#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
When libs say healthcare for all, do they mean cancer treatments as well?
Study: "Medicare for all" plan touted by Bernie Sanders would cost $32.6 trillion
Yes, everything
Side Score: 19
|
 |
Only basic care
Side Score: 15
|
|
1
point
Study: "Medicare for all" plan touted by Bernie Sanders would cost $32.6 trillion Side: Only basic care
3
points
The cost of Medicare for all would move from the private sector to the public sector. This means that overall cost of healthcare would go down because it allows government to negotiate prices of both medication and treatment. Since the government has no profit incentive unlike current health insurance plans, the lack of profit reduces the cost of running Medicare for all. The government would no longer need to reimburse private entities (i.e hospitals) for the cost the poor, disabled, and elderly. It's also difficult to calculate the current impact to the economy due to people dying early or losing wages from treatable illnesses due to lacking healthcare or avoiding healthcare costs. Government spending would certainly go up but only by the amount the private sector already spends on healthcare. The government would gain revenue from individual expenditures that are currently going into the private sector. When you take into account those things, a Medicare for all plan could potentially save Americans money on healthcare expenses and taxes. Side: Yes, everything
It is not good for government to negotiate prices and treatment. And real costs would go up. First, it’s not a negotiation when there is no alternative. Meaning the government sets its price, and people go along with it. Whatever incentive their price creates will be the outcome, keeping in mind there is no alternative. Meaning no one is in competition to offer better services at lower prices. I’ll grant you that the price system is disrupted as it is now, but the solution is not to remove altogether, but rather to reintroduce it. Second, it is never good when the government is deciding treatment. You are mistaken to think the government is unconcerned by cost. They are only unconcerned until the debt catches up. And it will catch up. Side: Only basic care
1
point
It is not good for government to negotiate prices and treatment. Yes, obviously customers should never negotiate prices with capitalists. We should all just pay what Amarel tells us to pay. I don't know about you, but his sneering self-contradictory rhetoric has definitely convinced me. First, it’s not a negotiation when there is no alternative. Meaning the government sets its price, and people go along with it. Oh the SHEER irony!! Ahahahaha! As you are particularly keen to keep informing us pal, if you don't like the deal being offered then you are perfectly free and welcome to go somewhere else. That's the beauty of capitalism you see. You don't have to accept a job offered by the government or anybody else, as you keep gleefully informing us on a daily basis. Nice to see you have absolutely no shame about contradicting your own ideological narrative, you obnoxiously narcissistic, semi-delusional halfwit. Side: Yes, everything
it’s not a negotiation when there is no alternative. Meaning the government sets its price, and people go along with it. Oh the SHEER irony!! Ahahahaha! As you are particularly keen to keep informing us pal, if you don't like the deal being offered then you are perfectly free and welcome to go somewhere else. Yes, in a free market you have options. I like those. I want to keep those With the government, you don’t have options. That’s what I’m arguing against. I’m never really sure if you just troll this hard or if you are this stupid. Side: Only basic care
1
point
It is not good for government to negotiate prices and treatment. And real costs would go up. How would real cost go up? There's no mechanism for this to occur. The government has no intensive for healthcare prices to go up. While in the current system private entities have a huge intensive for prices to go up, not only for healthcare, but treatments and medications as well. it’s not a negotiation when there is no alternative Government would be negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and get good deals on drugs. They would also negotiate with hospitals to get better prices on treatments. Meaning no one is in competition to offer better services at lower prices. The government has no need to inflate healthcare costs. Taxes would be set such as to cover the expenses. The same way the government runs the military, it would run healthcare. Government running a healthcare system for all is not new. Governments like Norway have shown that it is possible, which ranks as one of the best. Not only is it possible, but it's cheaper and more efficient for the government to run healthcare than the private sector. Where if we only need to look back before Obamacare and see where healthcare privatization fails, even now it is still failing. Current healthcare system is the most expensive in the world. Competition among healthcare providers has done little to reduce the actual cost of care since there's no intensive for any private entity to lose on profits. Even before Obamacare there was even no incentive to provide healthcare. They are only unconcerned until the debt catches up. And it will catch up. Like I said in my previous post. Most of the cost would just transfer from private to public sector. Instead of paying to Anthem you would pay into Medicare. There's no new debt, government can finance healthcare with taxes. Money that already goes into healthcare as: paying private insurance, copay, deductibles, etc. Side: Yes, everything
