The debate on healthcare

[MayorQuimby]

Hi. There are basically two competing schools of thoughts: one side says that healthcare is a personal responsibility, people should take care of their own health to avoid getting sick, and they should also work on obtaining coverage as well on saving money in the event they get sick. And more importantly, they believe that it is immoral for the state to coerce people to participate in healthcare decisions. The other school believes that healthcare should be a universal right, and the poor, those too sick to work, the young, the dependent, the uninsurable should not be denied care just because they don't have the financial means. And furthermore, when a society is healthy, everybody wins. I might have over-simplified these positions, but I think I got the gist of it right.


I have a tiny, humble little proposal, I would like to hear your thought on it. Basically, it works similar to Social security. Think of it as mandatory personal healthcare account. The government takes a portion of your paycheck and deposit it into this account. This account is entirely your own, it doesn't get mixed in with other people's. And then when you get sick, you can use the money in this account to pay for your doctor's visits, emergency visits..etc.

I think this idea could work, even though there is still an element of coercion (as in, government is making you save a portion of your pay), however, my reasoning is that something similar is already in place. So people cannot be for that but against this. Secondly, it gives ground to the folks who believe that healthcare should be a personal responsibility. Here we are using our own money to take care of our own healthcare needs, it goes along with the principle of it nicely. And in the event of an infant or young person who hasn't had the time to save enough, this is the only situation the government steps in, out of compassionate concern. And the care for such young individuals will come form taxes. Yes I realize that taxes carry the implication of coercion, which goes against people's principle, however, this is already a more moderate position. It walks the middle ground between two extremes, aka, complete and total no state coercion, which means some people who fall on hard times will get no help, and the other side which argues we owe everybody in society healthcare because it's a universal right, and so we should force people to pay for other people's healthcare.

Of course, there are other difficulties that I haven't thought of, which you are welcome to point out. I just think that my position is sound and philosophically consistent. And it seems to approach a happy line in the middle, where the two sides get a little bit of what they each want, and they also make a little bit of concession to get that which they want, which is how a society should work where there are lots of people with different and competing priorities.

I would love your thoughts.

 

[Votto]

Hi. There are basically two competing schools of thoughts: one side says that healthcare is a personal responsibility, people should take care of their own health to avoid getting sick, and they should also work on obtaining coverage as well on saving money in the event they get sick. And more importantly, they believe that it is immoral for the state to coerce people to participate in healthcare decisions. The other school believes that healthcare should be a universal right, and the poor, those too sick to work, the young, the dependent, the uninsurable should not be denied care just because they don't have the financial means. And furthermore, when a society is healthy, everybody wins. I might have over-simplified these positions, but I think I got the gist of it right.


I have a tiny, humble little proposal, I would like to hear your thought on it. Basically, it works similar to Social security. Think of it as mandatory personal healthcare account. The government takes a portion of your paycheck and deposit it into this account. This account is entirely your own, it doesn't get mixed in with other people's. And then when you get sick, you can use the money in this account to pay for your doctor's visits, emergency visits..etc.

I think this idea could work, even though there is still an element of coercion (as in, government is making you save a portion of your pay), however, my reasoning is that something similar is already in place. So people cannot be for that but against this. Secondly, it gives ground to the folks who believe that healthcare should be a personal responsibility. Here we are using our own money to take care of our own healthcare needs, it goes along with the principle of it nicely. And in the event of an infant or young person who hasn't had the time to save enough, this is the only situation the government steps in, out of compassionate concern. And the care for such young individuals will come form taxes. Yes I realize that taxes carry the implication of coercion, which goes against people's principle, however, this is already a more moderate position. It walks the middle ground between two extremes, aka, complete and total no state coercion, which means some people who fall on hard times will get no help, and the other side which argues we owe everybody in society healthcare because it's a universal right, and so we should force people to pay for other people's healthcare.

Of course, there are other difficulties that I haven't thought of, which you are welcome to point out. I just think that my position is sound and philosophically consistent. And it seems to approach a happy line in the middle, where the two sides get a little bit of what they each want, and they also make a little bit of concession to get that which they want, which is how a society should work where there are lots of people with different and competing priorities.

I would love your thoughts.

But I thought Obamacare fixed health care

What happened?

 

[LibertyWeeps]

They need to stop calling it healthCARE and start calling it what it is.......

HealthGRIFT!

 

[LibertyWeeps]

But I thought Obamacare fixed health care

What happened?

They found out .......

1. It costs 4 times more for "administration" of it, than it does actually helping anybody.
2. People who pay for it get their wallets raped when using it, because they end up having to pay more out of pocket than they would if they had a normal HMO/PPO.

 

[Votto]

They need to stop calling it healthCARE and start calling it what it is.......

HealthGRIFT!

What the hell does it matter really?

They will do as they always do, which is promise the public that their health care will become more affordable, that that you can keep your same doctors, and that your coverage won't change, and then do whatever the hell they want once elected like Obama.

