From an economical point is view are you for/against taxpayer funded healthcare?

JunkTop
JunkTop

From an economical point is view are you for/against taxpayer funded healthcare?

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

For. Ready access to healthcare, especially preventative healthcare, leads to healthier, more productive citizens.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

For.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

For
People who are in good health are more productive, so it has to be preventative, not reactionary

Bidwell
Bidwell

Against
Taxation is theft.
Yes I built that
Get off my lawn

idontknow
idontknow

Death and taxes
Get used to it

hairygrape
hairygrape

Get back in your cage /pol/.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

Why aren't you fags working? Oh right the layoffs lol. How are cartoons today kids?

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

against

implying /pol/ isnt all national socialists that love gibsmedats

RumChicken
RumChicken

I've earned the right to imply that by surviving numerous /pol/ raids on Veeky Forums.

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

well let me tell you, /pol/ is all nazis that love gibsmedats

they want universal healthcare, just only for white people

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

For

It is either I pay $3000 out of my pocket annually for the health insurance that would even deny my claims based on "pre-existing" conditions or everyone else who earns more than $90,000 per year pays extra 1% Medicare surcharge.

Guess, which one I prefer

Illusionz
Illusionz

What about offering health care to non citizens?

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

It makes sense since white nationalists would want a system that benefits only whites who have been paying for the pot for several decades. I suspect they would never want "recent migrants" to receive the same level of support from the government, regardless how much these migrants have contributed to the society.

Lunatick
Lunatick

Apart from PR visa holders, I think that would be an incredibly stupid idea.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

No. But all visitors to the country must have a visa with proof of insurance for duration of stay.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

Oh yeah obviously it should cover PR holders as well since they're paying into the system and are on track for citizenship.

Bidwell
Bidwell

Against
The government is extremely inefficient. It would be just as shit as all the other government services
A subsidy overall would probably be cheaper and better.

SniperWish
SniperWish

Private entities always seek profits on top of their cost. How could they be "cheaper"?

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

Sure, only if I get to pay less based on how healthy I am. Why do I need to be paying the same as the lard who weighs 400 pounds and is rotting from the inside out with diabetes?
everything the government spends money on is lost forever. the money going to companies having to compete each other will actually make it cheaper.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

the conservative notion in the US is that they're not motivated to efficiency because they're not rewarded for it. In fact they're rewarded for inefficiency.

in practice any efficiency gained by privatizing is actually lost when the private firm realizes they only need to be MARGINALLY CHEAPER THAN GOVERNMENT, so the proceeds of their efficiency go directly to profits to owners rather than savings by the public.

so in the US at least, government whether public or private in operations will be equally inefficient because it can be.

FastChef
FastChef

No. Why the fuck should I have to pay for some fat fuck's triple bypass surgery or Tyrone's crack addiction?

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

You are not answering the question. The government doesn't mind losing money to provide the bare minimum services to everyone. However, the companies should make a profit from their cost(or otherwise known as investment), so they may not be able to provide services to everyone and the cost per service will eventually increase. Competition actually COSTS the companies as well because they need to spend money for things like commercials whilst the government doesn't need to do that because they usually hold the monopoly of the market.

So tell, how exactly private companies make things cheaper?

DeathDog
DeathDog

Company A sells a shit product, Company B picks up business. Company A changes its strategy to compete and draw back business from Company B. Hypothetically now both companies have the same standard of operation.
How do they take business from the other? Decrease in price.
Decrease in price but decrease in quality? Enter company C.
That's capitalism plain and simple. When a hole is open in the market, someone will try to fill it in.
Repeat ad infintum to all other businesses that are now tied to those initial companies and you'll see prices go down while business owners make a profit.
The government doesn't mind losing money because:
1. currency doesn't exist, it's an infinite loop of IOU notes thanks to the Federal Reserve and they will always print more
2. the more politicians promise to spend money, the more votes they'll get
In the case of the ACA, premiums are just raised on the middle class bleeding them dry.
You don't really think everything the government provides is free right? Or do you just not pay tax and don't notice?

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

For

Firespawn
Firespawn

The issue of health insurance is that no one is tripping over themselves to insure the people who need it the most since they are expensive to insure and are broke. You either exclude them or you charge an arm or a leg. ACA only got us the second option.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

libertarians belong only on /pol/
Go back to whatever leftist shithole you came from, dude.

Supergrass
Supergrass

Against.

Lunatick
Lunatick

Where in the Constitution does it say that health care is a universal right? All I see is the government telling its citizens how to live and spend their money. Our founding fathers started a revolution for less.
If you really feel so sorry for everyone, have you considered paying for their care yourself?

Methshot
Methshot

What does your reply have to do with anything i said? You did not address any of my arguments in the least.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

To add a little more, how is universal health care (which i was not even arguing about) unconstitutional?

FastChef
FastChef

yes lets make someones time and professions which varies sometimes by rate due to expertise, lets also disregard its a SERVICE. so all that aside, you guys really think these insurance companies and medical companies are willing to lose money by not only accepting people who are so fucked up that they have to pay out way more claims and the fact that they will have to strike some type of deal with the gov to make it anywhere NEAR being affordable as to not GET US INTO EVEN MORE FUCKING DEBT, so yes i am against it, this is not canada, and while i would support it if it were in place the proper infrastructure has to be set for this to work PROPERLY, and here in the U.S that will never happen i dont think.

