To Want or Not Want Government Care?

[Kal Di]

On Free Talk Live, we talked about whether to want or not want government care. Mark gives an amazing analogy!

[LevelUP]

"We call taxes what they are, THEFT!"  Lol.  Yep, I agree.

Recent Elon Musk Quote From Youtube Video:
yeah i mean i would say like generally
i'm like i think pretty moderate i'm not
like sort of an extreme libertarian
um i
think there are roles for the government
uh that
makes sense like i don't think we
necessarily want like
a private army uh or
private police force or private yeah i
think
there's you know uh
certain things that
that are probably the the right role for
the government but anything done by the
government is going to be inefficient
um because the government is a monopoly
like people that don't like corporations
should not
somehow think that the government is
much is much better
because the government is
a corporation in the limit it is the
ultimate corporation
with a monopoly on violence
so
um it's like i think you know the right
role for the government is is like to be
uh acting a regulatory capacity um
and
but
we should
aspire to have the government be
be a a limited actor in the economy um
so
you know you could say like
what percentage of economic output
should be
uh governed you know um and
maybe
maybe a third or something like that you
know once you start getting above 50
government i think that's problematic
so
um you can look at countries like east
eastern west germany north and south
korea and there's
you know there was essentially an
arbitrary line drawn out to divide the
countries and east germany was
like kind of 100 government west germany
was i don't know probably at least 40
government they're like you know
relatively socialist
and yet the gdp per capita of that you
know of west germany was
i think five times higher than east
germany so that just shows you just how
big of a difference it is if
if you have like something that's close
to half government versus 100 government
uh private sector is probably a factor
of 10 more efficient than the government
um
and this like this is sort of
this is also true of just just generally
if you have like a monopolistic private
corporation
then
the forcing function for serving the
customer is weak
but at least private corporations can go
bankrupt and the government cannot go
bankrupt unless the people go bankrupt
like basically
unless it exhausts extracting
money from the population so well
they're trying their best so
yeah
it's just you know so just you want to
just
knowing that the government is
as inefficient as any large monopolistic
corporation would be
and it is the ultimate
large monopolistic corporation we should
minimize
how much the government does um
keep it to what is essential um and and
not go beyond that.

This is why I don't want the government's care because it usually is not an efficient use of my tax dollars.

I also think when you count all the taxes of federal, state, local, etc that taking more than 50% of what someone makes violates a basic human right to keep most of what you earn. 

[Flelm]

Disclaimer, I did not watch the OP's video, and I did not read that rambling rant from Elon Musk. I'm not entirely sure why I'm posting this here, but I want to get it off my chest.

I used to be a libertarian, when I was just starting to get interested in politics, in late high school (the start of the 2000s). I thought it was a great philosophy:

Everyone pays for what they need and no more. All are equal before the law, and opportunities are open to all equally. The free market will allow good companies to thrive, and bad companies will be punished by the will of the customers, so there's no need for regulation. If the existing sources of supply aren't good enough, the market will ensure that someone else will take up the mantle and start a company doing it better, smarter, faster, cheaper, and more responsibly. Do what you will, as long as you don't harm others.

Then I got older, and I realized there were problems with that philosophy. First, it only works if everyone is an intelligent, rational thinker, with unlimited time and resources to research and make decisions. Which company has the smallest carbon footprint per unit produced? Who has the plants that pollute the least? What's the cost/benefit tradeoff? Second, it assumes that everyone is starting from, more or less, a place of equality, which is not true. The more money your parents have, on average, the more money you will make. Socioeconomic indicators show that the rich get richer, and those in poverty have an extremely difficult time escaping. Finally, it assumes that everyone is honest. It has no provision for lies, or hiding information, or obscuring/obfuscating practices.

The purpose of our (I agree, extremely broken!) government is not to turn a profit. The purpose of our government is to create and maintain a functioning society that's fair to all its members (see: the social contract). Why does keeping our citizenry healthy need to be profitable? Should it be efficient, sure. Is the current system efficient? Hell no. But I disagree that giving it to private companies, with little to no regulation is the solution. When given the chance, odds are that companies will choose to achieve a higher profit over enriching the public good. I'd rather cut our massive, oversized, ridiculous defense budget, eliminate the amount of money private citizens are spending on healthcare, and redirecting that through the government. Every study I've seen suggests that a single payer or universal healthcare system is more cost effective, and more importantly, will save people's lives that otherwise wouldn't be saved.