It is not good for government to negotiate prices and treatment. And real costs would go up. How would real cost go up? There's no mechanism for this to occur. The government has no intensive for healthcare prices to go up. Price and cost are not the same thing. Price is a quantification of cost. Since prices and costs do not rise and fall strictly on a whim, it doesn’t matter that government has no incentive to raise costs because the circumstances you propose will raise them. By eliminating all consumer costs for healthcare, you drive up demand, which would normally drive up price. By government suppression of price, the cost shifts back to the consumer in terms of time on a waiting list. While in the current system private entities have a huge intensive for prices to go up, not only for healthcare, but treatments and medications as well. Where the market is free to operate, the incentive is to lower the price, thus attracting more patients which increases profits. Medications are astronomical in the US for a few reasons. One is that insurance is used to cover everything, even things it shouldn’t. This removes the consumer from the price of their product, so there’s no incentive to shop around. Another reason is that big pharmaceuticals are extremely innovative producers of new medicine, and that cost money. It costs more in the US because other western nations have price controls that keep the price unnaturally low. To recoup those losses in Europe, Americans get charged more. Government would be negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and get good deals on drugs. Governments don’t negotiate terms, they set them. If the pharmaceutical company doesn’t like the terms, where else will they go? Nowhere. Instead they will cut out research and development. No one will miss the miracle drugs that are never discovered. If the terms get worse, they will find another way to cut corners. That’s not a negotiation situation. The government has no need to inflate healthcare costs. Price suppression isn’t cost suppression. You can’t regulate costs away. They are a fact of life. Governments like Norway have shown that it is possible, which ranks as one of the best. Sure it’s possible. That doesn’t mean it’s better. The US leads the world in average life expectancy of cancer patients. If you remove auto accidents and gun deaths (situations the medical community can’t solve) we are among to top. Norway is a small country with large quantities of natural gas and oil. Their situation is not at all similar to the US. Neither is it necessarily better. Not only is it possible, but it's cheaper and more efficient for the government to run healthcare than the private sector. Have you ever heard of direct primary care? The government has wrecked the market for health insurance. That’s the primary cause of our cost issues. Direct primary care is when a doctor refuses to accept any insurance. They take money directly. By doing this, they are able to charge patients way way less than what hospitals charge insurance companies. They are able to serve poor communities this way, and without the waiting lists that the government kills our vets with at the VA hospital. And it doesn’t get more capitalist. Where if we only need to look back before Obamacare and see where healthcare privatization fails, even now it is still failing. Health insurance is not the same as healthcare. Health insurance is broken. Healthcare is amongst the best in the world. Current healthcare system is the most expensive in the world. Competition among healthcare providers has done little to reduce the actual cost of care since there's no intensive for any private entity to lose on profits. Do you know what an HMO is? It’s the kind of regulation that adds significantly to costs. They started over 40 years ago. Reducing price is exactly how companies increase profits. That’s why mega corporations, such as Walmart, are known for low prices. Cell phone companies put super-computers into the hands of the poor due to competition driving down price. If you think you prefer government to private sector, consider Taxis to Uber. Even before Obamacare there was even no incentive to provide healthcare. Way before the bad old days, when the government wasn’t jacking up the health insurance market, a poor and working class family could afford an individual health care plan out of pocket. Most of the cost would just transfer from private to public sector. What incentive does the government have to reduce costs? Side: Only basic care
1
point
...By government suppression of price, the cost shifts back to the consumer in terms of time on a waiting list. There's no perfect healthcare system, every system comes with its cons and pros. Government regulation of prices or even legislation to limit them has worked in many other countries like Canada and the UK. A waiting list is not a terrible system if implemented properly, as opposed to the current system of massive medical debt and priority based on personal income instead of need. Where the market is free to operate, the incentive is to lower the price When a market is free to operate the incentive is to become a monopoly, lobby for more deregulation, take out competition especially if the competition has a superior product. Then at the end charge exorbitant prices for inelastic goods and services. (e.g., Microsoft and Bell Industries) Medications are astronomical in the US for a few reasons Because of monopoly rights on drug the US grants drug companies. This monopoly prevents generics from being made. They are also allowed to set their own prices. That's more likely why medication is so expensive rather than R&D costs. . If the pharmaceutical company doesn’t like the terms, where else will they go? Nowhere. Instead they will cut out research and development R&D of companies is not what you think it is. Most companies are not making new drugs, they taking existing medications moving a hydroxyl group around, re-patenting the drug, and then selling it at a high price again. Another common tactic is to research new delivery methods for the same effect (insulin changing their needle). Drug innovation is more commonly done around