private healthcare argument refutation

[RedMarxist]

How would one refute the "I worked hard so I deserve it" argument concerning private healthcare? When presented with that argument I have tried to use basic logic, arguing that this type of mentality basically translates to 'f--- the poor, I'm rich so I deserve good healthcare dammit!,' but no one I know sees it that way. They argue "well I have a nice job/will get a nice job when I'm older so I deserve it" or "the poor had their chance-they aren't working hard enough in a competitive society"

Furthermore, is the root cause of this competitive, shallow mindset a result of Capitalism itself? In a socialist and later on a Communist society would people be insulted for being poor and given no health care?

[Column No.4]

How would one refute the "I worked hard so I deserve it" argument concerning private healthcare? When presented with that argument I have tried to use basic logic, arguing that this type of mentality basically translates to 'f--- the poor, I'm rich so I deserve good healthcare dammit!,' but no one I know sees it that way. They argue "well I have a nice job/will get a nice job when I'm older so I deserve it" or "the poor had their chance-they aren't working hard enough in a competitive society"

Furthermore, is the root cause of this competitive, shallow mindset a result of Capitalism itself? In a socialist and later on a Communist society would people be insulted for being poor and given no health care?

I usually go into detail about how not everyone started from the same point and how the system discriminated when it came to economic mobility and opportunity.

[eyedrop]

I would answer around these lines:
"I mirror you in that I don't care if private healthcare is the best for you personally, as you don't care about socialized healthcare is the best for the majority. Luckily we don't need your, and your kind, support since socialized healthcare is preferable for the majority. Chances are you (if it isn't a really well-to-do person) have never needed healthcare, and haven't seen the hassle and cheating the insurance companies expose you too, socialized healthcare is probably better for you as well."

You could also mention that you (assuming US, since US posters always assume everyone naturally talks about US, so it's not necessary to mention) pay more per capita to treat a smaller subsection of the population than countries with socialized healthcare.

[Nox]

Tell him about examples in Europe, we have some of the best living standards and healthcare in the world and our healthcare is all public, and it works very very well. If he tries to deny that statement tell him that everyone in Europe is laughing at people who want privatised healthcare.

Whereas in America, it costs fucking $10,000 if you get a broken arm or something ridiculous like that.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Why doesn't everyone deserve healthcare? Why should you, because you have money deserve to be able to treat yourself while others fear getting a virus since they may have to pay an arm and a leg for the the doctors visit?

It is just another way to isolate oneself from the poor, and remind themselves that they are superior to one person or another...

Class struggle in a sense...

[eyedrop]

Why doesn't everyone deserve healthcare? Why should you, because you have money deserve to be able to treat yourself while others fear getting a virus since they may have to pay an arm and a leg for the the doctors visit?

It is just another way to isolate oneself from the poor, and remind themselves that they are superior to one person or another...

Class struggle in a sense...

I don't really think it's that fruitful to ask/beg the empowered into feeling bad for the less empowered. You are gonna have a hard task if it's to convince people with private health care why other people should get it. It's gotta be the less empowered that takes, not gets from the empowered

[ВАЛТЕР]

I don't really think it's that fruitful to ask/beg the empowered into feeling bad for the less empowered. It's gotta be the less empowered that takes, not gets from the empowered

True, but in a social situation you can't really attack them too directly. I am assuming he was referring to a civil conversation. When it comes down to it, I am more than militant in my ideas of how to get something from the empowered.

[eyedrop]

True, but in a social situation you can't really attack them too directly. I am assuming he was referring to a civil conversation. When it comes down to it, I am more than militant in my ideas of how to get something from the empowered.

I'm not talking about attacking them, I'm just saying that what they mean is unimportant. Any major social improvement is not going to come from the better off feeling bad for the worse off.

When Us gets a decent healthcare overhaul it's either gonna be from pressure from uninsured/lousily insured persons, or US businesses not in the healthcare trade, since they are greatly hindered.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I'm not talking about attacking them, I'm just saying that what they mean is unimportant. Any major social improvement is not going to come from the better off feeling bad for the worse off.

When Us gets a decent healthcare overhaul it's either gonna be from pressure from uninsured/lousily insured persons, or US businesses not in the healthcare trade, since they are greatly hindered.

Yeah, that is true. In the end the working masses will have the final say.

[Tjis]

Privatized healthcare is not a meritocracy. 'Working hard' is not at all a guarantee that one will get healthcare. Students work hard to gain the skills they need to work, but that doesn't get them healthcare. Single moms work very hard to raise their children but that too doesn't get them healthcare. On the other end of the spectrum, someone who gets all the money they need from stock dividends doesn't work at all but is able to pay for all the healthcare they need.

For proletarians, the only way to get healthcare (and food and housing) is to sell their labor-power. This places control over access to these facilities in the hands of a small group of people whose only interest is to make as much of a profit as possible. These people do not give a shit about how hard you work, they just care about how much money they can make from your labor. If it is possible for them to pay less for your labor, they will. If that means you're no longer able to pay for your healthcare, so be it.

