Talk:Universal health care

	This Politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

I don't agree with all the removals to the article.

I don't see how this is justified. This call to laugh at the American right-wing is deserved. Nerd, I think you're taking snark way too literally. Also, later, this graph is subsequently removed/replaced, and I don't see any reason it should be.

I also don't agree with removing every single case of it or this. While anecdotes are not data, they can powerfully illustrate the consequences of a health care system rather than simple arguments about statistics and hypotheticals. If this takes up too much space in the article, then maybe we can outsource this information into a separate article.

This should not have been removed all together. This should've been added with something like "Vermont later removed it due to unsustainable costs[source]."

None of these removals appear justified. Why can't we mention how hospitals or drug pricing works? They're intertwined with the U.S. health care system. If it's unsourced, then add the appropriate tags.

This is just balance toning the article in my opinion.

This is an unjustified removal of a joke. And it's not a bad joke either.

More removal of snark and sarcastic statements that I think is unjustified because I think the cynicism toward the healthcare system in the U.S. is deserved.

Though I think this removal is fine. It's too much.

I also don't think soap-scrubbing "clusterfuck" off the article is a good idea as I think it accurately describes both the ruling in Canada and our healthcare system, more accurately than "ruling" or "situation" anyway. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Let me take my time to address each of these.

That joke on social Darwinism can be moved to the introduction if you wish. I'm thinking of adding to the bullet point for the out-of-pocket model. But frankly, joking with people's health is bad taste in my view. This is very serious business. We're talking possible life-and-death situations here.

Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, nor are they necessarily statistically significant. I'd say descriptive statistics are sufficient. These many are living without insurance and these many die each year because they lack insurance.

Go ahead and re-add and clarify the situation of Vermont.

You can explain how hospital and drug pricing works. But please keep it as brief as possible. Again, this is an overview, not a detailed account.

I replaced the old map with one from this year.

People are dying. So I don't think we should be making jokes about how medical dramas are the most important thing. No news is good news. As is no drama.

Frankly, I don't thing those statements are really funny. They just reinforce the not-so-positive perception of this site as a liberal blog. I want this article to be professional and objective.

That joke about guns and healthcare is rather poor. Universal healthcare simply did not exist back when the Second Amendment was conceived. It is also self-contradictory given that many, most, or all of "the rest of the developed world" get their medical care subsidized by Americans. Who died to make you lecturer on life and death?

I think that word is too much. The word ruling is accurate. Whether you agree with it is a different story. Nerd (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Two major points. A) I think the word clusterfuck aptly describes a healthcare system that is not only broken, but actively works against it's recipients in several areas. B) I think we should laugh at the situation, since attempting to reason hasn't gotten us very far, though to be fair my sense of humor is blacker than pitch. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but I don't mind a little dark humor and cynicism as humor for this kind of situation. I don't think the snark is done in bad taste. What I think straddles taste is the "look U.S. the world is laughing at you", but it might be more palatable if it's either reworded to "horrified" or the world is lambasting the politicians who have all the power in the world, but somehow fail to take care of their own people. Maybe that's fine? It's still informal and snarky, but it's not too distasteful.

Hm, I still have to disagree with descriptive statistics as they can be a little bland. I think a few stories here and there can really personalize and hone in the point, but we shouldn't overload it either. Maybe that's for essayspace or funspace where we create a chronicle of people who suffer from the U.S. healthcare system.

I suggested that the hospital and drug pricing thing should probably be put in an article about the U.S. healthcare system, if there isn't an article about U.S. healthcare already.

Nnn, I'd just say the edit is just a "no fun allowed". Still, no skin off my nose especially if the humor adds nothing to the article anyway. I think to try to steer the site away from being a "liberal blog" is a wrong approach to take and might require re-doing the core policies of this site, so this should be reserved for another discussion. There are some essays on it, like this one Essay:Too much snark considered harmful. And I could've sworn we had people questioning the snarky point of view, and it has "rethinking" in there, but now I can't find it.