Solutions? I don't know. Our government is broken at a fundamental level. Hypocrisy abounds, and tribalism trumps public service and decency. Cooperation and changing your mind is seen as a sign of weakness, not a sign of wisdom. I'm rambling. I hope I got my point across.

[LevelUP]

suggests that a single payer or universal healthcare system is more cost effective, and more importantly, will save people's lives that otherwise wouldn't be saved.

If the government completely takes over health care, you often end up with a 2 tier system.

1. There is one type of health care for the poor with long waiting lines, poor service, etc meant for the poor people. This is "free" health care.

2. Another type of health care system for the rich that offers short waiting times and is high-quality service. This health care which is paid for. 

The 2 tier system is health care system in Canada, Phillippines, and Cuba.

Michael Moore in the movie Sicko famously showed how nice and free health care was in Cuba. What he didn't tell his viewers is that the health care he showed was the paid health care meant for tourists and not the free health care that regular citizens get. The free health care hospitals in Cuba are typically small and dirty, with few services offered to citizens. 

Like driving through the streets of North Korea and noticing how nice the grocery stores are not realizing that those grocery stores are just paintings. These things are just a facade that government shows to the public.

Health care is not "free." European citizens pay a 25% VAT and other taxes to pay for their health care system.

Yes, we all would love to live in some utopia where everyone can do all the drugs they want, not work, get free school, get free health care, get free housing, live carbon-free, and get a universal basic income, and pay no taxes for receiving such benefits while the rich pay 70%-90% taxes and then hope there is still enough incentive for rich to subsidize everyone else.

Unfortunately, the math doesn't add up, which we are finding out here in America. Inflation will soon make that $15 an hour minimum wage worth $7-$10 an hour in yesterday's money.  The poor will be worse off when they see their cost of living skyrocket, while the rich who own assets such as businesses, real estate, and stock will quickly adjust to the new inflation norm.

[Kal Di]

This is why I don't want the government's care because it usually is not an efficient use of my tax dollars.

Well said!

The purpose of our (I agree, extremely broken!) government is not to turn a profit. The purpose of our government is to create and maintain a functioning society that's fair to all its members (see: the social contract). Why does keeping our citizenry healthy need to be profitable? Should it be efficient, sure. Is the current system efficient? Hell no.

An efficient health system is nearly impossible when the U.S. government allows food and beverage manufacturers (for example) to sell unhealthy items. In Mexico, the government requires food and beverage manufacturers to add relevant labels to their items to warn consumers before purchasing. Examples include (but not limited to) "excessive sodium", "excessive sugar", and "excessive calories". If the U.S. government required food and beverage companies to do the same, it could guide the country towards a more efficient health system.

People have the right to eat unhealthy, but there are people that don't want to work, eat very unhealthy, and expect their medical bills to be paid with the tax dollars of the working class. I know most people are not that way, but a minority (like 25% of a state or country) is still a large number. Charities exist to help people with special needs. Those organizations want to help those people. Every person doesn't want to help everybody (and there's nothing wrong with feeling that way).

People should have the right to choose how their tax dollars are spent. With those choices, they'll benefit from select public services through their tax payments and won't benefit from others (but they can always pay out of pocket to access the public service or a privatized equivalent).

[rachel83az]

suggests that a single payer or universal healthcare system is more cost effective, and more importantly, will save people's lives that otherwise wouldn't be saved.

If the government completely takes over health care, you often end up with a 2 tier system.

1. There is one type of health care for the poor with long waiting lines, poor service, etc meant for the poor people. This is "free" health care.

Is it better to wait in long lines and (maybe) get poor service, but at least you get something or is it better to wait in long lines due to inability to pay and you wind up bankrupt and with poor-quality service anyway? 

The American people already live in a 2-tiered system where the rich can get healthcare whenever they want/need and not even blink at the costs. The poor, on the other hand, often have to resort to GoFundMe pages after visiting the hospital for something as simple as a broken leg. Where the poor avoid visiting the doctor for life-threatening conditions like heart disease or diabetes because they just can't afford it. 

America is already the dystopian society that people who are against a single-payer system claim to be trying to prevent. The financially disadvantaged are already being culled in the US.

[Flelm]

Health care is not "free." European citizens pay a 25% VAT and other taxes to pay for their health care system.

Yes, we all would love to live in some utopia where everyone can do all the drugs they want, not work, get free school, get free health care, get free housing, live carbon-free, and get a universal basic income, and pay no taxes for receiving such benefits while the rich pay 70%-90% taxes and then hope there is still enough incentive for rich to subsidize everyone else.

