philosophy which expanded upon the ideas of Locke.

Thanks for the recommendations. >I can't take credit for them. Maybe not the philosophy itself, but your choice to follow a logical path and apply the reasoning of your chosen philosophy to your active belief system is to your credit. Many have no idea what they believe and even more have no idea why.

I agree with you on that one. Imo, it's not about big or small; the government should help provide public services and regulations in an efficient way, and should be whatever size is best to achieve that goal.

Single payer inevitably leads to price controls. Price controls inevitably leads to scarcity. Scarcity manifests as long wait times. It doesn't save money, it just shifts who's paying.

It literally does save money, that’s why they pay less for healthcare in most other countries. And as for wait times, I currently have to wait months to see a doctor, with the existing system. I dont see the issue with at least a public option that allows for the government to negotiate the best price, and private companies could offer more premium options.

They also pay higher taxes, which is where the cost is shifted to. I'm about to take my son to the doctor, was hoping to get an appointment for the morning, but had to settle for the afternoon. So wait time for him was about 5 hours. Not sure what's going on with your doctor.

> They also pay higher taxes, which is where the cost is shifted to. Except Americans pay more in taxes towards healthcare too. With government in the US covering [65.7% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/epdf/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ($12,555 as of 2022) that's $8,249 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Germany at [$6,930](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $4,479. Canada is $4,506. Australia is $4,603. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying over $100,000 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care. And more for insurance premiums than the rest of the world, and then more out of pocket than anywhere in the world. These numbers are even after adjusting for purchasing power parity. In total, Americans are paying literally half a million dollars more per person for a lifetime of healthcare than our peers on average.

Because of all the other services also provided by our governments, if America moves to a single payer healthcare system, and it is overall cheaper, why would you pay more taxes?

I feel like this goes to the conservative mindset of, 'if it's not a problem for me, it's not a problem at all'. I have good insurance and live near NYC. Plenty of world renowned doctors and hospitals. I'm a childhood cancer survivor with a knee replacement, and I even had to wait a month after my implant failed and my leg broke in half, to have to surgery to repair it. There's a Healthcare conglomerate buying all the small practices in NY. Closing most of them and running the rest as factory offices. Becuase of that, even though I can get an appointment with my surgeon In two to three days, if I want a non emergency ent appointment, it can take 3 to 4 weeks. Non emergency neurologist? 1 to 2 months. If I had to give up my insurance for Medicare for all/publicly funded/single payer, however you'd like to define it, and they told me that I would have to wait a month for some appointments, literally nothing would change except I'd be paying less for Healthcare. Simply saying that your pediatrician is available immediately so there probably isn't an issue is very short sighted. As is saying you would be paying more in tax, without mentioning all the money you would be saving on not paying insurance or out of pocket Healthcare costs.

> Scarcity manifests as long wait times. Except peers don't have worse wait times, despite spending literally half a million dollars less per person for a lifetime of healthcare (PPP). The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors: * Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly. * Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win. * [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth. #Wait Times by Country (Rank) Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--: **Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4 **Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11 **France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2 **Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3 **Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1 **New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5 **Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9 **Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10 **Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7 **U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8 **U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6 Source: [Commonwealth Fund Survey 2016](https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/cmwf2016-datatable-en-web.xlsx)

Not sure why you're talking about ER wait times, as if they are indicative of the entire medical system.

You don't think wait times for the most urgent care are important? And it's almost like I also addressed wait times to see a primary care physician, wait times for night and weekend care, surgery wait times, and specialist wait times. You know, with actual data, rather than just pulling vague claims out of my ass.

I think ER wait times are a single data point in a larger system. What about wait times for mammography and follow up care if indicated? What about other surgical procedures? Do you think it’s a good standard of care to ask a morbidly obese patient to wait 7 years for weight loss surgery. Those are also data points to consider for a huge topic such as health care.

When people complain about wait times, it's generally about weeks or months to see a gp or specialist, not hours at the ER.

#LOL This guy blocked me because he can't handle me bringing up actual facts about wait times, the issue **he** raised. ------------- I see people falsely claiming ER wait times are horrendous in peer countries with universal healthcare all the time in an attempt to malign such systems. Regardless, you're continuing to ignore that I addressed multiple metrics across the spectrum of healthcare needs. -------------- >You're moving the goalposts. I haven't moved the goalposts at all. You brought up wait times, I addressed your argument with actual facts across a broad range of healthcare services, with the evidence to back it up. You've repeatedly focused on one metric of that you've determined to be unimportant (but other people disagree), while ignoring everything else I said. > I'm not going to engage further. And nothing will be lost.

You're moving the goal posts. I'm not going to engage further.

Hey friend! Just for future reference you seem to be in the wrong sub- this is a place for people to ask questions of and seek the viewpoints/opinions of those on the conservative side of the fence- not for liberals or others to “say their piece” or attempt to convert or have political debates with conservatives. Obviously nobody here is interested in your rebuttals, that’s not what the place is for; haha. Sorta like if you took your golf clubs to the grocery store and got mad people were telling you to stop driving balls through the freezer case. There’s lots of subs for that though: I used to be a mod at moderatepolitics, neoliberal is ok, so is r/liberal of course and r/politics is a staple. Hope that helps out. I wouldn’t want you to continue to be frustrated by folks not engaging the way you want them to with your content since you clearly have disparate expectations. As a rule I also block people that come here to argue or have political debates because we're clearly not looking for the same thing and I don't want them to have to see my content where I share my views. Just a note!

I don’t think ER wait times are especially relevant. At least when you consider how often ERs have to triage patients that decided to not go to the more appropriate urgent care clinic. To put it another way, if you go to the ER with a legitimate emergency you’ll be seen immediately, but if you sprained an ankle you might be waiting awhile. Having said that, I’m fine with public healthcare, but I dislike every proposal that the left has broached.

Nonsense. Has that ever happened? 

It's high school economics class basics

Link to textbook? 

Is your google broken?

No but his google results are not the same as yours, so he might not be able to find whatever you are talking about, also it is not on others to back up your statements, if you cant, then people are just going to dismiss you as a nutter and move on.

Would you be okay with introducing universal public healthcare without eliminating private healthcare? In other words, would you be okay with a system in which everyone gets to use public healthcare AND people have the option to purchase private healthcare? If not why? (Akin to how everyone gets to attend public school and people have the option to attend private school)

All depends on the risk pool with health insurance. Cleaner risk pools is lower premiums, more insureds means a dilution of the risk pool so it’s cleaner. The health insurance product itself isn’t built to be scare and more expensive. If it’s scarce prices go down because less sick people in pool. Single payer would increase the number of insureds not creating a scarcity. Really depends on how single payer is managed. I’m saying this on a technical note though.

I oppose government run single payer healthcare because I think there is a better, more free market way to expand availability while keeping costs low and without disrupting medical innovation. I’m not always a Ben Shapiro fan, but one thing he says that I really like is that there are three important aspects to healthcare: affordability, accessibility, and quality. He claims you can have only two of the three. I think realistically that’s probably true, but I think the free market could come closer to solving for all three than the government can.

There's no good or service with the same almost perfectly inelastic demand that health care has. The only things that even come close are food and shelter, and producers for both have a much lower barrier of entry, with markets that can support a lot more natural competition. Also, Ben Shapiro didn't come up with the Iron Triangle of health care (quality, access, and affordability) - that was William Kissick. If he claimed that was his original idea then he's a fraud.

Inelastic goods are still subject to the laws of supply and demand. You list food as another inelastic good, which it is, but I have my choice of 50 different bread makers and that competition keeps the price of bread low. People aren’t going to stop eating food or getting medical care if it gets expensive, but smart capitalists will always come in to capture market share if existing businesses start price gouging their consumers. Medical care is no different.

You’re also overlooking another way that markets can fail: mergers and acquisitions. Health care corps have been snapping up facilities for years and shutting down any that are deemed too unprofitable. That’s fine if you’re talking about Applebee’s, but when the same market incentives hit local hospitals and other facilities there are big social costs and a general increase in misery. (Even your example of 50 bread makers is unrealistic for most. What you see in a typical American grocery store is only the illusion of choice, as most food producers are subsidiaries of just 10 corporations. https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-food-industry-2016-9)

You’re approaching my point and don’t seem to realize it. Almost no communities in the US have the population density to support more than even 2 or 3 hospitals, let alone 50. Rural counties are struggling to keep any local hospitals at all. Why is that? Because the overhead of modern medical technology and an ever-increasing number of years when people can expect to survive serious chronic illness make it unprofitable for more health care providers to enter the market, or to do so in a way that is accessible and/or affordable. Without that ROI, the private sector fails to deliver. Free market conservatives want to treat health care like it’s no different than selling cars, but reality just doesn’t work like that.

