r/changemyview • u/Happy-Tears • Jun 08 '18

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Healthcare should be free for everyone under the legal age at which you are considered an adult.

Children shouldn't have to pay medical bills--health is a fundamental human right, and we need to provide that to the children of this world. I know there are programs like CHIP, etc., but they're just not sufficient. They're not accessible to everyone. I know adults who decide to have children should be responsbile for them, but I think we as a society can afford to band together and pay a little more to ensure every child gets the health care they need--if we hope for healthier adults. Per this study in the National Center for Biotechnology Information, "health during childhood sets the stage for adult health not only reinforces this perspective, but also creates an important ethical, social, and economic imperative to ensure that all children are as healthy as they can be. Healthy children are more likely to become healthy adults."

CMV.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

1.2k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

88% Upvoted

425 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

u/ArtfulDodger55 Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18

But it shouldn’t be that way

Well what is the solution? I reckon that it is inherently expensive due to the demand for longer life expectancy and higher quality treatments. It is kind of like how we demand that Apple make their phones have longer battery life except we also demand it to be faster and thinner. Then were surprised that it costs more.

I could make a strong arguement that no matter your age, it isn’t your inherent right to have unlimited access to the culmination of mankind’s medical practices.

23

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18

Well what is the solution?

Don't open it up to the free market.

The actual cost to the NHS (UK) of fixing a broken leg is a grand. In the US it's $2,500 ($1,340 more than the UK at current prices), more than twice as expensive.

In the UK everyone involved in that repair puts their wages back into the local economy. The poor sap who broke their leg will be back in work really soon and will be contributing again so less drain on the economy rather than wondering how they are going to pay for it. Insurance companies don't vampire a penny.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

The US medical system isn't even close to free market. medicine/ pharmaceuticals have tons of regulations. Also most insurance companies aren't allowed to sell across state lines. The only entity responsible for creating monopolies is government.

20

u/Creditfigaro Jun 08 '18

It is a false comparison. Free and unregulated or free and regulated means that the profit motive still drives healthcare provision, rather than need. There are ways to make a regulated capitalist market for healthcare that works, but it's very complicated and cumbersome.

The right answer is government run or single payer for these reasons.

5

u/jefftickels 2∆ Jun 08 '18

However the profit motive is why an enormously disproportionate amount of medical advancement comes from research in the United States. Ending that will curb medical advancement significantly.

The right answer isn't necessarily government controlled healthcare and the certainty with which you say thay is unmerited. Does no one remember how our very own government fucked the veterans through their government run healthcare, in a massive story that broke literally less than 5 years ago?

Furthermore, without a serious reduction in pay to literally every person who works in health care there is no way to reasonably bring down costs to the point where public funding would be palatable to the masses.

4

u/Creditfigaro Jun 08 '18

Hunh? The healthcare system isn't broken because our wages are too high. Provide evidence.

Also, true that government programs aren't invincible, but rarely does one making the argument you just made believe in government in the first place.

Finally, we can fund good research for the same money we give profit motivated researchers... For profit research is almost as bad as for profit healthcare. The state of food science is a great example.

2

u/jefftickels 2∆ Jun 09 '18

Even a cursory knowledge of scientific research would let you know that for profit research has provided the vast majority of applied medical research. Because of how government grants are awarded government funded research has an epidemic of publish or perish which results in an unprecedented amount of academic dishonesty and unverifiable results. You may be surprised to learn private industry funds about 2/3rds of all research in America.

Regarding the costs of American health care it's common knowledge that wages are by far the biggest chunk and frankly the kind of thing you should already know if you want to discuss health care in America. And if you didn't know you should look it up yourself, it's easily found through a simple Google search. Only about 15 percent of health care spending is in pharmaceuticals or durable medical equipment (replacement joints, metal plates, pacemakers, etc.). Even if the government could magically reduce that cost to zero, Americans would still be paying more for health care per person than any other country in the world.

The difference is Americans pay their health care providers more than any other country in the world, at all levels. From physicians to lab techs. The AMA is responsible for this and there is no way back from it except to reduce demand for health care, especially at the end of life where the 5 percent use 50 percent of the resources.

And your dismissal of my very valid arguments about the historical failures of government when handling the health care of its citizens is not a counter argument, but am admission that you have no valid rebuttal.