I agree about the joke about guns and healthcare. Don't need it in the article.

IDK I am a personal fan of the word. I love the juxtaposition of how it uses a strong word and the childish mashing together of the word as well as the assonance between the two. The result makes it a silly chaotic word and almost perfect to describe ridiculously convoluted entanglements. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. That's what bothers me. Get your healthcare subsidized by American than laugh at Americans for not having universal healthcare. What?!

OK. If you guys insist on keeping that word – and you know how much I dislike vulgar language – can we replace it with something along the lines of "a tremendous flop"? I'd say that's a fair compromise.

Profit is a strong motivation, without the slightest doubt. But not the only one. Also, red-baiting does not work as well as it did. Have you seen this? Also, my biology textbook unapologetically uses the phrase "socialized healthcare" with positive connotation. :-)

If you want to create another article chronicling the unfortunate events due to unaffordable healthcare in the U.S., please go ahead. You can also add some of them as notes.

Now on to a different thing. I'd like your opinions on this. Do you think things would improve if the U.S. government provided stable and ample funding to the National Institutes of Health and public research universities so that they can develop drugs that, once completed, belong to the public domain, thereby preventing companies from monopolize them? Nerd (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

From a stable system that isn't run by greedy vultures? Slightly, since such a system would be better than what we currently have. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A side benefit of my proposal will be more doctors and other medical professionals, such as biomedical engineers and medical physicists, as we're giving more funding to medical schools. And we are going to need them when 15% of the American population take advantage of their new insurance, as they should. :-)

But there might be more. Since drugs will belong to the public domain, at least some of them may be manufactured at home. We produced small samples of aspirin in chemistry class. Make America cook again! Don't quote me on this though. I'm not an expert. Nerd (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think those need funding. Anything to make the power balance not tipped toward those massive money whores.

GrammarCommie, don't be mean to vultures. Vultures play an integral role of the ecosystem. Corporations, on the other hand, are just making money off people at the expense of literally everything else and are major polluters anyway. I would say like parasites but I figure parasites have their role here. Of course I'm a strong supporter of things on public domain. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario @GrammarCommie Well, I think you guys are making an overgeneralization here. Of course for-profit corporations will maximize profits by whatever means possible. If it means pollution, they would do it. If it means exploiting workers, they would do it. If it means facilitating social progress, they would do it. Corporations are not immoral; they are amoral. This is why regulatory oversight is necessary. Nerd (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages

I loathe sections like. They give undue weight to shitty arguments. The one we have is no different. Specifically... That there no incentive to live healthily. And some moralising about poor choices. Its bullshit. Completely. I mean, in theory, it might be true, might. If you think not dying from dreadful diseases through poor lifestyle as not an incentive, that cash money is the only incentive worth anything. It might be true. But is true? What if we are to compare obesity rates, smoking and drinking, drug usage in countries with uhc and countries without. I assume the land of the free, the land that brought us the marlboro man is populated by teetotal stickthin athletes and not one of the fattest nations on earth. that these things are influenced by so many things beyond heath coverage just makes this argument even shitter.

Stifles innovation. Does it really? The link provided insists it does and not much more. This article says even less. As with the above, it might and it does are very different things,hould treated and weighted accordingly. The Way all the points in these sections no distinction between what might be effect of uhc and what is, no difference between speculation and supported that.

And just a bit about the budget concerns. It is true that growing and aging populations will add to strain to the healthcare system - any system. I do take particular With the use of the nhs and its funding issues. It conflates the political expediency of some of the worst shits alive with with a supposedly evitable uhc. This just plain wrong. If the nhs is 'dying' it is because it is being murdered. Actively, vigourously, intentionally murdered. Its has been underfunded and defunded with flimsiest of rationalisations. 'effieciencies' forced upon it year after year - ones that can be made are made at the first asking. The next time you are asked the result is a detriment to the service. How many nurses can you cut effiency savings before service is harmed? Then keep making them? It is no surprise that people involved with this are the worst of the brexiters, the worse kind of idealogue, enamoured with a bizarre fantasy of the american system, have written papers arguing no to more nurses because 'they do not contribute to gdp'. The absolute fucking cuntholes. With how brexit goes, they may actually win. In short budget concerns are always an issue, but examples given are not the proof of an inherent unsustainability, not on their own, nor without reference to wider worlds of politics in which they occur.