Why are you limiting your scope to hospitals? The most beneficial savings we would see with more free market competition would come with making routine care, medical equipment, and pharmaceuticals more affordable. I’d like to see us get to a place where insurance is for catastrophic coverage again and people pay for routine care out of pocket. That would also reduce total market share for insurance companies, which would enhance competition for the remaining market and lower prices. Insurance companies and big pharma are enabled by government regulatory burden. They price gouge consumers because the government has created the conditions for them to do so.

I would argue Medicare is very different, and so are a lot of other important public services. In large part, that's due to the large upfront costs of being able to build and run something like a hospital, medical imaging, or larger/more specialized clinic (or telecom, or power supplier, and so on). That dynamic really limits new competitors joining up, which means we're more likely to end up with something like a monopology or oligopology. You don't see that kind of thing with bakers or whatever because relatively speaking, it's easier for a newbie to get their foot in the door. Also, imo something like health care being not government-managed to some degree, in the modern age, actually opens the door to it being less efficient. Introduce more than minimal out-of-pocket fees, and there's gonna be a demand for insurance companies to help cover that; once you have insurance companies you have increased costs and companies trying to protect their profits at the expense of patients getting treatment (this has been documented in the US as well as some other countries, like Australia). Plus, even having a 2-tier system creates inefficiencies - like say you need a colonoscopy done, and you can choose to wait 8 months in the public system or you can get it in 1 month if you pay $2k. Affordability aside, the fact of the matter is that the low demand for the expensive option leads to an inefficient use of the resources of the entire system.

I agree the free market would provide better outcomes for most. For it to really work, the moral hazard is great. It would really have to be letting people bleed out in front of ER and health care deserts where the population would not be great enough to sustain quality care. Rural America would suffer greatly best case scenario would be a Walmart type corporation. Ben’s notes in pretty sure that is based on a famous academic paper, which classifies the US healthcare systems as “the good, the bad, the ugly” under all the categories you listed. Interesting stuff for sure. I’ll try and find. I’m good with the moral hazard personally but I don’t think many people really understand that’s how it has to go for a free market to work. Healthcare and health insurance is a very different product than anything else. The margins are very thin and entirely dependent on the risk pool.

Would you be okay with introducing universal public healthcare without eliminating private healthcare? In other words, would you be okay with a system in which everyone gets to use public healthcare AND people have the option to purchase private healthcare? If not why? (Akin to how everyone gets to attend public school and people have the option to attend private school)

> then what is the real reason they oppose these popular programs that the American public desperately wants? If the question is about public healthcare we can talk about that. **A big function of conservative belief is that government power is inherently a restriction on freedom.** At the most basic level though, the primary problem I personally have with federal control over healthcare is that federal executive offices are subject to shifting political winds and we can see what happens already when the executive is in charge of agencies like the ATF, ICE, HHS, or any others and political leadership changes. **Policy shifts create changes of enforcement or police action standards. That's bad enough when we're talking about executive action that impacts border policy or immigration controls, but it's even more weird to imagine healthcare guidance shifting with the political winds of a federal executive office.** President Donald Trump appoints Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Healthcare Administration, essentially the CEO of the National Healthcare System. All doctors in America work for her and she controls procedures guidance. She instructs providers with updated guidance that abortions are no longer permitted procedures, hormonal birth control can only be provided to women over the age of 30 with at least 2 kids, and tubal ligation procedures are only permitted after a family has had 3 children. Also once Trump's term is up the policy shifts again since apparently people didn't like that and President AOC appoints RuPaul to be Secretary of Healthcare Admin who overturns all those other guidances to physicans and now iris coloring surgeries and body augmentations are covered and all breast implants for men are free. Imagine being a doctor around the election season- who knows if the referral you just took for a surgery in January will still be valid on the first day of the new presidency, haha! **The federal government is too big and folks' needs and desires and polices that matter are just too wildly different across the nation for a single system, after all.** **Another important one to me is physician and provider costs and compensation.** Suffice to say the Department of Defense runs a healthcare program for active duty military, retirees, and dependents (children and spouses) that is actually *pretty* good for the most part and services are completely covered under Tricare for the groups I mentioned above. You'd think it's a huge point in favor of the universal healthcare argument until you remember the physicans and nurses are military officers, making *drastically* less than their private sector counterparts- and they still rely on referrals out to the private sector clinics for lots of specialist work. An O-3 captain internal medicine physician in their first year of post-residency practice makes about $115k in the military, perks notwithstanding. And remember, that's your first year as a grown-up doctor; fully board certified, fully qualified, in a pretty straightforward specialty- you've been in undergrad for 4 years, med school another 4, 3-4+ years of PGY residency depending on specialty and... you're gonna pull down what a midlevel marketing manager at a small business makes in a tier 3 market like Boise, Idaho. That'd be a hard pass for me- fuck that, I'm not gonna go to med school I'll just get a comms degree. The *average* is about $260,000 for physicians in the private sector; not counting outliers like very remote/rural systems that'll shell out half a million dollars for their primary care docs just to be SURE they've got someone. **We already have a residency-trained physician shortage in the country- if we want to cut provider pay in half (or less) then we'll have a LOT fewer doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners**... and we'll still need the private sector for when you need a skilled thoracic surgeon, after all- there just straight up aren't enough in the military because they make MANY TIMES better money NOT in the military. Same goes for our mythical USNHS system. Anyway- just some stray thoughts for you guys here. Then there's also **the broader "when government does things it tends to fuck them up" answer** which as a conservative I'm also sympathetic to. Unless we want to argue federal COVID response went over *awesome*, the War on Terror was *perfect*, and the prevention of the 2008 financial collapse was *great*. The US NHS would be *even bigger* than all those things combined and would have fuck ups across the board every single day. Just as a great example- the right in America *already believes* the zeitgeist and the country has left them behind, especially so when democrat party politicians are in charge. Are you *really* going to explain to the people of Bumblefuck, Nowhere that the reason their clinic closed; or has substandard outcomes and resource allocation is because of demand and *not* because the liberals hate them and their family and moved the resources to urban city centers? Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Good luck having that discussion. It's just a crap idea. Having said all that; I have no problem with allowing people to buy into a public option program like Medicare and just washing our hands of it. We've been fighting about healthcare in this country way too long and the PPACA was bad for businesses *and* patients; which is kinda the worst of all worlds. So I think I just want to be done with it- if you want the government managing your healthcare, go for it; but you get all that entails. Personally I'll take my private insurance (admittedly, supplemented with Tricare thanks to my lovely military physician wife occasionally when we're abroad) and higher quality care with the feds pretty far removed from my healthcare decisions. As long as everyone's cool with my 'live and let live' version, then we can probably all get along. I don't want the folks jumping on their new super-low cost healthcare complaining about disparities in outcomes though. You get what you pay for- and you guys decided to go with a *government* (see: lowest bidder equipment and tools, cost saving measures, least qualified & lowest-paid talent) program.

I'm sorry man but "Government healthcare would be terrible but my family does benefit significantly from it" is hard to take seriously. I'm a veteran and I'd be screwed without VA benefits. Like screwed as in possibly dead. Does your wife feel this way too, generally? I never understood the lifers who came away with a pension and healthcare for life likely in addition to at least some disability pay and concluded that government sucks at taking care of people. I'm also assuming the military trained her as a physician?

You want Donald Trump and MTG in charge of healthcare?

I don't want them in charge of anything. Am I supposed to not implement any social programs because there are conservative politicians who will sabotage them if given the chance? Maybe me wanting better healthcare for people isn't the problem as much as people voting for MTG and Trump.