The fools even reelected him despite him lying about all of it. If a CEO did the same he would be in jail.

Democracy is dead, and tyranny reigns supreme.

 

[LibertyWeeps]

What the hell does it matter really?

They will do as they always do, which is promise the public that their health care will become more affordable, that that you can keep your same doctors, and that your coverage won't change, and then do whatever the hell they want once elected like Obama.

The fools even reelected him despite him lying about all of it. If a CEO did the same he would be in jail.

Democracy is dead, and tyranny reigns supreme.

This isn't supposed to be a democracy, by the order of the Consititution of the United States of America, this is supposed to be a REPUBLIC.

Corrupt politicians turning this country INTO a democracy is whats fucked it all up!!!!

 

[Votto]

This isn't supposed to be a democracy, by the order of the Consititution of the United States of America, this is supposed to be a REPUBLIC.

Corrupt politicians turning this country INTO a democracy is whats fucked it all up!!!!

But where is the democracy as people vote after being lied too?

They sell it as a democracy the same way they sell their health care, they lie about it.

Basically, they win elections any way they can and then do whatever the hell they feel like doing once in office.

And to vote them out is harder than pulling teeth.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Healthcare would be significantly cheaper if the average American wasn’t waddling around like a frigid hippopotamus

 

[Eman623]

Hi. There are basically two competing schools of thoughts: one side says that healthcare is a personal responsibility, people should take care of their own health to avoid getting sick, and they should also work on obtaining coverage as well on saving money in the event they get sick. And more importantly, they believe that it is immoral for the state to coerce people to participate in healthcare decisions. The other school believes that healthcare should be a universal right, and the poor, those too sick to work, the young, the dependent, the uninsurable should not be denied care just because they don't have the financial means. And furthermore, when a society is healthy, everybody wins. I might have over-simplified these positions, but I think I got the gist of it right.


I have a tiny, humble little proposal, I would like to hear your thought on it. Basically, it works similar to Social security. Think of it as mandatory personal healthcare account. The government takes a portion of your paycheck and deposit it into this account. This account is entirely your own, it doesn't get mixed in with other people's. And then when you get sick, you can use the money in this account to pay for your doctor's visits, emergency visits..etc.

I think this idea could work, even though there is still an element of coercion (as in, government is making you save a portion of your pay), however, my reasoning is that something similar is already in place. So people cannot be for that but against this. Secondly, it gives ground to the folks who believe that healthcare should be a personal responsibility. Here we are using our own money to take care of our own healthcare needs, it goes along with the principle of it nicely. And in the event of an infant or young person who hasn't had the time to save enough, this is the only situation the government steps in, out of compassionate concern. And the care for such young individuals will come form taxes. Yes I realize that taxes carry the implication of coercion, which goes against people's principle, however, this is already a more moderate position. It walks the middle ground between two extremes, aka, complete and total no state coercion, which means some people who fall on hard times will get no help, and the other side which argues we owe everybody in society healthcare because it's a universal right, and so we should force people to pay for other people's healthcare.

Of course, there are other difficulties that I haven't thought of, which you are welcome to point out. I just think that my position is sound and philosophically consistent. And it seems to approach a happy line in the middle, where the two sides get a little bit of what they each want, and they also make a little bit of concession to get that which they want, which is how a society should work where there are lots of people with different and competing priorities.

I would love your thoughts.

We have this as a voluntary thing now. It's called a Health Savings Account. You contribute tax-free dollars and you can spend them for things like doctor visits and medicine.

 

[Eman623]

Basic health care is going to get a lot cheaper very soon. Already AI agents are better at diagnosing disease than doctors. Let them write prescriptions and your $150 doctor visit is now $5.

 

[MayorQuimby]

We have this as a voluntary thing now. It's called a Health Savings Account. You contribute tax-free dollars and you can spend them for things like doctor visits and medicine.

But I believe the voluntary-ness about it makes it problematic. Some people will simply not save for their own health unless made to. And then they get sick, they turn to the government for help, which puts pressure on the folks who resent being coerced by the state to pay for others' healthcare.

Basic health care is going to get a lot cheaper very soon. Already AI agents are better at diagnosing disease than doctors. Let them write prescriptions and your $150 doctor visit is now $5.

I think it depends on how advanced AI is. I admit that right now with AI, indeed a lot of questions that I used to ask humans, have now been completely answered by chatbots, and much more satisfactorily. However, I believe that diagnosing a disease is more than just checking symptoms against a list, it sometimes takes experience and intuition. Currently AI is weak in these areas.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Healthcare would be significantly cheaper if the average American wasn’t waddling around like a frigid hippopotamus

But I mean, do you like my idea though.

 

[Eman623]

But I believe the voluntary-ness about it makes it problematic. Some people will simply not save for their own health unless made to. And then they get sick, they turn to the government for help, which puts pressure on the folks who resent being coerced by the state to pay for others' healthcare.