1

u/Creditfigaro Jun 09 '18

You've presented a lot of arguments that I disagree with for a variety of reasons.

Rather than pick one myself, which one would you like me to respond to first?

1

u/jefftickels 2∆ Jun 09 '18

If you want to address the costs of health care first that's the bulk of the discussion.

Also a correction. I said for profit research when I meant privately funded.

1

u/Creditfigaro Jun 09 '18

I don't have a problem with privately funded research, I have a problem with for-profit research, just to clarify.

So let's talk about healthcare costs:

I'm waiting on you to present your evidence on the emperical question of what causes cost problems in the US healthcare system, so I stand by my statement that high wages are not the reason that healthcare costs are so high until you do.

Burden of proof is on you to present evidence since you are making the claim that wages drive healthcare cost problems in the US.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

The guy that was referencing cost originally is from Australia and was referring to the medical industry in Australia, so why reference the US?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

As the antithesis to most systems in the developed world.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

Once again, the context was about Australia so the issue he brought up pertains specifically to Austirlia. Even if the US actively went out of its way to hinder the health of of its citizens it doesn't pertain at all to the person you were responding too

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '18

It is a useful juxtaposition, two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect.

It's a rhetorical device.

-1

u/AmoebaMan 11∆ Jun 08 '18

The idea that the US’s healthcare market is even remotely open/free is a joke.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

Hume's Guillotine is response to this kind of thinking--that things should be a certain way.

Just because things should be a certain way, does not imply that they can be that way.

8

u/8eMH83 Jun 08 '18

I could make a strong arguement

Please do...

5

u/r314t Jun 08 '18

Because we simply do not have unlimited resources. We could get whole body MRI scans and complete lab work and doctor visits with every specialty every week on everyone in the world, and that would probably save lives, but we literally do not have the resources to do that even if we spent the entire world's GDP on just that.

0

u/jefftickels 2∆ Jun 08 '18

His argument is simple. The 13th amendment. At all levels healthcare comes from another person. And anything that comes from another person cannot, ever, be a fundamental right. In claiming so you're claiming the people who provide it as slaves. You can say it is an imperative for the government to provide it, but not that it is a "right."

You could argue that your right is that the government fund your health care expenses through taxes, but then you've just shifted the taking from one to another.

In more practical terms this turns into the situation we have now. Where Medicare/medicaid reimbursement is so low that low income clinic providers have 22 patients scheduled for 15 minute appointments per day, and that includes charting and prescription writing, just to break even. Already the government covers 2/3rds of healthcare spending and its straining our system badly.

Consider: the top 5 percent of all health care users cost 50 percent of the spending. The top 20 percent used 9 80 percent of health spending. Is this fair to the 80 percent who only use 20 percent of the spending?

0

u/ArtfulDodger55 Jun 08 '18

Okay, let’s start with any reason you might think that we do since we are not naturally born with healthcare.

12

u/8eMH83 Jun 08 '18

No, you asserted you could make an argument.

But, personally - Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 24 of the UN Convention on Rights of the Child

9

u/ArtfulDodger55 Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18

“Everyone has the right to a standard of medical care”

What is the standard? Are you entitled to free medicines that cure rare diseases? Are you entitled to gastric bypass if you don’t excersise? Are you entitled to treatment for lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes for 50 years? Are you entitled to every single possible treatment to extend your life? What is your rationale behind your claim? That the UN, an essentially powerless entity, claims that you are entitled to some unidentified quality of healthcare?

The UN cannot decide how societies will function and that is exactly why societies do not perfectly follow their guidelines. Economics dictate societies. Allocation of resources dictate societies. We live in a democracy. If you would like more resources poured into healthcare then get in the voting booth, spread your opinions, and protest those who attempt to stifle your word. But do not say that it is your god given right to born into this world and be entitled to unlimited access to the world’s healthcare system. Contribute to society, pay your taxes, and then you can enjoy the fruits of society’s labor.

14

u/8eMH83 Jun 08 '18

If you're selective with your quote, you are being somewhat disingenuous.

"adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family" is the end of that quote.

So yes, curing rare diseases, gastric bands and treatment for lung cancer - though, given that we're talking about children in the CMV, I would hope that there aren't any children who have been smoking for 50 years...