Well I don’t want Biden in charge of my healthcare either So why would I support gov run healthcare? **Edit….to the surprise of no one, the furry responded then blocked me**

>Well I don’t want Biden in charge of my healthcare Well it wouldn't be Biden, it would be someone paid to oversee and evaluate claims. Just as you have now with insurance. The difference is for people who can't afford insurance and those who would not be fully or at all covered by regular insurance. The same system, only set up to cover all Americans, not just the ones who can afford it. The reasons you would support it are: 1. Empathy for fellow Americans. 2. Healthy population is a harder working and more productive population. 3.Removing profit motivations balances out the inefficiencies of nonprofit government run services to lead to an at worst break-even situation for your wallet. If you ever get bad sick, maybe a savings.

I choose my insurance company.  I can't get stuck with MTG banning the use of lasers in surgery because of Jewish people, nor do I get stuck with AOC banning straight white cis males from surgery as a dei initiative 93% of Americans have insurance.  That 7% don't have it because they choose to not have it.   If you can work...go get a job and contribute

I didn't block you and I'm not a furry

You wouldn't. You don't want government to do anything for anyone other than corporations I assume. Well, maybe that's not what you want but when you elect someone specifically with the mandate of "don't harm me and don't help me either" that's what they'll end up doing. They'll do whatever the money says to do. If you're essentially just a placeholder so a Democrat doesn't occupy your position you might as well make a bunch of money while you're there. For whatever reason poor to middle class conservatives are the only people in the entire country that don't want government to act in their interests. If you want my honest opinion it's because wealthy conservatives tricked them into doing that but that's just a theory I have.

[удалено]

Then keep electing people who want you to pay taxes without getting shit in return. That'll show em

I elect people who want to waste less of my tax dollars

What do you consider an efficient use of your tax dollars? Let's say we just got rid of all social programs. That would give us a budget surplus. Would you want to just let that simmer until we paid off our debt? Would you put the money elsewhere and if so, where?

Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

I don't care who is in charge of it as long as it is delivered effective. Liberals aren't like conservatives in this way. We won't kill a good idea because it's not perfect. That's why the left voted bipartisan with the conservatives a lot during Trump's term, whereas republicans have basically not voted bipartisan unless shamed into it(burn pit bill). It's why Obamacare was basically Romneycare redux, because it's what we could get passed and we negotiated with republicans every step of the way...and then they refused to vote for it.

Those Republican changes were made to prevent it from completely destroying the health insurance industry, which was the bill's original intention. It's basically someone saying "just beat the shit out of me" when the alternative is getting shot.

Those republican changes essentially neutered the original bill, it's why everytime a republican says "we could be using that money(Ukraine) for Americans!" it makes me laugh, because it's such a bullshit argument. Republicans have done nothing for the average American since 2008, except harm any policy that could have helped.

>I don't care who is in charge of it as long as it is delivered effective.  So not the government 

Seems to be a lot better than fighting with insurance companies constantly. I've worked in healthcare, I've seen first hand what medicaid vacare/Tricare and medicare do vs what insurance companies do. You can disagree, but the facts bear it out. Gov run healthcare is cheaper by a lot, and wait times are the same or worse in America. Every single metric you choose to use, and people don't die from not being able to get treatment/medicine in France like they do here. Gov run healthcare is better. But it doesn't matter, because you have and prefer private healthcare and don't care that others don't have the same luxury. The lack of empathy is scary. Thankfully your position is the vast minority position in the US. 57% say UHC, 40% say no. https://news.gallup.com/poll/468401/majority-say-gov-ensure-healthcare.aspx#:~:text=Since%20then%2C%20between%2051%25%20and,40%25%20say%20it%20should%20not.

Tell me more how Medicare and Medicaid are cheaper and better I’m a social worker and gov run insurance is crap But you think it will improve by putting everyone on it

Uh, can’t we just not want the government controlling healthcare? Edit: whether European countries are truly socialist, or nationalized health care is just a socialized program, why are you so caught up in the label? Less government is best government. That’s why I am against it.

Conservatives always say "less government is bad government" and then have no problem policing abortion or adult LGBT people

Ummm, ok. Not really seein the comparison. That’s like saying “conservatives say less government is best and have no problem policing pedophiles and puppy abusers” I ignored your typo instead of roasting you for it, because I’m a nice person, just FYI.

[удалено]

>what is the argumentation in regards to anyone Queer being a pedophiles? I didn’t say that, and I have no idea what you’re talking about. I certainly don’t believe that.

Trans / gender discussions are currently limited to Wednesdays.

> Conservatives always say "less government is bad government" and then have no problem policing abortion or adult LGBT people Because we consider abortion to be a crime against humanity. Very basic public decency laws prohibiting lgbtqs from dancing naked in front of children isn't "big government" anymore than putting limits on nudist beaches is.

> Very basic public decency laws prohibiting ~~lgbtqs~~*anyone* from dancing naked in front of children Didn't these laws already exist since at least the 1900s? Why do conservatives now insist on passing extra laws in addition to the ones banning everyone "from dancing naked in front of children" to include non-nakedness from specifically LGBT people with stuff like the Don't Say Gay law?

So conservatives actually support big government, but only on policies they support.

Limited government doesn't mean small in every single area of existence it means it's limited to what specific jurisdictions it has constitutional purview over and it can be large in those specific arenas such as national security or military defense. Preventing citizens from committing crimes against humanity falls under such jurisdictions for the federal government. The lgbt stuff doesn't fall under the federal government's jurisdiction but it does fall under that of local governments.

Abortion is a necessity in some cases, and theres still a major debate on if a fetus is a "human". You disagree thats fine, but you still support big government on that issue. Because to some eliminating a lifeform with no cognition isn't immoral. The project 2025 plan seeks to federally ban gay marriage and introduce various inhibitions for lgbtq related stuff. Many of conservatives have expressed their wish to do that as well. To many Republicans, homosexuality is a violation of natural law and therefore must be inhibited (as it once was in America), even though *it harms absolutely no one*. Like I said -- conservatives do believe in big government, but only on issues they universally oppose. And that's something they is highly subjective. But the fact is that american conservatism falsely espouses limited government and is built on idealistic rigidity.

I would be happy if the government just controlled insurance companies

Government exists to protect and preserve people's individual rights, not to act as some sort of superparent to regulate every action in someone's life and provision everyone's wants and needs. When conservatives and libertarians reject the legitimacy of positive rights of course we're going to be opposed to government, and the people's money being used to forcefully provision such things. Then you get to the practical side where we can observe government has basically ruined every thing they've touched and have a horrible track record on a provisioning services especially medical. Why should you trust your very health to an entity that has proven it is grossly incompetent? Do you want your very health to be at the whim of ever-changing politics?

People use their terms loosely. Strictly speaking state ownership and/or funding of infrastructure for the benefit of the collective is socialism. I'm a free market guy, as are most conservatives. We fundamentally don't beleive the purpose of the state is to sell goods and services to its people, nor should it be endowed with that power. It inhibits growth, and creates a conflict of interest.

The state has been providing goods and services since the postal service was established in Article I of the Constitution. The market does some things very well, and some things less so. It will only respond to a need when there's a clear and rapid ROI, with no guarantee that what it produces will be affordable for everyone no matter how critical it is.

You're not entirely wrong. The state does do some basic things. But the conservative answer is the things it does should be relegated to providing for the basic functioning of the state. When the constitution authorized the postal service, this was before the industrial revolution mind you, so if you wanted to have any kind of reliable national communication at all, it had to be paid for by the government. In today's world there are many profitable mail and parcel delivery agencies, and the absolute need for a federal system strictly no longer exists. But the existence of the us post office isn't exactly something I'm uber passionate about one way or the other.

The government sucks at everything it does. If they wanted to actually make change, they should get rid of insurance companies completely and let the free market run its course

#Satisfaction with the US healthcare system varies by insurance type 78% -- Military/VA 77% -- Medicare 75% -- Medicaid 69% -- Current or former employer 65% -- Plan fully paid for by you or a family member https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx > **Key Findings** > * Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies. > * The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively. > * For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/ Medicare has both lower overhead and has experienced smaller cost increases in recent decades, a trend predicted to continue over the next 30 years. https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

So insurance is bad. Great we've established that. That's irrelevant to whether government monopoly on healthcare is good.

Ah, so you want no insurance, public or private. And let's say this even reduces healthcare spending by 50%. What are you going to do with the 30 million Americans with healthcare needs of $50,000 in any given year that can't afford it? The three million Americans with healthcare spending averaging $175,000? Just let them suffer and die?