SniperGod
SniperGod

Against.
Too many fat fucks and retards in my country. They'll abuse it without question. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay for a fat-ass's heart medication, much less several million fat asses.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Against in usa
I have dual citizenship
Doctors here are such crooks, I would rather go to meixco, UK or the one decent hospital in the usa (Oklahoma) if something was seriously wrong.

likme
likme

CitIzen of USA pays a lot more for their healthcare per capita. American health professionals get PAID A LOT, too. Of course, you would get what you pay - the best possible healthcare in the world because you have the most expensive one.

Question : is it for everyone? Poorfags cannot afford such health care and the company either charges the most vulnerable group of your country the premium that they cannot afford or exclude from the system at all.

The government doesn't mind losing money and will make sure everyone will have some kinds of covers.

TreeEater
TreeEater

What the fuck has happened to Veeky Forums? Even a business board can't get a majority of libertarians, the world is truly fucked.

Free health care is the opposite of what you want. When reactionary healthcare is free, there is less incentive to take responsible preventative care of yourself.

And since you're arguing for productivity you should recognize that a massive chunk of spending goes to prolonging the life of old people for a few more unproductive years. You are trading the productive years of some of the brightest people (eg doctors) to prolong the lives of some of the most unproductive members of society (elderly and chronic illness cases like diabetes).

And those are only the reasons against tax funded care that counter your points.

This guy is right. Sad.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Against

But I was thinking maybe it should be free for disabled people or people that don't have an income in general (but are applying for jobs) or are unable to work and have proof of that.
And babies should get free healthcare. Elderly should have saved for situations like this, and the general population with a job should pay for their own problems instead of freeloading from other peoples hard earned money.
Tax is not a charity.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

You dont understand healthcare here.
American health care sucks, and is expensive.
They limit the amount of doctors first by med school, then by residency.
60-70% of med students arn't even born in the usa.
It's not because of americans arn't smart enough, or don't want to do it.
It's because it's ridiculously competitive, due to the limiting of slots for school.
I had a problem recently, and my insurance changed in the process.
I told my new doctors what my previous specialist told me, they laughed.

After 3 doctors, and about 10 formal grievances later, I am finally getting an antibiotic.

Methnerd
Methnerd

Not a charity
Describes a charity

SniperGod
SniperGod


It makes sense since white nationalists would want a system that benefits only whites who have been paying for the pot for several decades. I suspect they would never want "recent migrants" to receive the same level of support from the government, regardless how much these migrants have contributed to the society.

Blacks,latinx,whites,Asians it don't matter all you gotta do to get healthcare is get a fuckn full time job it ain't hard stop being partime to leech more gibs and go full time

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

Against.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
life
not in the Constitution

It even comes before liberty. Argue all you want about intent, but yes, the right to not die through lack of health care is implicitly written into the Consitution the same way you owning a gun while not being in any kind of militia is.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

For.

From a conceptual perspective it's obvious that a single healthcare provider has a much bigger negotiating power to get better deals with big pharma and hospitals.
But mostly I'm basing it on empirical evidence. The US claims to not have public healthcare, yet they still have the highest per-capita public spending on healthcare in the world with Medicaid and Medicare comprising something like 60% of their budget. That's crazy for the very limited and shitty service they provide. For the same money in other developed countries you get full coverage for everyone.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

The government is extremely inefficient
You've obviously never owed the IRS money. The only inefficiency is corruption - and that's concentrated in the military industrial complex

w8t4u
w8t4u

Thanks for the assertion.

Really gets the naggin gaggin

Methnerd
Methnerd

libertarians
When reactionary healthcare is free, there is less incentive to take responsible preventative care of yourself.
I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but this is one area where the free market utterly fails. Show me evidence for your moral hazard problem. I don't see an empirical connection. The US has easily the biggest epidemic in obesity due to shitty nutrition and lack of exercise. Why aren't they taking better care of themselves even though hospital visits are ruinously expensive?

I get that the compulsory nature sucks, but I like the concept on an insurance. When you are young you neither know nor care about your future health. Being you and spry you have no concept of chronic ailments. And when your old days with deteriorating health are here it's too late to start saving up.
At this point we as the public are faced with a choice. Should we let those people die horribly, because they cannot afford healthcare? Personally, libertarian or not, I don't really want to live in such a cutthroat society. Even the fucking US Republicans (hardly proponents of public healthcare) were outraged at the now infamous made-up Obamacare "deathpanels". This shit ain't right. But when we don't want to stand by and watch people die - we have to publicly fund their healthcare. And now you can do the stupid thing like the US and pay it out of the public budget without collecting anything from the people getting coverage. Or you can do the smart thing, institute a public insurance system and have the people getting coverage pay for it while they're young.
A single healthcare provider mandatory insurance system honestly seems closer to libertarian free market ideas than the alternative, which would be purely subsidized.