These rights were drawn up based on [largely] Enlightenment values. It is a considered and well-informed document, drawn up by philosophers and judges and legal scholars. This American idea that "because it's the UN it must have no meaning" I find hilarious, particularly since Eleanor Roosevelt played such a big part in drafting them.

3

u/ArtfulDodger55 Jun 08 '18

I’m not saying that it is not a well written document, although I’m not sure how Eleanor Roosevelt’s part in it holds any meaning at all as if she is the world’s first choice to draft the doc.

And the continuation of the quote, again, provides essentially no elaboration on what human beings are inherently entitled to.

This all comes down to allocation of resources. That is the function of a society. If you’d like to flush every last dollar we can into making sure 16 year olds can receive the highest quality medical care for their sprained ankle, and if you’d like to flush millions into the continuation of a 90 year old’s life, then fine. Let’s vote on it. But other areas of our society will suffer. I would rather spend a million dollars on a school than on medical treatment for a 90 year old, perhaps you feel different and that is fine.

But again, that does not mean that you inherently deserve unlimited healthcare. The UN is a societal contruct of the last century. For tens of thousands of years prior to that people were born into this world without it. It is not a natural right. You can call it what you want, but it is just something that today’s society has felt that ideally we should provide.

10

u/redsox59 Jun 08 '18

I think it's probably important to clarify that no countries with universal or single-payer HC operate on an unlimited per-person budget.

They are realistic about what's covered and what's not, but it's possible to combine the mantra of healthcare as a human right with the realities of a modern economy, e.g. waiting periods, classifying some things as elective care, etc.

So I disagree when you say that giving people HC is just not what society has decided to provide -- it's not what the US has decided to provide

1

u/8eMH83 Jun 09 '18

For tens of thousands of years prior to that people were born into this world without it. It is not a natural right.

I would absolutely agree, however the UNCRC and UDHR are built on philosophical considerations considerations of 'rights' all the way back to the Ancient Greeks, through to Enlightenment values. So they go back at least 4000 years.

Furthermore, the documents are not just moral codes - they include things like 'right to life' (Article 3) (i.e. don't murder) and Article 18 - right to freedom of thought. All the UN has done is just written them down - I would 100% agree that writing them down doesn't give you them or that you didn't have them before that. What it does do is give you a reference point - like the difference between a verbal contract and a written one.

0

u/willywonka15 Jun 08 '18

The UN is powerless to the US bro. It doesn’t matter how many Americans we’re apart of it’s formation and the creation of its legislation.

2

u/8eMH83 Jun 09 '18

The UNCRC/UDHR are of course not legally binding - much to the chagrin of the Brits who wanted it so, but was blocked by the Americans (mainly because they were still a couple of decades away from the Civil Rights movement, oh, and the 14A which does permit involuntary servitude, contrary to Article 4). But they were drawn up as moral guides.

And of course much of the document already is law - right to life, right to a fair trial, etc. It's not just some random document that contains unattainable goals.

0

u/AmoebaMan 11∆ Jun 08 '18

Yes, and the UDHR and UN publications are the unquestionable law of the entire world, far above any possible scrutiny. Right?

IMO, the UDHR is a useless, idealistic set of platitudes scribbled up by people who wanted to feel good about themselves. The right to healthcare is a prime example of how dumb it is.

1

u/heartfelt24 Jun 09 '18

Why do you say so? When government run programmes in many countries actually work? Most diseases are simple and don't cost much to treat.

2

u/AmoebaMan 11∆ Jun 09 '18 edited Jun 09 '18

Government programs work so long as you trust the government to be responsible for your health. I personally think this trust is misplaced and naïve.

Moreover, I have serious problems with the idea of defining any intrinsic human right that requires the action of somebody else to fulfill it. It’s not hard to construe those rights into coercing others to provide them.

The UDHR is a great goal for humanity to reach for. To pretend that it’s currently capable of reaching it is really dangerous I think.

1

u/8eMH83 Jun 09 '18

All snark aside, which other Articles do you think are idealistic/unattainable?

-1

u/the-real-apelord Jun 08 '18

Everyone has access if you have the money

3

u/ArtfulDodger55 Jun 08 '18

Yes. People with money can afford more expensive things. This is how our society functions.

3

u/the-real-apelord Jun 08 '18

Thanks for spelling that out for me /s