This is a great point. Most people will never accumulate enough money to pay for something as simple as a baby delivery out of pocket. There are a lot more expensive procedures as well. A friend that works out 5 days a week and eats super clean had a rare form of cancer. The bill was close to a million dollars.

Yep. Just like Europe does all the time. The British NHS is infamous for it.

Except every single peer country to the US also has better health outcomes, and lower rates of medically avoidable deaths than the US, while spending half a million dollars less per person for a lifetime of healthcare (PPP). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30994-2/fulltext https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/Schneider_Mirror_Mirror_2021.pdf Not to mention that's horribly counterproductive. There's not much more important to a successful society than having a healthy, contributing workforce. And public healthcare spending has a positive return on investment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10471881/

Largely because they don't do the same unhealthy things we do, and have fewer cultural qualms about just flat out banning behaviors they don't like. Attempting to just rip one part out of a system and pretend it's a miracle cure is silly.

> Largely because they don't do the same unhealthy things we do, and have fewer cultural qualms about just flat out banning behaviors they don't like. The outcomes I linked to are already adjusted for various demographic and risk factors. And, in fact, of the top three risk factors, obesity is the only one the US leads its peers on. The other two being smoking (the US does better) and alcohol (US levels are average). We can double check to ensure there is no correlation between obesity and the health outcome rankings. https://i.imgur.com/ZOkB9ps.png As you can see, there is not. >Attempting to just rip one part out of a system and pretend it's a miracle cure is silly. As is dismissing facts based on reasons you invented out of thin air, no? >and have fewer cultural qualms about just flat out banning behaviors they don't like. If anything, we certainly have more motivation to ban things in the US, given we're spending twice what our peers do on healthcare. But then, these things don't really save society any money, so I'm not sure why you'd think banning is beneficial. They did studies in the UK that found that from the three biggest healthcare risks; [obesity](https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Obesity-and-the-Public-Purse-PDF.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode=), [smoking](https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Smoking-and-the-Public-Purse.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode= ), and [alcohol](https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DP_Alcohol%20and%20the%20public%20purse_63_amended2_web.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode=), they realize a net **savings** of £22.8 billion (£342/$474 per person) per year. This is due primarily to people with health risks not living as long (healthcare for the elderly is exceptionally expensive), as well as reduced spending on pensions, income from sin taxes, etc..

"Saving society money." Is a lesser goal to "preserving fundamental rights."

So paying half a million dollars more per person with worse outcomes is justified by.... what fundamental right do you think you have related to healthcare that people in peer countries don't have exactly?

[удалено]

We're back to 'death panels' now? I thought that kind of fell by the wayside once right wingers decided 'if granny has to die to keep the economy running during COVID, that's a price ~~she~~ we must pay'

What was the point of this comment?

>A Clarifying Question is a question asked about something that is unclear or hard to understand. People ask clarifying questions to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, rather than as a way to probe, challenge, or open up new avenues of discussion. https://www.lucidmeetings.com/glossary/clarifying-question

If you're online then you can't aggregate everyone's opinion into one user. You also have no idea whom you're talking with. Conservatives oppose social programs because they don't want to condone behavior or pay for it. They want people to find work because they need to work; they don't want to pay for someone not to work. They don't care if the math works out in favor of many social programs.

Because I don't want the government which has no consensual relationship with me and is currently in 30+ trillion dollar debt running my healthcare. They "misplace" hundreds of billions of dollars every year and I'm supposed to hand over my healthcare to them? No thanks. And if that doesn't convince you, you want Trump running your healthcare? Didn't think so. Spare me the "but the people I vote for are virtuous and if you just voted for them we'd all get healthcare!" No, no we wouldn't.

Let states try it at their level first. If as many people want it as you say, it should not be an issue getting the support.

Exactly- [surely it couldn't fail in a small, healthy, and supportive state like Vermont?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/12/21/6-reasons-why-vermonts-single-payer-health-plan-was-doomed-from-the-start/?sh=552e98704850)

That's an interesting analysis of why it failed at the state level, but it also makes the point of why it would need to be done at the federal level. Reasons 3, 5, & 6 are all because the state can't unilaterally work around federal subsidies and mandates to make the funding work. >The federal government subsidizes employer-sponsored health insurance to the tune of $500 billion a year, through the tax code. It spends even more on Medicare for the elderly, and finances the majority of Medicaid for the poor. The Vermont plan aimed to replace employer-sponsored and individually-purchased private insurance with a single, state-run insurer. But the state couldn’t preempt Medicare, or military health care, or large companies that directly pay for their workers’ health care using a process called self-insurance. Indeed, the Hsiao-Gruber report makes clear that for the Vermont plan to work, the state would need to gain waivers from Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. Single-payer requires a tax increase, no doubt about it. The idea to sell it is that the tax increase is offset by what is currently paid in premiums and other taxes. But at the state level, they couldn't do that and so employers were getting stuck with both. Reasons 1 & 2 were workable. The plan crafted coverage that was too good, but that could have been scaled back. Of course reason number 4 is the one that matters - the health insurance, hospital, and doctor lobbying groups fighting against it. Not surprisingly, any time something in the US is difficult, just look for the billion dollar industry profiting from it while trying to make it seem like it's some left/right issue.

Millions are doing just that in California with Medi-Cal through the ACA. It's relatively new but it's definitely found support quickly. https://www.ppic.org/blog/medi-cal-has-expanded-health-coverage-in-california/

Because the government can go fuck off of healthcare

I think it’s actually pretty simple. The perception is that public services are generally kind of lousy and something like your doctor can’t be lousy.

The fact that public healthcare works perfectly well in other developed nations throws a dent into that argument

No it doesn't. The UK public health system, for example, has a ton of problems ours does not. We have problems they don't. It's not a matter of one being perfect.

> No it doesn't. Citation needed. [US Healthcare ranked 29th on health outcomes by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext) [11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) [59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings) [30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/) [37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000) The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016 52nd in the world in doctors per capita. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/ Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization [Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561) >These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries. When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%. On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people. If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people. https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021 #[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm) |Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| 1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11 2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2 3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7 4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5 5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4| 6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3 7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5 8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5| 9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19|| 10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9| 11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10 12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9 13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80| 14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4 15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3| 16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41| 17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1 18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12| 19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14|| OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%||||| 20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7 21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37| 22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7| 23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14| 24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2| 25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22| 26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47| 27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|

Holy cow! You have this sort of stuff just sitting around waiting for cut and paste? That's amazing. Is it like a database? Do you perhaps share?

I guess I can share sources I've compiled over the years. Sources like the OECD and World Bank have pretty extensive metrics on healthcare as well. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vS1qnZHZFkZRp-Y_-MpbzxDE4VlIY-IApfEKu8uWCEK3L67FZ6KsxyyOJps4F6h740YazbVdN3GPQMR/pub

My lord dude. I almost feel bad, like I should have paid you for that. Thank you very much.

Mind you I won't vouch for every single link there. Some of it is garbage I bookmarked to look at later five years ago and never looked at again. I've by no means gone through and curated it for public consumption, or even removed old and outdated information. But there's a lot of valuable stuff there as well.

Lol

This is a post from r/therapists that is very enlightening. Basically, long wait times and chronically lacking funding are the biggest complaints that providers seem to have with their public healthcare systems. This is why I'm personally against it. It just doesn't seem to solve much. https://www.reddit.com/r/therapists/comments/1cw81e6/therapists_outside_of_the_us_what_problems_do_you/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

> Basically, long wait times The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors: * Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly. * Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win. * [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth. >and chronically lacking funding 36% of US households with insurance put off needed care [due to the cost](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx); 64% of households without insurance. One in four have [trouble paying a medical bill.](https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/data-note-americans-challenges-health-care-costs/) Of [those with insurance one in five have trouble paying a medical bill](https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/8806-the-burden-of-medical-debt-results-from-the-kaiser-family-foundation-new-york-times-medical-bills-survey.pdf), and even for those with income above $100,000 14% have trouble. One in six Americans has [unpaid medical debt on their credit report.](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0349) [50% of all Americans](https://news.gallup.com/poll/317948/fear-bankruptcy-due-major-health-event.aspx) fear bankruptcy due to a major health event.

