Another glorious nonsensical back and forth between Health and Ubiquitin

I am so confused

Do you not believe in government providing homeless shelters?
Is that really a controversial idea?

I think he’s saying there should NOT be a distinction between levels of healthcare and housing.

Joseph, what about civil society? What about encouraging people to work?
A person who gets something “free” (someone has to pay) or (better) at a price in accordance with his income has no claim on luxury housing. He should live in a mini-house or apartment with only basic appliances. On settlements many people live in mobile home camps or small apartments built as rentals by homeowners.

Joseph

I admit that Idont know exactly what is provided.
But on the NYC DHS (Department of Homeless Services (!!!)) webiste their are seperate links for: Adult Families, Families with Children and single Adults. It doesn’t sound like they are all lumped together.

something I fully support (And again, I dont believe is controversial,)
and I cant help but notice that you haven’t answered my question are you opposed to homeless shelters?

Personally I believe a civilized country should provide healthcare for it’s citizens
The problem is that government tends to mess up anything it touches
Case in point
In the news yesterday, David Greenfeld talking about a city renovation of a park bathroom that is now running into the price tag of $5000 per square foot, making that bathroom more expensive real estate then any apartment in NY.
To quote Ben Shapiro on the subject “Have you been to a DMV? do you really want the DMV making your healthcare decisions?”

You’re forgetting that most important to those who believe in a single-payer system, is that we should all be the same. The government shouldn’t allow people with more money to receive a better Healthcare just because they have more money. We should all be exactly the same.
Joseph is pointing out, that with that logic, the same should extend to homeless shelters, housing, and other necessary amenities. We should either all live in mansions or none of us should.

“The government shouldn’t allow people with more money to receive a better Healthcare just because they have more money.”
Dont speak for other people.
Who are the “those who believe” . It may be “some” who believe that. Though if you can provide (mainstream) sources for that would be great

Joseph,

I lean towards favoring universal health coverage, but not simply because I believe the government has a “moral obligation” to provide it. Rather, the government exists to provide for the general welfare of the citizenry, and I believe increased health care coverage benefits everyone, not just the poor. Take your example of “universal coverage” by ER visits. Yes, the ER will treat everyone, even those who cannot pay, but that “model” of care is very inefficent, cost-ineffective, stresses hospitals, and delays urgently needed treatments for others. Increasing access to preventative care and clinics for non-emergency injuries and illnesses ends up being cheaper than using the ER as your primary care facility.

As far as universal housing, HUD already provides quite a few programs for low income homebuyers and renters. We can probably do it and still have the world’s largest military. BTW, taking care of health care would have the additional benefit of reducing the need for housing assistance. Health problems among earners are frequently the impetus for housing insecurity, and perhaps the majority of the chronically homeless suffer from mental health or other health problems that should be treated.

Whether “rights” are “natural” (meaning, in the bottom line, given by G-d), or are based on law, is a highly philosophical question. If the government passes a law creating a right, it is then a right. Of course, what the government gives, the government can take away, and there is certainly no guarantee that a government administered “right” will prove to be wise and efficient (cf. the constitutional right to postal service).

Avi K,

Avram, who says that the general welfare would be promoted by socialized medicine.

And who says that universal healthcare has to be centralized, or even publicly administered?

In countries where this exists people clog up ERs and clinics with imaginary or minor illnesses just to talk to someone or simply because it is free.

Are you arguing about something real world, or are you making something up that sounds plausible to you? Your example is probably more apropos to a typical ER in the U.S.

Joseph

I dont know what is available to such people. so I cant speak to specifics.

I do believe that the right to “Life” is an unalienable right as was written 241 years and 2 days ago.
I agree with you that “universal housing” is necessary for living. I am not sure why a homeless shelter doesnt satisfy that need. you say it isnt, I dont quite get why. Again, I admit I am not familiar with the specifics available, from the DHS website it sounds like families are kept apart from singles I’m not sure why this doesnt satisfy your need for “They need privacy as a married couple and for their family of five children.” nor do I understand why that need for privacy is included in the need for housing, a claim you have made.

In short, yes the government should provide housing to those who cant afford it.
Again, though I was not aware that this is a controversial issue. Do you disagree ? D o you believe the govt should leave families with children living in the street? (Ive asked this a few times, and I dont see if/where youve answered)

those with failing kidneys cant live without dialysis I believe society (ie the govt) should provide that . thankfully the Government does. Those with diabetes cant live without insulin (type 1 anyway) I believe the government should provide this too. Sadly the government doesn’t as of yet, but thanks to Obama zul zain gezunt un shtark we have taken a step in the right direction.
Note unlike housing this is not abstract to me, I have met someone who didnt have access to affordable insurance due tio her preexisting diabetes she would cut back on insulin when she was strapped for cash. sure the ER would help her when she went into diabetic ketoacidocis and stabilize a her unti ldischarge but long term she would not be able to live if not for Obama and the Democrats. The True “Pro-life” party

Avi

“In countries where this exists people clog up ERs and clinics with imaginary or minor illnesses just to talk to someone or simply because it is free.”

The exact opposite is true. In the US many without insurance clog up ER’s with imaginary illnesses. In countries with universal healthcare they can go to their local clinic and dont need the ER for an earache.

Two points:

1) “The government should pay for it” is a euphemism for “other people should be forced to pay for it.”