the world (no just the US) by universities and government funded scientific research. That research is where we actually get life-saving and revolutionary treatments. You can’t regulate costs away. They are a fact of life. Sorry I used costs incorrectly. I meant to say: to regulate prices. The US leads the world in average life expectancy of cancer patients. You can't cherry pick the data. You have to look at the big picture. The US rank last amount developed nation in terms on healthcare especially in outcomes [mirror, mirror 2017, commonwealthfund.org]. [Norway's] situation is not at all similar to the US. Neither is it necessarily better. Norway ranks as one of the best healthcare systems in the world by WHO. I only used it as an example to show that a competent government can run a healthcare-for-all system successfully. I'm not insinuating that Norway's exact system would work in the US, just that a similar systems has worked elsewhere. Have you ever heard of direct primary care? Is there a place where this has been tried large scale and shown to succeed? Health insurance is not the same as healthcare. Health insurance is broken. Healthcare is amongst the best in the world. I agree. Like I said previously, healthcare outcomes in US rank the lowest among developed nations, primarily due to lack of access to our high quality care. If you think you prefer government to private sector, consider Taxis to Uber. Those are both private sector. Just one has more regulation. Not everything is solvable through the private sector. Privatization has failed in my areas like railroads, fiber optics installation, EZ pass states, and healthcare. While the government has successfully managed programs like Title II, Title XVI, Title IV-A, USPS for generations. Way before the bad old days Do you mean when tax rates for the rich were around 45%? What incentive does the government have to reduce costs? There are more demanding uses of tax dollars than healthcare. Every dollar spent is a dollar not spent on defense and infrastructure. Side: Yes, everything
Government regulation of prices or even legislation to limit them has worked in many other countries like Canada and the UK. Sure, as long as the market is global and those losses can be made up by charging more than otherwise in freer economies. It works fine in Canada where they all bitch about the system amongst each other and in UK where they literally bar sick kids from going to other countries to seek services the UK denies them. A waiting list is not a terrible system if implemented properly, as opposed to the current system of massive medical debt and priority based on personal income instead of need. A waiting list is the only system when medical infrastructure is overloaded, as they always are when the consumer is promised free shit. It is always terrible for the person seeking help. I don’t know why you think it is better for government bureaucrats to decide whose need counts and whose need doesn’t. The same government that has helped to bring us these bloated healthcare costs by giving their “help” in the first place should not decide whose need counts. When a market is free to operate the incentive is to become a monopoly And when the market is free, companies are unable to do that. When a market is free to operate the incentive is to lobby for more deregulation How do you think we get so much regulation in the first place? Big companies that can afford the costs lobby for regulations because smaller, would-be competitors cannot afford the cost of many regulations. Every once in a while you hear some mega rich businessman say that he is in favor of much steeper taxes. That weeds out quite a bit of competition for him, but he rich enough to stay comfortable. When a market is free to operate the incentive is to take out competition especially if the competition has a superior product The only way to legally do that is with government force. Then at the end charge exorbitant prices for inelastic goods and services. (e.g., Microsoft and Bell Industries) When a natural monopoly overcharges, they create an opening for the competition. You may have noticed that Microsoft and Bell are not the only two players on the field. You may also have noticed that the price of computer technology has never done anything but fall. And when the government did go after Microsoft, it was for making too much too cheap for too many (they did that to stay on top). And the government came down on Microsoft, it was at the behest of other businessmen who couldn’t compete capitalistically. Because of monopoly rights on drug the US grants drug companies. They grant monopoly rights to everyone who creates a new thing. Patents are an important incentive for innovation. Without them, people could not recoup on the investment into research and development. But yes, this is another example of how the government makes monopolies, not the free market. R&D of companies is not what you think it is. Most companies are not making new drugs, they taking existing medications moving a hydroxyl group around, re-patenting the drug, and then selling it at a high price again Modern medicine is not stagnant. Like much else, medical technology is advancing at increasing rates. This advancement only comes from R&D. It does not come from non-productive system manipulation. Drug innovation is more commonly done around the world (no just the US) by universities and government funded scientific research. That research is where we actually get life-saving and revolutionary treatments. 