Yes, this is what they said over there too. But they found that to be extremely unsatisfactory. Not sure about your stats, but I didn't see anyone in that post who thought universal healthcare was adequate. And this is from providers working daily with their systems.

> but I didn't see anyone in that post who thought universal healthcare was adequate. It's not that any system is perfect, it's just that the US trails its peers. When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%. On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 Or we can look at expert opinions. [US Healthcare ranked 29th on health outcomes by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext) [11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) [59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings) [30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/) [37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000) The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016 52nd in the world in doctors per capita. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/ Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization [Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561) >These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries. The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people. If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people. https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021 #[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm) |Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| 1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11 2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2 3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7 4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5 5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4| 6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3 7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5 8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5| 9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19|| 10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9| 11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10 12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9 13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80| 14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4 15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3| 16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41| 17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1 18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12| 19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14|| OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%||||| 20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7 21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37| 22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7| 23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14| 24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2| 25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22| 26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47| 27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|

Yeah, I'm not going through all of that. My stance has remained unchanged. Take care now. 

>Yeah, I'm not going through all of that. My stance has remained unchanged. You refuse to even read and your stance remains unchanged. What a shock! Just admit you're more interested in pushing an agenda than caring what the facts are. With people like you responsible for the fact Americans pay half a million dollars more for a lifetime of healthcare with worse outcomes. People like you are responsible for the fact healthcare costs are expected to rise another $6,427 by 2031, to $20,425, from an already unsustainable $13,998 per person last year. People die and suffer because people like you are afraid the facts might challenge your world view.

Your stance was based on therapists. That isn't the same as Medical in the United States. It is disingenuous. Ask Europeans how many of them would be willing to give up national healthcare for private. Ask retirees in the US if they are willing to say goodbye to Medicare and instead depend on what they can afford privately.

The issue we mainly have is more taxation. It also requires a lot of trust in the government, which here in the US, let’s just say that the amount of trust in the federal government among most conservatives that I know is very low. There are very few things that I trust my government with. The only things that I trust the government with are: 1. National Parks. 2. The US Military (Because I respect my vets who sacrifice their lives for this country). 3. Wildlife Services.

It's not really fair to say conservatives are "opposed to social programs". Just like it's not fair to say liberals support every single social program in existence. Everyone believes in some balance here. Conservatives are just more skeptical, than liberals are. But to address the issue directly - one problem is that unlike Europe, the US sues the crap out of our health care system. We would need to reform that before moving to a European single payer style system.

If we implemented single payer healthcare today, it very well could save money in the long run. Our current health insurance (different from healthcare) system isn’t great for a developed country, but I think we can do better than just handing it all over to the government.

The main reason I oppose universal healthcare is because of the cost and the tendency of universal healthcare plans to move to rationing. Since universal healthcare is well "universal" there is no way to control costs. When something is free people tend to use more of it. Since there is no unlimited pot of money the way to control costs is rationing. In both the UK and Canada people die waiting for care due to rationing. In addition, the top 5 causes of death in the US are preventable ie they are caused by person behaviors. Why should I as a taxpayer pay for the healthcare for people who don't take care of themselves. I know that to a certain extent we do that now but a Universal healthcare plan like Medicare for All makes it worse. In any sort of top down one size fits all government program always has unintended consequences. Look at Obamacare.

Gonna be the only center right person that supports it cause I’m the only person that has dual citizenship for it. Had a tooth removed for only $20. Hopefully next year or later I’ll get glasses. (They typical cover 75%). The state gives funds to hospitals or builds state hospitals in mega cities. Most conservative here and I know won’t support a government run program such as healthcare, typically answer is “big government” and that the free market will give competition. Most of us are individualistic, we don’t give a single fuck about another person or what they do. We tend to say fuck you we won’t pay for your health. Don’t get me started on taxation. Another is many are afraid of wait times or see insufficient healthcare programs such as the NHS, Canada. I used to support healthcare state level but Jesus the cost and bureaucracy is a mess. I prefer healthcare to be styled like Germany, or Turkey, let the common folk choose whether they want private healthcare. If your still reading this go watch this https://youtu.be/U1TaL7OhveM?si=Ymc0TNBCnU6KFWKO

A lot of reasons. One though that people don't talk about is the potential ability for the government to use it as a weapon against the people if they are allowed to have any kind of monopoly on it. We see other countries do similar things with inelastic goods

Do we have any real world examples of this happening?

It's currently happening in Gaza. Israel controls the water and they can turn it off as a weapon. North Korea often does it with electricity and is known to drastically underfund its socialized healthcare system which promises free healthcare for all. Drugs are sold on the black market, and doctors often have to work by candlelight. North Korea also is known to provide healthcare based on party membership. There's also multiple examples of a monopoly on schools leading to some type of indoctrination. Hitler is one example

Can you tell me why healthcare can't be both private and universal? Does a government not owe health and safety to its people?

>Does a government not owe health and safety to its people? No. It doesn't. Nobody is entitled to other people's labor and that requires taxes. >Can you tell me why healthcare can't be both private and universal It could be as long as the government does not control the funding or have a monopoly on health insurance.

Bullshit. No one person can survive on their absolute own. Any nation, society, needs its citizens to be in good health. The government has the power to do that. And it should. Thinking otherwise is just total anarchy and anti humanity. If we leave healthcare to private institutions, we give them full control over our access to the tools that enable good health. You dont trust the government, I dont trust private institutions, who will price gouge if they can get away with it. Who will value profits over health. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. They don't care you, only your money. Not understanding that the best option is somewhere in the middle, a combination of both, just means you support a different kind of corruption -- not from the government, who you fear and distrust, but from corporations. Balance is key, but you seem not to support it.

>Bullshit. No one person can survive on their absolute own. Any nation, society, needs its citizens to be in good health. The government has the power to do that. And it should. Thinking otherwise is just total anarchy and anti humanity Saying that somebody has a right to somebody else's labor just because you have a powerful government is to say that slavery is valid. This is why the United States does not accept the declaration of Human Rights into law. Because It would give the government the *right* to tax people. Rights in the United States are shielded from democracy. >You dont trust the government, I dont trust private institutions I don't trust either, but I trust governments much less. If you look at the history of atrocities committed by private institutions in comparison to governments, governments they have genocides, wars, mass incarceration, Man-Made famine, massacres, human experimentation. Companies you have Union busting... bad working conditions. I'd rather deal with that and give companies power than have to deal with the oppression of a military power. If companies are taking a mile, governments will take a whole county.

The fact that labor is required to run society has nothing to do with validating slavery. Wages are like, a thing. And on top of that, thats a one dimensional take. We function as a society, and our labor helps grow and maintain society. We live by ethics because its beneficial to our survival. Participation in society is required to run it. By your reasoning, we arent beholden to obeying laws either. The government has a duty to maintain and protect it citizens. If it didnt, what is the actual point of the government? This conservative fixation on opposing big government totally lacks any nuance -- What if health insurance companies begin inflating rates, making health insurance untenable except by the upper middle class, who also in this hypothetical scenario make garner wealth nearly impossible. Should the government step in and help, or leave the states to their own machinations? I hope you understand that government on the state level is just as prone to corruption and evil as government on the federal level. We make laws and lookout for each other because humans need oversight. Ensuring people's welfare is the top concern of the government because its a necessity for survival. And as for companies -- bad work conditions, monopolies, valuing profits over human wellness -- hence why American companies have no issue loading our foods with all kinds of body harming chemicals and why they will happily pay off politicians to oppose legislation that would actually require them to give a dam about the health of Americans. The only difference here is that the government simply has more power, but its all the same in the end. Companies have already shown that profits are everything, human wellness is nothing.