To make it worse, the healthcare industry is also run with the profit motive in mind. If it's possible to charge more for healthcare, they will. If it's possible to deny someone healthcare, they will. The entire system is geared towards screwing over the vast majority as much as possible for the interests of a few.

Now, is it really such a good idea to have a small group which clearly does not have the interests of the many in mind to have so much power over life and death of the vast majority?

That said, state healthcare is not the best possible solution. The state is an expression of the collective interest of the capitalists. Its only purpose is to ensure the stability required for capitalism, meaning their healthcare only needs to be 'good enough', keeping enough people happy so that the remaining people can't form much of a threat to this stability. If that stability can be accomplished with less access to healthcare, access to healthcare will be reduced.
The only real solution is a system of true public healthcare: healthcare under the control of the workers, geared towards the interests of the workers, not profit.

[RedMarxist]

I was told that In Canada and Europe it takes a really long time to get treated, so I was told that i why Socialized health care is a worse alternative to private healthcare. They forgot to add how MORE people get treated, though slower.

Is this true though? does it take, in their own words, "a really long time" to get treated? if so, how high quality is the healthcare in question? and finally, why don't we Americans have universal health care(yet), while most of Europe/Canada does already have theirs?

Furthermore, why every time the word 'Universal Health care' is mentioned here in the US, why is it such a big and controversial issue?

[DenisDenis]

I dont know how it works in other european countries, but I've never had to wait to get myself treated here in Belgium, for urgent nor non-urgent things.
On the other hand I dont know how things work in the us so its hard to compare ofcourse...

When you need medicals you just visit the doctor and get the prescripted (and mostly subsidized) medication from the drugstore, after which you get some money back.

So here in Belgium we pay less for medicals(subsidized) and afterwards we get some more back.

Medication that you need for serious diseases (cancer, diabetes, etc) are free ofcourse.

[ColonelCossack]

I was told that In Canada and Europe it takes a really long time to get treated, so I was told that i why Socialized health care is a worse alternative to private healthcare. They forgot to add how MORE people get treated, though slower.

Is this true though? does it take, in their own words, "a really long time" to get treated? if so, how high quality is the healthcare in question? and finally, why don't we Americans have universal health care(yet), while most of Europe/Canada does already have theirs?


No, It's not really... It doesn't take so long as it's a real problem. You just go in, wait in the waiting room (for about two hours) and the doctor sees you.

But then i have no experience of private healthcare being any faster (if it even is) because I've had the NHS all my life, and I've never had anything really serious happen to me- just a few gashes in my head, fingers etc that leave a few scars. no broken bones or anything operation-worthy. :P

[Red Commissar]

Texas is an example of a state that has embraced "market-based solutions" to healtchare and a good chunk of the populace is hurting from it, save for the rich.

This is a bougie newsarticle slamming Perry, but I think it makes some good poitns regarding the way healthcare was handled here- the 'private-based' and 'market' solutions so often lauded.

http://www.latimes.com/health/healthcare/la-na-perry-healthcare-20110908,0,5515472.story


latimes.com

Texas healthcare system withering under Gov. Perry

The governor and presidential hopeful has said the state can manage on its own, without President Obama's overhaul. But more than a quarter of Texans lack insurance, the highest rate in the nation.

By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times

6:00 PM PDT, September 8, 2011

Reporting from San Angelo, Texas

When Texas went to court last year to block President Obama's healthcare overhaul, Gov. Rick Perry pledged to do everything in his power to "protect our families, taxpayers and medical providers." Texas, he said, could manage its own healthcare.

But in the 11 years the Republican presidential hopeful has been in office, working Texans increasingly have been priced out of private healthcare while the state's safety net has withered, leaving millions of state residents without medical care.

"Texas just hasn't proven it can run a health system," said Dr. C. Bruce Malone III, an orthopedic surgeon and president of the historically conservative Texas Medical Assn.

More than a quarter of Texans lack health insurance, the highest rate in the nation, placing a crushing burden on hospitals and doctors who treat patients unable to pay.

Those costs are passed to the insured. Insurance premiums have risen more quickly in Texas than they have nationally over the last seven years. And when compared with incomes, insurance in Texas is less affordable than in every state but Mississippi, according to the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

That has taken a toll, as nearly a third of the state's children did not receive an annual physical and a teeth cleaning in 2007, placing Texas 40th in a state ranking by the fund. Over the last decade, infant mortality rates have risen in Texas while declining nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Seniors, despite guaranteed Medicare coverage, also are suffering, as nearly 1 in 5 ends up back in the hospital within a month of being released, one of the highest readmission rates in the country and a leading indicator of systemwide problems.

Similar healthcare dynamics drove Obama's push for a national overhaul. In Texas, however, elected officials have done little to address the growing crisis, local health leaders say.