Im editting on xbox for reasons, so ive been not really been able to provide links or even double check my facts once started. I will try to provide if require an ask for some AMassiveGay (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ignore the bit on budget concerns, ijust saw mention of the nhs and flew into rage. Its not relevent to whats in the article. It might be somewhere, but not there. sorry. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

a point i missed (editting on a xbox) that you can become dependent social services and it does not encourage fiscal responsibility. What? There may be arguments about folk dependant on the dole, arguments about welfare traps, but they are not relevant to healthcare in the slightest. If you dependant on healthcare its because you are fucking ill. Its not because you are not trying hard enough. I would agree though it does not encourage fiscal responsibility. Why the fuck would it? Does saving a few pence baked beans stop your cancer metastasing to your lungs? Saving for old and stuff is a grand thing to do, please encourage it. Its not healthcare providers job to though. Its even worse when you consider fiscal responility in a country without uhc might (i say might here for the us, substitute does for might) mean letting curable ailments fester until health is irrepable damaged and whole lot more expensive. It mean your house repossessed because your insurance company are dicks and wont pay all or some of the costs for your treatment. It might mean painful and lingering death, financially crippling you and your loved ones in the process. Fiscal responsility? Fuck off, its insane AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

i also note of the points that cited any sources, only 2 points cite sources that support the argument being made. The sources for the 'no incentive to be healthy' and the about social care - they are no good. I dont mean they draw different conclusion, or its a bit of a stretch, i mean they dont close to even mention any thing in the argument being made. Maybe they were meant for somewhere else or the point was rewritten but see that connects the source to the argument. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Other advantages

I didn't want to edit because someone was busy revising, but other advantages are:

1. Integration with other functions of the state, e.g. social care, education (esp. health education), criminal justice system (for drug addiction, mental health, etc), welfare (poverty, bad housing, etc, being strongly linked with ill-health). In theory these could all be coordinated (although in practice they seldom are).
2. Encourages early detection if free at point of access, ultimately reducing long-term costs by picking up diseases earlier (although with the disadvantages of longer queues and greater expenses from larger numbers of unnecessary doctor visits; false positive diagnoses causing distress; more treatment of trivial disorders; etc) --Annanoon (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Annanoon Thank you for you input!

Could you please further explain number one? If you make it just another function for the government, why would it be more efficient? How would these functions be coordinate? It is not obvious to me.

Number two is an interesting point. You forgo the possibility of early detection due to long queues, as is common in single-payer countries such as Canada or the United Kingdom. This, however, is not a problem in multi-payer systems, such as in France, Germany and Japan, where wait times are quite short. Japanese patients rarely make appointments; they simply enter the clinics. Moreover, annual health checks in Japan are free. Nerd (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Compare and contrast

People are going to need different amounts of healthcare 'for all the usual reasons': one can argue for a mixture of direct payment for specific components and indirect (via taxation).

People also use the road system to different extents and will have different impacts on it (from 'a ginormous look-at-me with all the fittings' down to shoes) but they accept that they will pay something towards its upkeep - so why do 'some people' complain about something similar for health care? Anna Livia (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

NHS part seems to be outdated

Reading the NHS part it seems either to be incorrect or only appropriate in a past tense, especially the part about the low bureaucracy involved in the NHS, opendemocracy goes on to elaborate on the massive wastefulness of the internal market that was introduced by conservatives in the past that makes up at least 14% of the NHS budget today and doesn't seem to produce anything of value (and is possibly a den of corruption in my personal beliefs, as it seems like an easy place to find it). I can touch the article up and give it some more sources and an improved timeline, unless there are any objections? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No objections here, as a member of the mob myself. Justarandomliberal (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)