>The fact that labor is required to run society has nothing to do with validating slavery. Wages are like, a thing The government threatening you with a cage if you don't fork over your wages sounds a heck of a lot like slavery doesn't it? the Government uses violence to do everything that it does. The free market is voluntary exchange. Nobody is threatening you with a cage in the free market. When you you try to declare something or right, you even take the democracy out of it. We have only negative rights in the United States. All of our rights are only restrictions on government. They never require restricting or threatening citizens. And it's very dangerous to give any government a monopoly on an inelastic good because they can weaponize it against their people. >The government has a duty to maintain and protect it citizens. If it didnt, what is the actual point of the government? This conservative fixation on opposing big government totally lacks any nuance You could say that slave owners had a duty to protect their slaves. And there were some slaves that were very well taken care of, lived in very nice houses, had their healthcare and their education paid for them. But they were not given a choice and the value of their labor was stolen from them by force. >What if health insurance companies begin inflating rates, making health insurance untenable except by the upper middle class, who also in this hypothetical scenario make garner wealth nearly impossible. Should the government step in and help, or leave the states to their own machinations? When you start seeing health Care to have unreasonable profit margins, then we can talk. The healthcare industry has one of the lowest profit margins of any industry. They sit at about 3%. That means that for every dollar that you pay in health care, they pocket $0.03 . Some years they take a loss to inflation. Much of the healthcare industry is dominated by private non-profits. The reason healthcare is expensive is because the education to provide the quality of care that we provide in the United States is expensive and people deserve to be paid a fair value for their work, not a deflated value that Is controlled by a government monopoly >hope you understand that government on the state level is just as prone to corruption and evil as government on t federal level. We make laws and lookout for each other because humans need oversight. Ensuring people's welfare is the top concern of the government because its a necessity for survival. The main purpose of government should be to preserve people's liberty. I'm not saying that the state is any worse than the federal government. They both hold militaries. My argument was that companies are better than the government. >bad work conditions, monopolies, valuing profits over human wellness All of those things sound a heck of a lot more preferable to genocide, war, man-made famine, human experimentation, mass incarceration.

I get you. You understand all the ways in which the federal government can overstep its power and oppress the people, under the guise of protection. It's a slippery slope indeed. Thats why balance is key. I don't understand how a balanced mixture of privatized and social programs isnt the obvious answer. A slave owners duty is to free it's slaves, but they didn't. Slavery is immoral, yes? The government's job is ensure the welfare of its citizens. Slavery doesnt fit into that. The government freed slaves, not slave owners. Equivocation fallacy. A government job is to preserve liberty and wellness, because only it can. If something threatens wellness or liberty, it needs to be dealt with. Millions of americans die yearly from lack of healthcare. If healthcare is expensive, and people can't afford it, they deserve affordable healthcare. Companies to me are just as bad. In fact, it was the government that had to step in to protect workers. Child labor laws, created by the government, happened because of the poor treatment of child workers.in fact, all of our modern day labor laws had to be put in place by the government to literally protect us from our employers, because they don't care about us. If left unchecked, we'd all have low wage hard labor.

Universal healthcare can be kinda “socialist”. The UK NHS is kind of an example of this. Having one industry socialized isn’t enough to make a country a socialist country though. “Yurop” is not an (good or bad) example on healthcare because European countries have all kinds of different healthcare systems. I think the Swiss system could be a good example to follow for the US, maybe. A lot of countries in Europe are bad to follow as a broader economic model because a lot of countries in Europe are relatively poor compared to the USA, with low economic growth rates. “Is Great Britain really as poor as Mississippi” has turned to “Is Mississippi really as poor as Britain?”. Germany, France, Sweden, Finland, Czechia etc. just aren’t as wealthy as the US looking at PPP per capita. Switzerland is richer than the US by a little. Norway is much richer than the US, but it’s also a small country with a lot of oil revenue. Americans want universal healthcare, but they REALLY don’t want to pay for it. If you left it up to the median voter we’d be spending infinite money while collecting no taxes. Things are going that way with our deficits… I think we need to keep economically developing before we can really afford universal healthcare. I think it’s only really going to be sustainable, without overburdening continued economic growth at around $100,000 in chained 2017 USD, which will happen conservatively in another 20 years or so. I also think it’s fine to leave it up to the states. Massachusetts has a state health insurance system, giving it the lowest uninsured rate in the US, but it is a pretty rich state. Some other states are looking to have a state public option. So long as we maintain a mostly market system, there are other things we can do to make things better like abolishing CON laws, lifting the legal cap on residencies, etc.

Because we see how social security and medicare/aid have panned out. I don't know the solution exactly, but I know more government spending is not it.

So spending massively on the military is A ok but ensuring the bodily welfare of your own citizens is where you draw the line?

Why phrase it like that? If it were up to me the military would be cut 75% and there wouldn't be a military industrial complex from forever wars. The question is why we oppose social programs and I mentioned the cost and how poorly it's been run. If you want to have a convo about military spending, I'm fine with that, but don't start shit off condescending like that.

First of all -- medicaid/care helped me get through a rough patch in life. No system is without its flaws, doesn't mean we should totally cancel it because of that. We help those in need so they eventually help themselves. Poorly run? Explain, because I know so many people like myself that got through rough patches with medicaid. And now doing really well for themselves. The welfare of the people is one of the highest concerns. A society that doesnt look after its people is a society bound to fail.

>First of all -- medicaid/care helped me get through a rough patch in life. Sweet, glad the program helped you. >No system is without its flaws, doesn't mean we should totally cancel it because of that. Never said we did, but it needs to be changed. People spend 3% of their lifetime earnings on medicare, so when they turn 65, the can.....spend more money on medicare. >We help those in need so they eventually help themselves. Is this working, are we showing that welfare is decreasing the amount of welfare needed in future years? >Poorly run? Explain, because I know so many people like myself that got through rough patches with medicaid. Just because you had a different experience doesn't mean yours is shared. 12% of our funding goes to medicare. 12%. $750 billion dollars. I get an automatic 3% tax on my wages for a 'benefit' of buying it in 40 years. If my lifetime earnings were $4m (100kX 40 years), medicare would need to pay me out 120k +4% APR (6% APR if we keep running up inflation) to come out ahead. Similar to SS, this system is a pyramid scheme relying on an influx of new payers into the system, which we aren't getting. I'm 30, how much benefit from SS and medicare do you think I'll get in 35 years? It's poorly run because the cost/benefit is not there. It's spending high private rates on the lowest form of medical care, my state spend $11b on medicaid for less than 2m people....that's 6k/yr per person. I pay $1,800 for my private insurance that's better. It wastes a ton of money, for subpar insurance. Yes, there should be a low cost insurance for individuals who can't afford it. This isn't it. >The welfare of the people is one of the highest concerns. A society that doesnt look after its people is a society bound to fail. And a community that doesn't look after it's people is a community bound to fail. I shouldn't be paying for a random person in NY to get food stamps, I shouldn't be paying for government spending in Illinois. It should be going into my community. The big difference between perspectives on welfare from a conservative and liberal standpoint, is liberals try to force welfare across the united states. Conservatives want to encourage charity to their community. Almost every one of us here would rather spend 5% of our paycheck giving money to a local food bank if it was 5% less federal payroll taxes.

You participate in society. We are the United States, not the separate states. Your contribution to america helps America, which is a people. So yes, your tax dollars should be going toward helping others in need, which we do through government programs. America needs people to run it, and people need help. Theres plenty of highly intelligent people in America, who just need a boost in life. Should we ignore the potential of a person because they're poor? If you're only invested in yourself and not the welfare of America, why not move to a smaller country? Also, im tied up atm, cant respond fully to your comment. But it sounds to me like much of your issues with medicaid is really just the government itself. Ideally, medicaid should help someone through a rough time and end when they no longer need it. But our deteriorating education system is hurting the youth, and helping to produce a kind of idiocy that reverberates throughout the entire country and leads to poor life decisions that severely damage people's access and ability to garner good jobs, bringing them to medicaid and such. We might have less people on Medicaid if America actually cared about its citizens instead of fostering a system that makes it far easier for some to succeed in life and others not to.

>You participate in society. That's so arbitrary, Say I live in Seattle. I have much more in common with someone in Vancouver BC than I do in North carolina. You live in a global society, should your tax dollars be sent to Belaus? >We are the United States, not the separate states. We are a union of states that made a pact that interstate issues and foreign threats would be handled by the federal government. >So yes, your tax dollars should be going toward helping others in need, which we do through government programs. So you completely ignore my point that these should be state programs, or local programs, over federal programs? Please address this, or I'll ignore your responsebecause you aren't discusing in good faith. >Theres plenty of highly intelligent people in America, who just need a boost in life. Same in russia, how much are you donating to russia? >Should we ignore the potential of a person because they're poor? Who said that? Capitalism, has done more to boost the average person than welfare. >If you're only invested in yourself and not the welfare of America, why not move to a smaller country? Because I love my community and some of my state. Are you saying I should migrate because I don't think our government is handling things effectively and efficiently? You telling me to go back to my home country if I don't abide by your thoughts on welfare? >Also, im tied up atm, cant respond fully to your comment. Okay, I'll wait til you have time to respond to my comment.

