Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
Yes, Americans are. Shorter lives, more years lost to illness, fewer years lived in good health...far more unhealthy than countries with rather similar health profiles such as the UK. Only difference, they got UHC and it shows in public health.
|
Let me just say a few things, because I suppose a lot of people have no idea how all this universal healthcare, and health outcomes things works.
First, the United States doesn't have poor health outcomes because of a lack of universal healthcare. The United States has poor health outcomes partly because of what we eat and our general car-centric culture, and secondly because of our ethnic makeup.
Take the United States out of the picture for a second, and compare Japan's health outcomes to even the best universal healthcare system in Europe(or Europeans countries to each other). Japan's comes out ahead, in both life expectancy and infant mortality.
Furthermore, it doesn't really break down what life expectancy even is. For instance, a country's murder rate, suicide rate, drug-abuse rate(IE overdosing), or even accidental death rate(IE cars, motorcycles, drowning, skydiving, etc).
If we start looking at reality for a minute, we realize that most of what causes the United States to have seemingly poor health statistics. Is really our high murder rate, crime rate, drug-abuse rate, accidental death rate, and the fact that we are so fat.
Now, I don't particularly like the term universal healthcare. Because that isn't necessarily a very good description. What many people are talking about, is sort of universal health insurance coverage plan. Not the same as universal healthcare, because insurance companies(and now the government) limit the coverage only to those things that they approve. For instance, if you are 90 years old, it is unlikely that you'll get approved for a heart transplant. There are a considerable number of operations and procedures, that are by definition healthcare, but in which insurance providers, or the government, will not provide, depending on your age and circumstances. Thus the healthcare is not actually "universal".
Most proposals for universal healthcare, range from a public-option to subsidize those with low incomes, to a single-payer system in which the government basically pays for, and manages all healthcare in the entire country. Most of the people on the political left ultimately want a "European-style" single-payer system.
The problem with the single-payer system is that, it has to somehow keep its costs down. To do this, it tends to have fewer facilities, less equipment, and much longer lines(at least in certain areas). And many times its much more difficult, or impossible, for certain people to get access to certain kinds of care(especially the very expensive care).
Thus, universal healthcare doesn't necessarily guarantee good results. In fact, when it comes to actual healthcare outcomes, such as the percentage of people surviving cancer, and heart-attacks, and things of that nature. The United States tends to have much higher survivability rates than other comparable nations. And further, it is unlikely that a universal healthcare system would reduce the incidence of death from cancer, or heart attack, or really much of anything for that matter.
Rather, a universal healthcare system would most likely lead the United States to have worse health statistics than it currently has.
So why do people want to have a single-payer healthcare system then? Well, that is largely an egalitarian issue, not a national health issue(though to some extent it is simply a convenience issue, or even an economics issue).
Basically, many believe that healthcare is sort of a human right. Healthcare in many cases is the difference between life and death. And thus in that sense, it is sort of equivalent to food and shelter. And since many people believe that no one should go hungry or be homeless, then they also believe that no one should die because they couldn't afford healthcare.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the belief that everyone should have access to healthcare. But I find the situation with universal healthcare, and its supposed root in human compassion, to be a little flawed, and very inconsistent.
For instance, most of the people who propose a universal healthcare system, propose it to be a national healthcare system. And they constantly refer to "the nation", and how "all those in the nation should help each other". But, why is there always this obsession with "the nation", or "our country". Why do we have an obligation to help other people in this country, and this country only? Is there truly a fundamental difference between "chipping in" to provide healthcare for the guy in a different state, and me "chipping in" to provide healthcare for the guy in another country? Wouldn't so-called "compassion" be more "universal", extending across the entire world, instead of simply being contained within our borders.
In reality, the primary motivation for obsessing about the nation, isn't because we really should obsess about the nation, and nothing more. But rather that, people have been conditioned to recognize the validity of the state. And also to believe that everyone in the country has an obligation to the state.
If you contrast that with say, the United Nations, the vast majority of Americans only recognize the validity of the United Nations when we agree with it. On the other hand, Georgia has to recognize the validity of the US government, whether it agrees with it or not. Because if it doesn't, the US government will march troops into Georgia, occupy the state, and throw every legislator in prison who doesn't comply.
And regardless of the seemingly hostile nature of the relationship between the US government and its subjects. There really isn't a single nation on Earth that will intervene to stop the subjugation of the people by the state. Because every nation on Earth works on the same system. And as soon as England interjects to assist Georgia in ignoring the demands of the US government. So might the US government assist Scotland or Northern Ireland in doing the same. In that sense, as soon as a powerful nation stops recognizing the validity of the nation-state, then the whole system of nation-states across the world, comes crumbling down.
Basically, the whole concept of "the state", is really a concept of ownership. The state owns you, and so they can force you to do things without your consent.
The only people in which they can force to do something, are those in which the state actually owns. Or at least, those in which no other legitimate claim is made by other countries. And this ownership isn't necessarily a choice by individuals. You become owned by the state by virtue of being born within its internationally recognized territorial borders. And since there is no territory in the world which isn't claimed by one country or another, everyone in the world is effectively the property of one nation or another. And the only possible choice an individual has, is which "nation" they would prefer owning them.
Now, the problem with socialism, is that the largest scale it can realistically ever have, is through the nation. It is founded upon the concept of "nationalism". Because even if people are internationally "compassionate", the nation does not own those in other nations, and thus cannot compel those in other nations to do much of anything(outside of maybe threatening war with them). And so, we might feel bad for those either currently in other countries(or who are temporarily in this country). But our compassion does not include providing "foreign nationals" or possibly "illegal immigrants", any form of healthcare or other assistance.
Thus, we seemingly have absolutely no compassion whatsoever for anyone who isn't a citizen. Or more appropriately, we don't care about anyone we don't own. And unless we actually want to own you, then we simply don't care about you.
Now, why is all of this a problem?
Well, the primary problem is that, by instituting a system of mandatory charity(socialism), you undermine and discourage real charity. And in the past, much of what we consider the "social safety-net" was provided by private charities.
And the great thing about private charities, is that they aren't generally based around nationalism. The great bulk of private charities are international(though many are religious). Those "international" charities don't pretend to own you, and so they couldn't care less what your citizenship status is. They help you regardless of where you were born.
Now, the ironic part of the whole situation is. Those who claim to be "humanitarians". These self-proclaimed compassionate people, are perfectly fine with the state taxing them to supposedly give to the needy. But rarely do those same people actually give to private charities. In fact, the more "socialist" you are, relates strongly with how little of your income you give to charity. And the more you oppose socialism, the more likely you are to give a large part of your income to charity.
Now, the reason why this is important is. If you were to totally get rid of all government "charity". It would almost certainly cause a considerable increase in charitable giving. That charitable activity wouldn't necessarily be limited to US citizens. And thus, a much larger share of "charity" would most likely find its way either completely out of the United States(Catholics for instance sending more of their money to poor Latin-American countries). Or this increased charitable activity might actually end up helping the truly most vulnerable people in the United States, our "undocumented immigrants".
If we start to investigate the claim of "compassion" by advocates of universal healthcare(or other government social programs). You start to realize that the actual result of the kinds of government programs created by those who consider themselves to be compassionate, are nothing of the sort. And the real result of so-called compassionate government social programs, actually end up reducing the amount of money people have available to give to charity, and ultimately the people most hurt, are people in or from developing countries. And to enforce this "government charity" system, you increasingly need to "wall in" your nation(and your citizens) from the rest of the world.
If there was ever a humanitarian cause, it would be for the complete elimination of nationalism, and all that it entails.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
