You seem to be using an extremely narrow definition of "needs", in which only things required to prevent imminent death qualify. So by your definition clothing and shelter would only be needs for people in cold climates. I don't share such a narrow definition.
I consider treatment of medical conditions that chronically diminish people's quality of life, while not posing a threat of imminent death, as being needs.
Oh, “you consider” these things to be needs, eh? How big of you to decide that for millions of people who absolutely do not consider them to be needs! I wonder how many things I can paint as “needs” and then demand you pay for, if I choose to adopt your type of “my opinion of a need represents a need.” It is a simple fact that millions of people do not consider it a need and, go figure, those people’s lives go on without healthcare in many, many cases. That pretty much makes any notion of “need” you’re running on a sadly weak one, and I have to ask – is a “need” which many people, as a matter of fact, do not need, a need at all?
I can understand that there is a lot of wiggle room here. At the point where there are literally millions of people who do not even want what you’re saying they “need” you’ve gone past the point of wiggle room to trying to commandeer a strong term to make your weaker case look stronger.
Nonsense. The people with expensive healthcare needs can't just opt out of a property rights system that tells them to compete with the healthy majority for goods and services. You advocate forcing them to pay for and comply with a system of obligations and rights that compounds their disadvantage in attaining a good quality of life.
Whether or not everyone ends up taking advantage of healthcare services in a UHC society is irrelevant; I haven't argued for UHC on the basis that 'everyone benefits'.
Since the whole issue I’m tackling with the paragraph you’re answering is one of “stealing choice,” you do realize that you just declaring something irrelevant doesn’t make it so, right? And in all honesty, I’m not even understanding what you’re getting at with the first paragraph there. If you want me to deal with this point, restate it and I will.
No. The same healthcare goods may be available, but getting them without facing economic compulsion cannot be done in a non-UHC society (except for the rich of course).
But here’s the catch – if “economic compulsion” is something we’re trying to avoid, then what you’re simply ignoring is that universal healthcare simply has economic compulsion pre-built into the system at large. You were compelled by the state to buy a product you don’t necessarily want. So, please, do NOT try and present “economic compulsion” as something unique to the non universal healthcare society. What’s ironic about your position is that in the non universal healthcare society which has insurance available there is no economic compulsion – one chooses to buy the product, or gamble that they will never need it with the knowledge that extreme financial hardship may result if they don’t buy the product. You seem to be confusing “choice with dire consequences” with “economically compelled” when, in fact, it’s the
lack of compulsion in the non universal healthcare society that potentially leads to the tremendous financial risk as.
This is a case where I think too much freedom can be a bad thing, so you take the ability to make bad choices away from people by compelling them to pay for healthcare – which is what universal healthcare does by compelling people to buy it. Your presentation of the non universal healthcare society as being the one that compels people is a fallacy.
The American system is flawed insofar as not everyone can get healthcare if they need it, even if it is available for them to buy, because they can’t afford it. At least, to the best of my knowledge – I didn’t care about this stuff as much when I lived there last, and now I’m in Canada. I think this is something that should be rectified. At the very least, if we don’t adopt a true universal healthcare system, I think healthcare should be made available to even the very poor.
"Very significant"? Prior to Obamacare, which penalizes people for not having insurance, what were most Americans spending per year on healthcare? And how does that compare with UHC countries?
Keep in mind, in one of my earlier posts I was *very* clear that I was talking about “Not Trump style universal health care, but Canada style.” I’m not talking about some half-assed American “universal” healthcare that is a step on the road to actual universal healthcare. I’ve said, many times, that the ACA is a step in the right direction but it’s a half baked plan as is.
And here, you’re mincing words. You say “what were MOST Americans spending per year on healthcare?” – but in all of your talk about compulsion, you seem to ignore that some Americans were
willingly not paying for healthcare. As in, they were not paying because
they were not compelled to pay. Contrast this to Canada – closer to the system I would like – and here is the reality:
“
In 2016, total health expenditure in Canada is expected to reach $228 billion, or $6,299 per person. It is anticipated that, overall, health spending will represent 11% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP).”
https://www.cihi.ca/en/health-spending
11% of Canada’s GDP? An average of $6299 per person? Sounds “significant” to me. And just to be clear, those Canadians – this Canadian resident – has no choice, and is
compelled to pay that money.
“
To account for this, the study broke average Canadian families down into 10 income groups, concluding that Canada’s poorest families pay $477 a year for health care, while the wealthiest earners pay $59,666 a year.”
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/true-c...erage-family-is-11k-per-year-report-1.2525114
Again, the money mentioned here is money that people are compelled to pay, unlike in a non universal healthcare setting in which people have the choice to essentially gamble on their health.
Regardless, even if UHC does result in healthy people paying more (which is a reasonable expectation), the choice of allowing healthy people to have more money to choose between different luxury items, or the choice of allowing unhealthy people the same opportunity to spend on luxury items that healthy people have, seems clear to me.
You say things like "seems clear to me" and "I consider ____ to be a need" and whatnot, but it's pretty obvious that you're basically taking your personal position - your opinion - and treating it as fact in the face of millions of people who outright look at what you call a need and say "I don't need or want that." Now, I'm all for you holding your opinion. You trying to pass it off as something more is where your whole narrative starts to stink.
What’s more, you trying to paint the non universal healthcare society as the one that financially compels people is a slick bit of rhetoric because you present the results of one’s free and informed choice as leading to compulsion when, in reality, the “compulsion” in this scenario is the compulsion a willing gambler feels when she loses and the casino demands she pay up. The gambler makes a choice knowing the risks and when she loses she is “compelled” to pay up in accordance with the known consequences she willingly agreed to beforehand – so, in short, being held responsible for choices freely made and not compelled to do anything more than
what she had already agreed to do. Universal healthcare compels you to pay into healthcare because one doesn’t have a choice – non-universal healthcare gives you the choice to gamble and risk significant financial consequence. You are essentially trying to paint the society that forces you to pay for a service you may not want as the less compulsive one, and the one that lets you gamble knowing the consequences of loss but then holding you accountable for your freely taken choice as the compulsive one, and that strand of arguing is all kinds of hinky.