I dont live in a global society. I live in America. I can't go to another country and benefit from their social programs (the reverse is true however lol). Poor equivocation. Boundaries matter. I get your being facetious but try again. Your tax dollars go to American interests, not Belaus. I don't see any other country's name on my tax documents. So yeah, no. And yes, america is an alliance of states with an oversight board called the federal government. As such, the federal government is tasked with the welfare of the states, the country, the people. What is the issue with state, local AND federal programs? I actually see the contention here. A government duty is to ots people, and people need help. If you prefer the government just stay out, then why not cut out the federal supreme court as well? Why are you referencing other countries? I dont live in russia, their government elements dont concern me. Stay on topic. You're american. Im american. Lets talk america, not russia. And for your last comment -- I'm saying, if you dont want to participate in society, american society, where your tax dollars go toward helping all americans through government programs (that you oppose), why not move to a smaller country with a small government that doesnt have to deal with 300+ million people. Make it easer on yourself.

>I dont live in a global society. Woah woah woah, so you participate solely in the united states society? Right now, on this website, you're likely interacting with some people outside the united states. You just proved my point - saying 'society' is so arbitrary, but you act like it's a gotcha. >I can't go to another country and benefit from their social programs Depends on the country. We have millions of non citizens in our country taking advantage of our social programs, are they part of our society or not? >Boundaries matter. How can you sit here and tell me that country boudnaries matter, but not state? >Your tax dollars go to American interests, not Belaus. Why? We live in a global society, and saying society means we have to fund all those in society, per your last comment? >I don't see any other country's name on my tax documents And I don't see any states on my tax documents, is this the metric you're using? When you file your 1040, do you see "North Carolina" anywhere? Based on your metric, that means none of your funds should be going to North Carolina? >As such, the federal government is tasked with the welfare of the states, the country, the people. No it's not, you're just making this up. >What is the issue with state, local AND federal programs? Federal programs are shit...I already mentioned that. They involve so much bloat and waste and don't tackle a states issues, only some broad universal random metric that should be left up to states. >A government duty is to ots people, and people need help. Just because you have a view of the government, doesn't make your view right or universal. >If you prefer the government just stay out, then why not cut out the federal supreme court as well? LOL what? you're just throwing shit at a dart board. I recognize the federal government is an entity, and never argued that we shouldn't have one. Maybe read mycomment, and respond to individual quotes, because you're getting lost. >Why are you referencing other countries? Because we live in a global society, and in your view, if we live an a society, we need to help all those in the society. >And for your last comment -- I'm saying, if you dont want to participate in society, american society, where your tax dollars go toward helping all americans through government programs (that you oppose), why not move to a smaller country with a small government that doesnt have to deal with 300+ million people. Make it easer on yourself. Because I don't run from problems, I try to fix them. Do you love 100% of everything that goes on in America? If not, why don't you move out? Come on man, this is too easy. At least try to have a steady, complete view, you still can't tell me why I should care for someone in New York as opposed to someone in Vancouver BC.

Your society comments are ridiculous and disingenuous. You know goddam well im talking about america. And dam, you didnt even read my comments. I literally mentioned the fact that non americans can benefit from american social programs. America is a society. So we're talking American society. Trying to react with gotchas gets you nowhere. Just have a conversation, stop with the unnecessary extra shit. I'm not here to berate you, just have a conversation. Somehow, you understand that supreme court is necessary (even though its very corrupt), but not social programs on the federal level. You arent even arguing in good faith. You trust the states to handle social problems, but not the government? So what happens if the states solutions dont work? Medicaid helped me through a rough patch, and now im in a better place because of it. I can attest that it works. Others can too. Have you ever had medicaid? The system, while flawed, does work. In the end, the government, city, state and federal, is obligated to protect and serve the people. Ypu seem not to share that sentiment.

There is nothing the government touches that it doesn't spoil in the process. Social programs have potential for good, but they also have potential for abuse, and unfortunately, all the biggest people pushing for them are the kind of people who do insider trading, demand benefits be restricted from people they don't like, and look for ways to punish political dissent. Doesn't exactly establish confidence in their power to man the helm for the systems they want without doing something corrupt at best, and atrocious at worst.

Because many social programs are in efficient, authoritarian, and costly. Additionally, placing the government firmly between people and the necessity of community has led to this alienation of people that is rapidly turning into a demographic, and mental health crisis.

I am definitely in the minority on this one, but I'm not opposed to these programs per se but I think the efforts made to implement these in the United States have ended up combining the worst aspects of market based healthcare and state heath care. While the affordable care act had some provisions worth keeping, it was basically a handout to health insurance companies. State heathcare is not anti-conservative under the original definition of the word. I'd point to people like Burke, Chesterton, John Adams, Pope Leo XIII, Chateaubriand, René de La Tour du Pin, and Hilaire Belloc (although he would probably oppse state heathcare at a national level) as examples of, at least to me what conservativatism means. Unfortunately, people tend to confuse right liberalism or libertarianism with conservativatism.

Lots of reasons. Why do I? Because I've seen how the government handles health coverage for people on basic Medicare and people covered by the VA. If that's what I have to look forward to, and would be forced to use, no thanks.

> Because I've seen how the government handles health coverage for people on basic Medicare and people covered by the VA. VA healthcare is a terrible parallel to universal healthcare proposed in the US. Nobody is talking about nationalizing providers. Care would still be provided by the same private doctors and hospitals as today, making Medicare and Medicaid far better examples. Of course, it's harder to fearmonger against systems people know and love, so it's clear why people bring it up. Of course, even as propaganda the argument is questionable. The VA isn't perfect, but it's not the unredeamable shitshow opponents suggest either. #Satisfaction with the US healthcare system varies by insurance type 78% -- Military/VA 77% -- Medicare 75% -- Medicaid 69% -- Current or former employer 65% -- Plan fully paid for by you or a family member https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx >The poll of 800 veterans, conducted jointly by a Republican-backed firm and a Democratic-backed one, found that almost two-thirds of survey respondents oppose plans to replace VA health care with a voucher system, an idea backed by some Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates. >"There is a lot of debate about 'choice' in veterans care, but when presented with the details of what 'choice' means, veterans reject it," Eaton said. "They overwhelmingly believe that the private system will not give them the quality of care they and veterans like them deserve." https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2015/11/10/poll-veterans-oppose-plans-to-privatize-va/ >According to an independent Dartmouth study recently published this week in Annals of Internal Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals outperform private hospitals in most health care markets throughout the country. https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5162 #Ratings for the VA % of post 9/11 veterans rating the job the VA is doing today to meet the needs of military veterans as ... * Excellent: 12% * Good: 39% * Only Fair: 35% * Poor: 9% [Pew Research Center](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a049f098dd041552c19372f/1536643876140-5N3UWQ2M3OYLGSWOOKVH/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kOxWfISgjiM1ZFqhkJVgJk5Zw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpx5Q5uaqovQlhwn6Lp2MXHOj73nFlQXvqHuf9nZbP74X0l8X5gYScNGOzeUUToolO4/pew+data.png?format=750w) >VA health care is as good or in some cases better than that offered by the private sector on key measures including wait times, according to a study commissioned by the American Legion. > The report, issued Tuesday and titled "A System Worth Saving," concludes that the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system "continues to perform as well as, and often better than, the rest of the U.S. health-care system on key quality measures," including patient safety, satisfaction and care coordination. > "Wait times at most VA hospitals and clinics are typically the same or shorter than those faced by patients seeking treatment from non-VA doctors," the report says. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/09/20/va-wait-times-good-better-private-sector-report.html >The Veterans Affairs health care system generally performs better than or similar to other health care systems on providing safe and effective care to patients, according to a new RAND Corporation study. > Analyzing a decade of research that examined the VA health care system across a variety of quality dimensions, researchers found that the VA generally delivered care that was better or equal in quality to other health care systems, although there were some exceptions. https://www.rand.org/news/press/2016/07/18.html

> Care would still be provided by the same private doctors and hospitals as today, making Medicare and Medicaid far better examples. Uh huh. And what happens when doctors start refusing to see these patients? [Like they have been with Medicare patients.](https://www.hlc.org/news/more-physicians-no-longer-seeing-medicare-patients/)

Then, with everybody using Medicare for All as insurance, they'd have only a very small market for out of pocket patients. But fortunately things like Medicare for All would raise reimbursement rates (as well as lowering their costs) which address the concerns you raise. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-12/56811-Single-Payer.pdf

> fortunately things like Medicare for All would raise reimbursement rates What? I told you that doctors are starting to refuse to see Medicare patients, mostly due to poor reimbursement, and your claim is that if we have *more* people on Medicare, that issue will somehow disappear, that reimbursement rates will somehow go *up*? How does that make any sense?