2) Universal, affordable health care is a myth. The basic problem is that the underlying costs are too high, e.g., salaries of doctors and other medical professionals, costs of medical equipment, profiteering by drug manufacturers.

College is not a necessity.

“College is not a necessity”

It’s likely a necessity for those who wish to live a secular lifestyle. Moreover, everyone should have the capability of attending a public university without worrying about finances.

Joseph
Please stop repeating the same silliness.
Many people need ongoing healthcare. Those with diabetes need regular insulin, an ER does not provide that.
While Regular insulin is fairly cheap , there are other ongoing treatments not provided by ERs that are prohibitively expensive for many.

And as mentioned while the ER will treat the pt for say a heartattack, the patient will sstill be hounded with a likely 30- $50,000 bill afterwards plus medications that need to be taken, f/u etc that he ER will not cover

DovidBT
Regardign your first 2 points

1) “The government should pay for it” is a euphemism for “other people should be forced to pay for it.””

Yes, obviously. I explicitly pointed that out in a comment.

2) Universal, affordable health care is a myth. …”
Im sorry but youve been lied to. In fact Universal healthcare is the standard throughout much of the civilized world (and some uncivilized as well)
and dont get me started on the nonsense that is this line “Universal healthcare and universal healthcare insurance are two different things. America already has, and has had for many many decades, universal healthcare. “

Key word: option.

Avi you are shifting your argument

you originially said “In countries where this exists people clog up ERs and clinics with imaginary or minor illnesses j”

This is simply false. In fact as mentioned, the reverse is true.

You now discuss wait-lists for surgery. A new topic but a fair one and certainly a related one.
First it is worth noting that this is for elective surgery
Second keep in mind in the US for those without insurance the wait time is much longer than anybody in Canada’s ever was.

If your question is should we wait a bit to get a (deductable free) knee replacement so that anybody who needs one can get one? I say yes

The biggest reason healthcare is so unaffordable is that there is no price transparency, largely because there is a disconnect between the people using healthcare and the people paying for it.

I had a procedure done at my local in-network hospital, for which they billed the insurance company $17,000. The network negotiated rate is about 10 percent of that and the hospital wrote off over $15,000. Without insurance they would have come after me for that money.

If they are willing to accept $1,700, why not just charge everyone $1,700? You could say that they won’t collect $1,700 from everyone who has this procedure. Probably true. But why should uninsured people bear the hospital’s costs? If the procedure is truly worth $1,700 then that it what they should charge, and we should have a better system for socializing the unrecoverable costs.

I’ve had similar situations with lab work where the insurance company pays pennies on the dollar, but the lab won’t accept anything less than payment in full for tests that are not covered by insurance.

Contrast the price structure of procedures where most people have insurance with those that are not usually covered, such as cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery is a standard marketplace with actual prices and some negotiating. Insured procedures are billed at exorbitant rates and preferred customers get massive discounts while poor folks are taken to the cleaners.

On health insurance v. health care …

Insurance is designed to protect against an unlikely event. Every year I give my auto and homeowner’s insurance company money and in good years, they don’t pay me a penny. I’ve had life insurance for many years and BH it hasn’t paid out yet. After 120 years, my kids will get some money. That’s insurance.

For many people, health insurance pretty much works the same way. They get an annual physical and that’s it. For many other people, though, what we mean by insurance is really a way to pay for anticipated health care. Calling it insurance isn’t really accurate but that boat has sailed. My other post touches on the cost of care and here I want to share some thoughts about the cost of insurance.

Most nonelderly Americans get health insurance through their employers, although health insurance is not inherently related to work and the only reason we have such a system is World War 2-era wage controls that exempted fringe benefits. Tying insurance to a job introduced several distortions, one of which is that it removed a huge chunk of people from the pool of potential insurance buyers.

Insurance works by spreading costs over a large group of buyers. When there are fewer people willing to buy insurance, because they are already getting tax-advantaged insurance at work, insurance prices go up. Obamacare tried to address this problem with the individual mandate, but the economics don’t work because uninsured sick people were thrilled to have insurance but for young, healthy people who don’t expect to need medical care, it’s cheaper to pay the penalty than to pay for someone else’s health care.

I believe that a much better way of driving down insurance costs is to increase the number of people buying insurance, and the way to do this is to change the tax code so that it is better for companies to give their employees more money that the employees can then use to buy the insurance policy that fits their needs. This also requires that government drop some of the coverage mandates. For many people, a catastrophic plan is a smart move, and face it, with the high deductibles some Obamacare plans have now, plenty of people effectively have only catastrophic coverage anyway.

The idea is to make insurance coverage attractive so it is something people want to buy, not have to buy, and this can be done by (a) allowing insurance companies to craft policies people want and (b) increasing the number of buyers by breaking the distortionate link between insurance and work, which will bring costs down by spreading them over a larger pool.

Tying insurance to a job introduced several distortions, one of which is that it removed a huge chunk of people from the pool of potential insurance buyers.

Insurance works by spreading costs over a large group of buyers. When there are fewer people willing to buy insurance, because they are already getting tax-advantaged insurance at work, insurance prices go up.

I don’t understand that. What difference does it make who is paying for the insurance?

You are absolutely correct that when someone needs a major surgery, they need it. My point is that medical providers would not get away with their pricing nonsense if prices were transparent.