Unfortunately, the math doesn't add up, which we are finding out here in America. Inflation will soon make that $15 an hour minimum wage worth $7-$10 an hour in yesterday's money.  The poor will be worse off when they see their cost of living skyrocket, while the rich who own assets such as businesses, real estate, and stock will quickly adjust to the new inflation norm.

Did you look at any of the studies I linked? I noticed you cut off my quote right before them. No one is saying free healthcare. This is an inaccurate conservative talking point. Between private and public healthcare, we are already paying excessive amounts of money. The point of a single payer or universal system is to have #1, everyone covered, and #2, reduce the total cost of healthcare. Which everyone study says would happen.

What's your solution to the current broken healthcare system, or do you disagree that it's broken and it's fine for people to die and go bankrupt from lack of healthcare coverage?

The purpose of our (I agree, extremely broken!) government is not to turn a profit. The purpose of our government is to create and maintain a functioning society that's fair to all its members (see: the social contract). Why does keeping our citizenry healthy need to be profitable? Should it be efficient, sure. Is the current system efficient? Hell no.

An efficient health system is nearly impossible when the U.S. government allows food and beverage manufacturers (for example) to sell unhealthy items. In Mexico, the government requires food and beverage manufacturers to add relevant labels to their items to warn consumers before purchasing. Examples include (but not limited to) "excessive sodium", "excessive sugar", and "excessive calories". If the U.S. government required food and beverage companies to do the same, it could guide the country towards a more efficient health system.

So you do want governmental regulations and oversight, just not in healthcare?

People have the right to eat unhealthy, but there are people that don't want to work, eat very unhealthy, and expect their medical bills to be paid with the tax dollars of the working class. I know most people are not that way, but a minority (like 25% of a state or country) is still a large number.

Can you cite a source for your 25% number or is it something you made up that "feels" right?

People should have the right to choose how their tax dollars are spent. With those choices, they'll benefit from select public services through their tax payments and won't benefit from others (but they can always pay out of pocket to access the public service or a privatized equivalent).

You do choose, by electing officials that will pass laws and budgets that align with your beliefs, values, and goals. And again, is it ok that the poorest in our society will die or go bankrupt for lack of healthcare services? If you think that is an acceptable outcome for a modern society then I think we're too far apart to ever agree.

[LevelUP]

The point of a single payer or universal system is to have #1, everyone covered, and #2, reduce the total cost of healthcare. Which everyone study says would happen.

I don't need to look at your links, just like you don't need to look at my links or the OP video. 

A single-payer system doesn't do anything to reduce the cost of healthcare. All it does is change is the way we pay for health insurance.

They tried to sell us on the benefits of Obamacare, and what happened, rates skyrocketed, nothing got better. The government creates more problems than it solves.

[Flelm]

The point of a single payer or universal system is to have #1, everyone covered, and #2, reduce the total cost of healthcare. Which everyone study says would happen.

I don't need to look at your links just like you don't need to look at my links or the OP video. 

A single-payer system doesn't do anything to reduce the cost of healthcare.  All it changes is the way we pay for health insurance.

They tried to sell us on the benefits of Obamacare and what happened, rates skyrocketed, nothing got better. The government creates more problems than it solves.

I didn't watch the OP's video because honestly I'm a little annoyed that he's using this forum to self promote. I didn't read the Elon Musk transcript because whoever did it didn't make it intelligible. 

Here are 2 simple questions. I would like straightforward answers because you seem to avoid giving them.

1) Is it ok that in our current system, those without the means to pay are either left without care or have to depend on charity, debt or bankruptcy to finance their healthcare?

2) What does your ideal healthcare system look like? Do people get left behind?

Also, the affordable care act didn't work because it was gutted from it's initial proposal in the name of "compromise".

[LevelUP]

Can you cite a source for your 25% number or is it something you made up that "feels" right?

Why can't you do your own homework?  Here's a hint, look up the obesity rate in the U.S.

I didn't watch the OP's video because honestly I'm a little annoyed that he's using this forum to self promote.

The OP made the video.  This is better than most threads we see where people are lazy and just link to some article providing no original thought.

I didn't read the Elon Musk transcript because whoever did it didn't make it intelligible.

I posted the text transcript for people that like to skim read and grab a few quick points.  For the very few who will read this OT thread, it's not worth my time to format it perfectly.

The link to the video shows the interview down to the exact section where I quoted it. If you don't know how click a link then I can't help you.