Singapore has mandatory HSA's and are often regarded as having the best and cheapest health care in the developed world. Everyone has "skin in the game" and when you're spending your own money you'll make smarter health choices.

But even Singaporeans have universal health care, albeit a combination of private and public systems.

I think it depends on how advanced AI is. I admit that right now with AI, indeed a lot of questions that I used to ask humans, have now been completely answered by chatbots, and much more satisfactorily. However, I believe that diagnosing a disease is more than just checking symptoms against a list, it sometimes takes experience and intuition. Currently AI is weak in these areas.

Statistically you're better off with Doctor AI.

 

[Votto]

Singapore has mandatory HSA's and are often regarded as having the best and cheapest health care in the developed world. Everyone has "skin in the game" and when you're spending your own money you'll make smarter health choices.

But even Singaporeans have universal health care, albeit a combination of private and public systems.

Statistically you're better off with Doctor AI.

Politicians and corporations have no interest in people having choices

They both want the public completely dependent upon them.

In fact, the more they destroy health care, the more dependent people become on them.

Every year we all have come to expect less coverage for more money.

It ALWAYS gets worse.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Singapore has mandatory HSA's and are often regarded as having the best and cheapest health care in the developed world. Everyone has "skin in the game" and when you're spending your own money you'll make smarter health choices.

But even Singaporeans have universal health care, albeit a combination of private and public systems.

So does this mean that if a mandatory HSA was proposed in your country (I assume you're American), you would support it?

Statistically you're better off with Doctor AI.

I agree with you on principle and in practice too, the only difference is timing. I think it will take some time for AL to replace human doctors, but based on the trajectory, I'd say it's pretty inevitable.

 

[Eman623]

So does this mean that if a mandatory HSA was proposed in your country (I assume you're American), you would support it?

Well, we already have Social Security, and it would promote good healthcare decisions, so yes, I think I would.

Not very libertarian of me, but if you are going to have government-run healthcare, well in for a penny...,

I agree with you on principle and in practice too, the only difference is timing. I think it will take some time for AL to replace human doctors, but based on the trajectory, I'd say it's pretty inevitable.

The benefits will be better and far cheaper healthcare.

 

[Eman623]

Politicians and corporations have no interest in people having choices

They both want the public completely dependent upon them.

In fact, the more they destroy health care, the more dependent people become on them.

Every year we all have come to expect less coverage for more money.

It ALWAYS gets worse.

That's a little cynical. But it's true that the government is involved in healthcare where it shouldn't be and isn't involved where it should be.

I actually go the HSA route, along with a high-deductible healthcare (HDHP) plan. Basically I pay the first $3000 each year, then insurance pays 80% until I reach $6000 out-of-pocket. After that I'm covered at 100%. On the plus side, my premiums are really, really low. Only a couple hundred a month.

It works out well if you are healthy, and surprisingly even when you have serious medical costs.

As for the HSA, I can contribute up to $8000 per year and my employer kicks in $2000 of that for free. In other words, I'm really only out of pocket for $1000 until I reach my deductible. And even then I'd need to have another $15K of medical bills before I hit my OOP max.

My advice is to buy as little healthcare insurance as you can. Cover the catastrophic stuff and pay out-of-pocket for regular visits and medications yourself. On average you only get $2 back for every $3 you send on insurance, so why would you want to give them even more money?

 

[MayorQuimby]

That's a little cynical. But it's true that the government is involved in healthcare where it shouldn't be and isn't involved where it should be.

I actually go the HSA route, along with a high-deductible healthcare (HDHP) plan. Basically I pay the first $3000 each year, then insurance pays 80% until I reach $6000 out-of-pocket. After that I'm covered at 100%. On the plus side, my premiums are really, really low. Only a couple hundred a month.

It works out well if you are healthy, and surprisingly even when you have serious medical costs.

As for the HSA, I can contribute up to $8000 per year and my employer kicks in $2000 of that for free. In other words, I'm really only out of pocket for $1000 until I reach my deductible. And even then I'd need to have another $15K of medical bills before I hit my OOP max.

My advice is to buy as little healthcare insurance as you can. Cover the catastrophic stuff and pay out-of-pocket for regular visits and medications yourself. On average you only get $2 back for every $3 you send on insurance, so why would you want to give them even more money?

So, if you could have it entirely your way, what changes would you make?

 

[Eman623]

So, if you could have it entirely your way, what changes would you make?

Rule 1 - Everyone kicks in something towards the national healthcare. Without exception. No one gets a 100% free ride. This is where the mandatory HSAs come in.
Rule 2 - Reduce the cost of healthcare. Maybe that's AI. Maybe it's more nurse practitioners. Stop having doctors be the sole gatekeeper to care. 90% of the time they do monkey work - order lab work results and write prescriptions.
Rule 3 - No government health insurance for illegals. Period. If that means they die on the sidewalk outside the ER, well, maybe you should have been back home.
There's probably more but it's late and that's all I can think of now.

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

We need Luigi Mangione to weigh in on this.