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.
Is this a valid line of argument against having a single payer system? Is this type of thing inevitable, or avoidable? Why *shouldn't* a government / taxpaying public who pays for all aspects of health have a dictatorial say in what people do to and with their bodies? What do you say? How do we avoid this? Should we even avoid this? If the above is a little extreme, feel free to change the year to 2040 or 2050 and then tell me how -and why- we avoid it. Please keep in mind the rapid growth in things like AI, big data, the "Internet of Everything," nanotech medicine, etc. Thanks!
Why do we need fiction when we can see what happens in single payer systems that have existed for decades?
I can currently eat as much fatty, sugary food as I want, drink as much alcohol as I want, ride a motorcycle, go rock-climbing, do zero exercise or exercise myself into ill health, never get medical checkups, avoid vaccines, not take medication, etc.
Why? Because the technology is not yet in place to monitor all of my activities and -- the subject of this thread -- because there is not yet one monolithic collectivist group (with political power) paying for everything.
These types of choices are well-known to have moderate to significant impact on short-term and long-term healthcare needs and medical expenses. This is not to say there aren't plenty of things that impact needs that are outside of an individual's control. I assume we would treat those with humanity. I'm talking about the choices people make. I don't think we would be as forgiving.I don't think we have the technology yet, nor do we have the technology infrastructure in place yet -- and we don't have single payer yet. Yes, there are a lot of heinous surveillance and control measures already in place -- but I think we may be still be relatively early on in the evolution of the surveillance state. For one example of many, Smart Dust is coming -- autonomous cameras and other sensors the size of a grain of salt, all feeding data into a processing unit.
So let's assume we have the technology to potentially know what people are doing, ingesting, etc. The next question is why wouldn't we consider using this technology to try to reduce our massive healthcare cost by trying to engineer what people are doing, ingesting, etc.? When the government is in charge of funding literally all healthcare costs, does it not suddenly become everybody's business what choices everybody is making?
What makes certain people so special that they can engage in unhealthful lifestyle choices or risky and dangerous activities when these choices could cost *everyone* vastly more? How many years of information on central healthcare spending would we need before we started eyeing with malice those people who through their OWN actions are breaking the system? What would prevent future generations from deciding certain activities and individual choices should be prohibited through the coercive power of the threat of withholding single payer healthcare from said individuals?
Ah, I see where you're going now. Must apologize for my failure to grasp your meaning.
In short; your questions require more thought than I was giving them.
Section 102 (c) No cost-Sharing.—No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.
Wow. So there goes the whole marginal cost argument, if I'm reading it right. How this particular Medicare-For-All bill would control overconsumption in any way is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
SEC. 104. Prohibition against duplicating coverage. [LEFT](a) In general.—It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.[/LEFT]
Does this pretty much gut the entire health insurance industry? It sounds like it would. Is concentrating ALL the power in government's hands the goal here? Is it advisable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Section 202 (F) NO BALANCE BILLING.—Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Medicare For All Program may not bill any patient for any covered service.
Wow again. So under this bill, it would be illegal to have insurance, and only medical professionals who ONLY accepted private pay would be able to accept ANY private pay.
Sounds precisely like the first version of the article. Is this bill our future? If it is, how do we avoid the further future outlined in the article? I'm really not quite sure I want to exist in that timeline... but it sounds like the time of individualism may be coming to an end.
If you really want to discuss single payer health care then discuss it sanely instead of coming up with dystopian models.
I want to discuss it in the context of THE FUTURE -- a future that will include some significant economic pressures and unprecedented new technologies.
Don't tell me how great it is five years from now. Tell me how we avoid that twenty-five years from now.
Why do we need fiction when we can see what happens in single payer systems that have existed for decades?
Have we been able to see what happens in single payer systems that are under enormous financial strain at the same time that a number of brand new groundbreaking future technologies debut?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Dumb.
Don't insult me, tell me how we could possibly avoid the temptation to use revolutionary technologies of the 2030s and the threat of losing the ONLY healthcare available to coerce the behaviors we want out of people.
Is this a valid line of argument against having a single payer system? Is this type of thing inevitable, or avoidable? Why *shouldn't* a government / taxpaying public who pays for all aspects of health have a dictatorial say in what people do to and with their bodies? What do you say? How do we avoid this? Should we even avoid this? If the above is a little extreme, feel free to change the year to 2040 or 2050 and then tell me how -and why- we avoid it. Please keep in mind the rapid growth in things like AI, big data, the "Internet of Everything," nanotech medicine, etc. Thanks!
We've already been there, done that during the First Progressive Era's eugenics disgrace.
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough" ring any bells.
Under Buck v Bell, forced sterilizations were allowed and performed "for the protection and health of the state".
We've already been there, done that during the First Progressive Era's eugenics disgrace.
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough" ring any bells.
That was a long time ago. I have my doubts that people of the 2030s wouldn't be able to by and large rationalize actions undertaken to assure compliance. You're basically saying we won't do bad things because we're good people who have been down that road before a century earlier and we've rejected it. I have much less faith than that, I guess.
CRISPR-Cas9 and other genetic techniques (some of which haven't even been discovered or developed yet) will enable us to do mind-boggling things with biology. I'm not convinced they will all be consistent with protecting the liberties and sovereignty of individuals. In fact, I think individual liberty will be a casualty of the next several decades of technological, biological, and societal change and upheaval.
That was a long time ago. I have my doubts that people of the 2030s wouldn't be able to by and large rationalize actions undertaken to assure compliance. You're basically saying we won't do bad things because we're good people who have been down that road before a century earlier and we've rejected it. I have much less faith than that, I guess.
CRISPR-Cas9 and other genetic techniques (some of which haven't even been discovered or developed yet) will enable us to do mind-boggling things with biology. I'm not convinced they will all be consistent with protecting the liberties and sovereignty of individuals. In fact, I think individual liberty will be a casualty of the next several decades of technological, biological, and societal change and upheaval.
Thanks for your thoughts.
No, I'm saying if we give progressives the change to "perfect" humans again, they'll do it again..."for the protection and health of the state".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