40% of the world biomedical research papers are produced in the US and those papers are referenced more than other papers around the world. Of all clinical trials in the US, the government only funds 13.8%. The rest is privately funded companies testing their own products. HIV patients around the world are better off because of American medical innovations. While poor African countries have benefited philanthropically, “similar benefits are also enjoyed by German, British, and French HIV patients, and were financed by the same revenues generated, in large part, by high American drug prices.” “The most recent evidence suggests that it takes $2.5 billion in additional drug revenue to spur one new drug approval” https://www.brookings.edu/research/ You can't cherry pick the data. You have to look at the big picture. Indeed. But neither should you cherry pick my response. We have very high rates of auto accidents and deaths from violence. This is not a shortcoming of our medical sector. If you remove those deaths, we are right back up among those at the top for life expectancy. “Overall, quality of care in the U.S. isn’t markedly different from that of other countries, and in fact excels in many areas. For example, the U.S. appears to have the best outcomes for those who have heart attacks or strokes, but is below average for avoidable hospitalizations for patients with diabetes and asthma.” This requires a tweak, not an overhaul. Especially not an ill-conceived overhaul. “despite poor population health outcomes, quality of health care delivered once people are sick is high in the U.S” This requires education, not a medical sector overhaul. In fact, the best solution would likely be to popularize primary direct care, which is best and by far the least expensive for preventative care and routine visits. Is there a place where this has been tried large scale and shown to succeed? More doctors provided more inexpensive primary direct care before the government created the conditions in which we find ourselves today. The few but growing number of doctors who have gone back to that model or something similar have found it works very well for the poor today. The reason is because much of the cost is due to admin costs from stifling government regulation as it relates to healthcare insurance. Primary direct care cuts out the admin overhead costs. Working on a large scale means nothing more than greater numbers of private practice doctors undertaking this model. It’s worth noting that admin costs are among the top 3 reasons for the high cost of US healthcare. The other 2 reasons are costs of medication (which I have already explained), and the salaries of doctors. Concerning Taxis VS Uber, you said Those are both private sector. Just one has more regulation. This isn’t the whole story. Taxis are government enforced monopolies with massive regulation. The outcome is a disgusting ride across town for far far too much. Ride-share is the reintroduction of competition into a market long stifled by government monopoly. Not everything is solvable through the private sector. I completely agree. I’m not an anarchist. What we disagree on is what the government should do vs what it should not. Privatization has failed in my areas You present market sectors without regard for the stifling government regulation that hinders them and you call them private. Railroads, for example, had massive regulation passed against them as early as 1903. It was the Interstate Commerce Commission that ultimately led to railroad failures into the 1970’s. One of your supposed success stories is the USPS. Long known for bad service and high prices, package delivery is in a golden age because of the private sector. The USPS still has a government enforced monopoly over certain kinds of packages, and they receive $18 billion annually in special privileges and tax breaks. The USPS is another example of how the private sector does it better. There are more demanding uses of tax dollars than healthcare. This isn’t an incentive to spend tax money wisely. Nothing particularly bad will happen to government actors if they spend my money poorly. They won’t go bankrupt, they will simply tax more, or print more. They will do this until reality catches up with them. The problem is that when it does, it catches up with everyone else too. Side: Only basic care
1
point
This means that overall cost of healthcare would go down Of course. Welcome to basic common sense. We banned Amarel from this club long ago because he's a pathologically dishonest scumbag who has elevated Freudian projection into an art form. If it's black, he will write you ten thousand words of painfully arrogant vitriol about how white it is and that if you don't believe him you therefore sanctioned the Holocaust. I literally see him as failed DNA. I agree with everything you wrote. Government contracts are a lucrative business (just ask Trump senior!) and would lead to medical providers fighting a price war to win them. The easier healthcare becomes to obtain, the lower its value drops in the market. This of course is just basic economics 101, so it's ironic hearing Amarel throwing around purposefully vague insults about how we don't understand economics. Side: Yes, everything
1
point
2
points
What makes you think that the government has a profit incentive? Not only can governments run programs at margin, but they can also run them at a loss to provide temporary relief (i.e economic recession). A business on the other hand wants its products and services to be priced as high as possible, especially with inelastic goods. That's why long-acting insulin sold in the US costs 13.7 $/ml while somewhere with price controls like Canada costs 5.8 $/ml. Side: Yes, everything
1
point
1
point
Probably a good thing our entire gdp is only $21 trillion then. Just think about how long it took to open all of your accounts. That's time you're never going to get back. If you spent even half as much time on real relationships as you do shitposting on the internet then maybe your kids would want to know you. Side: Yes, everything
1
point
Tell me. You gonna just keep giving meds to hypochondriacs and users that demand more and more of these unlimited drugs? You going to turn away hypochondriacs that go to the doctor every day, or you gonna turn em away? If you don't turn any of them away, we'll be broke in no time. If you CAN turn them away, you and I can be turned away too. Side: Only basic care
