I suspect your opinion will change radically when you are faced with a life-threatening condition that requires medical attention. The probability you will have one of these increases steadily with age and will eventually reach 100%. There is no escaping it.
Maybe it'll be like the person who wrote the article where they get in a wreck and end up dying not because they weren't responsible or lacked insurance or expected a hand-out, but because it was more convenient for the insurance companies to ignore him until he just went away.
Sometimes shit happens, and when it does a functioning, civilized society will help you through the worst of it so that you can either recover and be a productive citizen once again, or at the very least live with a measure of dignity.
It doesn't benefit anyone to constantly lose productive workers, family members, fathers and mothers, scientists, researchers, artists or even those in less glamorous positions to what could've been treated in the early stages at marginal cost.
Why can't we just fix this part? Why do we have to throw out everything and start over?
get in a wreck and end up dying not because they weren't responsible or lacked insurance or expected a hand-out
Is it less of a tragedy then? Does dying with a different kind of disease make you feel better about it?
Edit: I'm not against it in principle. I think it looks fine on paper. I'm against it because it leads to massive conflicts of interest and corruption. I don't think it's a solution to our current problems.
Insurance companies. They lobby. They make it very, very hard to do anything useful.
If you think it leads to "massive conflicts of interest and corruption", then you obviously think relative to the current system. Can you find one example of a country with a more corrupt, more prohibitively expensive medical system than the US?
If you look at the various implementations of universal healthcare, of which there are dozens, you'll find varying levels of corruption, efficiency, and effectiveness, but the current US system is by far the worst in virtually every category. It is the worst possible outlier.
People shouldn't die of easily treatable medical conditions, not in this age. Most countries agree with this in principle and provide medical coverage for their people regardless of income or age. It's expected because people have worked hard to provide it for themselves collectively.
I'm not advocating doing nothing! I just don't think universal healthcare is the only (or best) solution.
the current US system is by far the worst in virtually every category. It is the worst possible outlier.
Exactly, even other non-universal systems have better results than what we have now. I'm not sure why "universal healthcare" is being promoted as the only possible answer.
Why is it that the country with the largest economy in the world, with the highest per-capita GDP, is reluctant to do what other countries have long committed to?
Do you know what it's like to live in a country that has it? You see the doctor, you visit a hospital, you need tests done, you just present your health card and it's all taken care of. The only thing most people see a bill for is for their prescriptions, and even then some countries cover this, too.
When you're in a bind and rushing someone you know to the hospital because they have a life-threatening condition, the last thing you need is the shake-down at the door to see if you have the correct insurance, that you're at the correct hospital, that you've filled out the correct paperwork. There's no question they're covered. You rarely need to worry. You won't get refused on a technicality. You won't be shuttled to a different hospital that's in your network even though the one you're in has the same facilities.
I've had relatives that lived in the US and slowly died of treatable things, but couldn't afford the right kind of treatment and had to make do with second-rate service that even then bankrupted them anyway. How is that fair to anyone?
Universal healthcare. Try it, you'll like it.
Example: My medical diagnosis is an automatic disqualifier for many of the policies my former employer sold. Working at the company did not change that. Why? Because there is no gamble involved. It is all down side. Someone like me is guaranteed to have high healthcare expenses. There is no hope of making money off me. So they don't bother to offer coverage.
How could it be different? How could any corporation or government operate differently?
I did a paper on the topic some years ago. Unfortunately, I have to leave for an appointment. I would be happy to discuss it with you further if you are genuinely interested.
FWIW: I don't entirely disagree with you. I am not convinced that mandating universal healthcare would fix the US system. I just don't think your callous perspective on the topic is a real solution.
Catch you later.