I'm not saying that the guy should die instead of using other people's money to postpone death. I'm saying that he has no more right to that money than those other people do. You're talking as if there is an infinite amount of money to be spent on this one person. But spending money on this guy takes it away from other people. The world doesn't revolve around this one guy, you know?
Someone has to make the decision: how much money is it worth to postpone my death for a while? And if I arbitrarily decide that one more breath is worth all the money in the world, that doesn't automatically mean that I now get to spend all the money in the world on it. Even with "universal health care" there are limits.
Also, all the money that gets paid out by the state has to be paid in first by taxpayers. Moving responsibility to the state doesn't magically make health care cheaper, or free. On average, the taxpayers are still paying for all their health care.
US pays more state money to health care than other nations, yet has much worse health outcomes.
Governments have dual interests - have better benefit:cost ratio and spend less tax. They are oversighted by quangos and tax-payers.
But a more interesting question is why people don't help themselves - we know about the importance of good food and exercise and sensible drinking and not smoking and not driving like an idiot etc, yet a lot of illness is caused by entirely preventable stuff.
We know that even if people can get medication they don't take it properly. (There's no difference between the UK (where most people getting meds don't have to pay for them) or the US (where most people have to pay) or the severity of the illness (most transplanted organ failures are because people don't comply with the medication regime.)
This is a significant cost. Just the cost of the meds - in the UK we spend about £9billion per year on meds, of which about half (£4.5billion) is wasted because people don't comply with the instructions. And then there's the additional cost of treating those people.
How would an insurance company get customers, if their services aren't good for customers?
And the only time you know your insurance is lousy is when you're trying to make a claim - at that point you may have years of time with and payments to that company.
You and I know this is a complete red herring. When we talk about preventing deaths, we're talking about delaying deaths and lengthening lives toward their natural lifespans.
> Someone has to make the decision: how much money is it worth to postpone my death for a while? And if I arbitrarily decide that one more breath is worth all the money in the world, that doesn't automatically mean that I now get to spend all the money in the world on it. Even with "universal health care" there are limits.
Absolutely true. That's why every insurance system - public or private - has rationing, whether you call it that or not. I don't get why you bring up this point, when it clearly doesn't detract from the usefulness of public health insurance at all. Having everyone insured just means more people will live longer lives and/or endure less pain.
> Also, all the money that gets paid out by the state has to be paid in first by taxpayers. Moving responsibility to the state doesn't magically make health care cheaper, or free. On average, the taxpayers are still paying for all their health care.
Sure. I didn't say anything about social insurance making it cheaper. But it is a fact that healthcare's a lot cheaper mostly anywhere besides the US of A. I remember seeing comparison tables showing that US health outcomes per dollar are much poorer than elsewhere, so you guys are clearly getting a raw deal.
(edit: Let's not forget that lots of diseases don't get stopped in their early stages because the sufferers don't have insurance, so they end up in heavy debt due to the high cost of a cure or late treatment. Prevention or early treatment would probably save money, and would also give these people significantly longer lives. Surely that's something worth paying for.)
If you're against wealth redistribution (or whatever they like to call it), just come right out and say it. Don't tiptoe around the issue with irrelevant points.
Yes, that is my point. If you're sick that doesn't give you a unilateral claim to take other people's money. In fact this story is a pretty good example: He got healthcare way beyond what a sane government program would mandate (held his job for a full year, paid for an MRI etc). And it was paid for "socially".
But it is a fact that healthcare's a lot cheaper mostly anywhere besides the US of A.
Yes, the US healthcare system is screwed up. But I don't understand the knee-jerk "universal healthcare" reactions.
Not saying it automatically would improve everything. I don't know that. Just saying the current American system is pretty broken.
Again: Not sure what would work in the U.S. because there are more differences between the U.S. and Europe than just who pays the doctor's bill and there are a great many more things which impact health outcomes than how the bills are paid. Unfortunately, Americans seem largely oblivious to those facts, which is why we keep talking about who to bill rather than how to get genuinely better health outcomes.
The conversation in my country is not about "claims on others' money" or other such matters of pure principle, but rather what produces humane outcomes. Having a medical safety net for everyone is kind of taken for granted here - a poor-to-middling option, but far preferable to a you're-(mostly)-on-your-own system like in the US.
One principle from an ethics class in school comes back to me: before we were born, while we were behind the "veil of ignorance", if we didn't know what sort of family we'd be born in, what rules would we prefer in life? If you didn't know what sort of family background or medical conditions you'd have in your life, would you prefer social insurance or take your chances? I'd definitely prefer insurance for everyone, because then I'd have a fighting chance if I were born to poor parents.
> But everyone dies, regardless of how much they deserve it. So why shouldn't we try to reduce it happening?
Your comment seems to be saying this state of affairs is somehow more desirable than the alternative...that it's better that the guy died than other people be forced to pay taxes to insure him. That kind of boggles my mind, to be honest.