1
point
Tell me. You gonna just keep giving meds to hypochondriacs and users that demand more and more of these unlimited drugs? Tell me, you corrupt little retard, do you plan to just keep letting big pharmaceutical companies monopolise the price of life-saving drugs? Your theory that we shouldn't provide a basic level of healthcare to the general population because of "hypochondriacs" is very possibly the most lamentably stupid thing I have heard so far this year. Congratulations. You win a pitiful gaze. Side: Yes, everything
1
point
Study: "Medicare for all" plan touted by Bernie Sanders would cost $32.6 trillion The cost of medical treatment doesn't get more expensive just because there's a universal system, dumbass. Universal systems are expensive because everybody gets access to doctors, not just the elite few who can afford them. What you are really bitching about is the fact that you don't want your tax money to subsidise other people being healthy, and the reason you are doing that is because you are a selfish little psychopath who doesn't give two shits about anyone but himself. At least have the decency to be honest about it. Side: Yes, everything
It’s a real piece of shit who demands other people’s things and accuses those people of selfishness for not wanting to fork it over. And for what in return? Long lines and reduced quality. Awesome. “This is a stick up! Gimme all your money! And don’t be selfish neither, I have a cold!” Side: Only basic care
1
point
It’s a real piece of shit who demands other people’s things I completely agree, which is why I'm anti-capitalist. Capitalists get rich by pretending working for them is a great thing when in actuality they are ripping off all the profit being produced by my labour. They demand I work so that they can get rich from it. That isn't fair and people who do that are pieces of shit. People like you that is. Side: Yes, everything
The cost of medical treatment doesn't get more expensive just because there's a universal system It does actually. It’s called supply and demand, though I know you know nothing about that. Everyone will go to the doctor for everything, increasing the demand. But the normal market downward pressures on prices are removed. So price skyrockets. Since that’s unacceptable, price controls are implemented. That or cost is ignored altogether since it would no longer resemble a market system at all. In either case, waiting lists increase and doctors get spread thin. Then when you finally see a doctor, you get whatever will quickly treat some symptoms to get you out the door. I don’t blame your side though, you’re just ignorant. I blame the people who have actual solutions but can’t seem to speak loud enough to be heard over your sides ignorant screaming masses. It’s all politics. Side: Only basic care
1
point
It does actually. It’s called supply and demand It doesn't actually. It's called price stability. though I know you know nothing about that. I clearly know more than you do, given that I know it is scarcity and not abundance which drives prices up. If everybody has access to healthcare then that will drive the prices down, which -- as per usual -- is the complete opposite of what you are calling me ignorant for not believing. Your idea of a debate is essentially to Google a term, namedrop it, claim I don't know anything about it, and then vaguely sneer it means I'm completely wrong. In other words, you're a stupid, nonsensical little prick who doesn't give a flying shit about honesty or truth. You simply want to feel intellectually superior because you're a boring little Jewish psychopath with a Napoleonic personality disorder. Side: Yes, everything
Haha! When you couple your ignorance with arrogance I always get a good laugh. Declaring “healthcare for all” does not create actual abundance haha. It creates an incentive. People’s response to that incentive creates shortages. Saying “price stability” is literally meaningless in to the issue. Side: Only basic care
1
point
Haha! When you couple your ignorance with arrogance I always get a good laugh. Do you? I laugh at how consistently empty your rhetoric is of any rational criticism or argument. Your shitposts are the literary equivalent of sticking your tongue out at me in the playground. It might give you a false sense of superiority, but the reality is you're still a child. Side: Yes, everything
1
point
Declaring “healthcare for all” does not create actual abundance haha Giving everybody health insurance is an action, not to be confused with the non-action of a declaration. This is why arguing with you is so boring, mate. You literally misrepresent everything you read, see or hear. A declaration is when you say something. A universal health system is when you do something. Does the vast difference between these two verbs compute, you laughably corrupt halfwit? Side: Yes, everything
1
point
What you are really bitching about is the fact that you don't want your tax money to subsidise other people being healthy, and the reason you are doing that is because you are a selfish little psychopath who doesn't give two shits about anyone but himself. If a Christian and a Jew and a Muslim died, and only a Christian or Jew dying makes you happy, you don't actually care about anyone and are a fake and a fraud. But I didn't need to point out your hate to the site. It's no secret that you hate Jews and adhere to all of Hitler's positions onJews and Capitalism. Side: Only basic care
1
point
Obviously you didn't think this one out. Your position can mathematically only end in bancruptcy. Obviously you're a transparently stupid retard who can't even spell bankruptcy. You've got some nerve mentioning bankruptcy given the fact that the man you shill for has filed for it four times. Fuck off. Side: Yes, everything
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