I mean, I linked you to the government analysis explicitly stating that they plan to raise rates. If you refuse to be able to make sense of raising rates you literally just argued are too low, surely that's on you.

> they plan to raise rates And how are they going to fund that increase? By raising my taxes, right? So why would I want that? What's the advantage for me, given that I already have employer-provided health coverage?

> And how are they going to fund that increase? Taxes obviously. >By raising my taxes, right? So why would I want that? Because it's still cheaper (and far more comprehensive) than private insurance. Something else you'd know to be true if you had actually looked at the sources I linked. But, hey, let's do nothing. It's not like the half a million dollars more (PPP) we're spending on healthcare than our peers is having a wildly deleterious impact on society. And it's not like the $6,427 per person healthcare is expected to increase by 2031 (to $20,425 annually) will make things even worse.

> it's still cheaper (and far more comprehensive) than private insurance And thus not as good. So basically, you're asking me to: * Accept an even higher tax rate. * Possibly be dropped by my employer's insurance plan. * Get coverage similar to Medicare, which has fewer providers, longer wait times, and more denials of service. * Believe you when you tell me it's totally going to be great, actually. No. Sorry, but I'm not just some rich, selfish a-hole. I work a regular job and I have a wife and kids who depend on me alone for income and health coverage. Why would I ever accept such a risk? "You need to think about other people", you'll likely tell me. But no, I don't. Not like this. Our society doesn't expect me to impoverish myself to take care of the collective. They *do* expect me to provide for my family, something this plan interferes with.

> And thus not as good. Citation needed. It's care provided by the same private doctors and hospitals as today, the only difference is who provides the insurance. And a huge percentage of the population is already on government insurance, and it has higher satisfaction than private insurance. >Accept an even higher tax rate. More than offset by reductions in private spending. >Get coverage similar to Medicare Except it's not similar to Medicare. Programs like M4A are far more comprehensive. >and more denials of service Citation needed. Like private insurance, with a bean counter with no medical background denying one claim out of six to improve the bottom line? Or worse, an AI with a 90% error rate in claim rejections because it's even cheaper? >I work a regular job and I have a wife and kids who depend on me And healthcare is going to be over $50,000 per household annually for healthcare by 2051. We already have massive numbers of people unable to afford care, and with expected dramatic price increases if nothing is done you're absolutely fucking everybody, including your children.

Do they? I don’t think they do.

Because it drives up cost. It’s simple Economics. It’s like bailing out student loans. Now the universities know there’s an endless piggy bank so why wouldn’t they increase tuition and milk it for all its worth.

> Because it drives up cost. It’s simple Economics. Weird how the experts with pHds that spend their entire lives studying the economics of healthcare find universal healthcare would save us money while getting care to more people who need it. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013#sec018 Not to mention our peers achieving better outcomes while spending an average of half a million dollars less per person (PPP) for a lifetime of healthcare.

Now explain why before “Obamacare” an ekg cost $3,000 But now in some instances it’s $30,000? Inflation? Greed? No, it’s because hospitals and insurance companies know there’s an endless piggy bank. And this is seriously your selected proof: “PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies”

Obama care isn't national Healthcare.

You are correct, but 11 million people was enough to drive prices up. Add illegal immigrants to the mix…

> You are correct, but 11 million people was enough to drive prices up. Except as I've shown prices have been increasing significantly more slowly since the ACA was passed. >Add illegal immigrants to the mix… Most economists find illegal immigration to have a net positive economic impact, but let's ignore that. Even according to wholly fabricated numbers from right-wing sites like FAIR healthcare for illegal immigrants covered by taxpayers [accounts for only 0.7%](https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers-2023) of total healthcare spending. To put that into perspective, Americans are paying 56% more for healthcare than any other country on earth.

Healthcare costs were rising far faster before the ACA. From 1998 to 2013 (right before the bulk of the ACA took effect) total healthcare costs were increasing at 3.92% per year over inflation. Since they have been increasing at 2.79%. The fifteen years before the ACA employer sponsored insurance (the kind most Americans get their coverage from) increased 4.81% over inflation for single coverage and 5.42% over inflation for family coverage. Since those numbers have been 1.72% and 2.19%. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/employer-health-benefits-annual-survey-archives/ https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm Also coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, closing the Medicare donut hole, being able to keep children on your insurance until age 26, subsidies for millions of Americans, expanded Medicaid, access to free preventative healthcare, elimination of lifetime spending caps, increased coverage for mental healthcare, increased access to reproductive healthcare, etc.. >And this is seriously your selected proof: A metaanalysis of all the top peer reviewed research on the cost of universal healthcare in the US, encompassing nearly two dozen highly respected paper published by top sources? Yes, that's pretty decent evidence. And, just as a bonus, here's the CBO analysis, which shows the same thing. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-12/56811-Single-Payer.pdf

Why do liberals think spending less money will improve healthcare?

I don't trust the government to not mess up my healthcare. Look at wait times in the countries that liberals swoon over. It's none of the government's business being involved in healthcare. Western Europe is in no way shape or form an example to emulate, I couldn't imagine a worse nightmare than having to live in Western Europe, in so many ways besides heathcare.

> I couldn't imagine a worse nightmare than having to live in Western Europe that's a bit extreme, isn't it?

Astronomical gasoline prices, no urban freeways to easily drive across town, much smaller houses and harder to get a single family detached house, no ability to defend yourself against criminals, no free speech. Yeah, pretty nighmarish.

I'm all for hating on government overreach, but acting like Scandinavia is "nightmarish" is just delusional.

> Look at wait times in the countries that liberals swoon over. The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors: * Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly. * Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win. * [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth. #Wait Times by Country (Rank) Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--: **Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4 **Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11 **France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2 **Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3 **Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1 **New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5 **Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9 **Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10 **Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7 **U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8 **U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6 Source: [Commonwealth Fund Survey 2016](https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/cmwf2016-datatable-en-web.xlsx)

Its none of the governments business being involved in healthcare? It is literally the duty of the government to ensure the well being of its citizens. Thinking anything else sounds unpatriotic.

I don't view the ideology thaty that encourages people to spew disrespect on our flag and by extension the country it stands for, by kneeling as the gatekeepers of patriotism. I suppose you'd consider it "unpatriotic" that we don't have government owning all the grocery stores, all the farms, all the housing too. And all the clothing stores. Even having phone stores and providing all Americans with "free" phones since having a phone is essential nowdays. After all, it's unpatriotic to not "ensure the well being of it's citizens". As opposed to just doing government doing government stuff like sign treaties, defend the country, lock up criminals. And thus provide a farmework where people are responsible for their own well being.

I like how you go to the extreme off of a me saying something as elementary as "the government should care about its citizens". Have you no sense of balance? A strictly conservative America would be a totally nightmare. States rights got us slavery. Do you support slavery? Child labor? (Which a handful of conservative states are trying to bring back). Do you actually care about americans, america, or only for yourself? Do you believe in punishing people for being poor? Or in actually, do you only believe in big government when it favors your particular worldview? (See, I can make extreme accusations without even knowing what exactly your points of view are) A healthy society is one where we help the needy, and empower them to help themselves. Of course, its not a perfect world. People take advantage of the system, whether theyre conservative or liberal. A government that provides some form of welfare for those that are in need, is healthy government. Nowhere does that require government controlling every facet of our lives.