"The philosophy has been the less public expenditure, the better," said Dr. Kenneth Shine, who heads the University of Texas health system. "And some people will just have to make do."

For those who can get it, medical care in Texas can compete with the best in the nation. The state is home to internationally renowned medical and research centers.

Perry promotes the state as a model for a private-sector healthcare solution. Low taxes and limited government, he and his allies say, lure businesses that can offer private insurance and empower working people to make their own healthcare choices.

"The governor's primary goal is to create an environment that encourages job creation and provides an environment of independence rather than dependence," said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. "Texas does provide an adequate safety net to those truly in need … and many individuals simply choose not to purchase healthcare coverage."

Frazier pointed to several initiatives, including medical malpractice limits and a year-old program to subsidize insurance for small businesses. As of August, the program had insured 4,266 people.

But across Texas, health coverage — and health — are eroding even in places where jobs are plentiful.

In San Angelo, a growing city in the cotton and sorghum fields of West Texas not far from where Perry was raised, unemployment is just 7.2%, lower than it is statewide and nationally. But the waiting room at the federally subsidized Esperanza Clinic is filled every day with working people who have no insurance.

Connie Villarreal, who works the night shift at a home for disabled adults, said she scraped enough together to get coverage for her diabetes. But she brought her uninsured 13-year-old daughter to the clinic for a state-mandated physical so she could play soccer this fall.

Buying family coverage wasn't an option, Villarreal said. "It'd be most of my paycheck, so we've been winging it." Villarreal just went to court to force her daughter's father to pick up the tab to get the teenager insurance.

Three-quarters of Esperanza's patients have jobs, said clinic Chief Executive Mike Campbell. But because many businesses don't offer health benefits, demand at the clinic is skyrocketing. Esperanza saw 13,000 patients last year, up from 11,000 the year before. "We are at the breaking point," Campbell said.

At Shannon Medical Center, San Angelo's largest hospital, 30% of patients coming to the ER lack coverage, close to twice the national rate.

And at the San Jacinto Elementary School clinic, exam rooms fill up with the children of working parents who don't have insurance or a regular doctor.

While some of those seeking care are undocumented immigrants, just a sixth of the uninsured in Texas are in the state illegally, according to the nonprofit Center for Public Policy Priorities. "The reality is that is not the big number," said Republican state Rep. John Zerwas.

For years, healthcare leaders here have urged elected officials to act. A 2006 task force of doctors, academic leaders and business executives warned of a "problem of epidemic proportions" that threatened "the economic vitality and health of Texas."

Perry enacted a major overhaul of the medical malpractice system, which helped doctors stay in practice. "We now have much better access to care," said Dr. William Hinchey, past president of the Texas Medical Assn.

But Texas still has among the fewest physicians per capita in the country, according to census data.

This year, the governor and state Legislature slashed funding to train physicians to less than half of what it was a decade ago. Another initiative highlighted by Perry's office to aid community health centers was also cut.

That came atop $800 million in cuts to hospitals and other medical providers that serve poor children, pregnant women and others who rely on Medicaid.

Even before that move, Texas had one of the slimmest Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs in the country, spending less per enrollee than 41 other states and the District of Columbia, according the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

"The question seems to be how little can we fund and still have a system," said Dr. Jane Rider, a past president of the Texas Pediatric Society. "I always thought they would wake up and see, if nothing else, they need a healthy, educated workforce.... Instead, it seems like we're leading the way into a downward spiral."


Unfortunately this line of argument can only go so far. If they're all about the whole "worked so hard for it" canard, then they'll care little for those who don't make the money for medical care, since they didn't "work hard for it", as stupid as they may sound.

[Sugarnotch]

Markets aren't efficient in many cases, healthcare being one of them. A market system may be preferable to, say, badminton rackets, but keep markets the fuck out of healthcare.

For markets to be fully efficient, informational symmetry is a must. Further, there are "Tragedy of Commons" type situations where, when there are no public options, private healthcare providers fuck over the greatest portion of society when independently acting in their own interests.

There are frequent times when private market interests do not line up with social interests. In this case, the "right to healthcare" of citizens trumps that of private interests.

The most basic of economics teaches that consumers must have necessary information to properly make decisions. It's incredibly easy to be misled about a product that often would take a university degree to understand; such is the case with healthcare.

Private healthcare makes consumers have to choose between doctors etc in an environment that is pretty fucking difficult to do so for a number of reasons: it's next to impossible to accurately measure doctor performance and publish it, especially when doctors feel the need to up their stats to compete and gamble and cheat whatever system is being used (for example, by only taking less risky surgeries); it's next to impossible to trust that a consumer can safely choose which medication is right for him (in the US pharmaceutical companies can advertise directly to the general public, I don't think that's allowed in other countries) etc etc etc.

tl;dr the market is efficient in the production of consumer goods, not so efficient in the distribution of healthcare. The private sector is great when you want to make a profit, but not so great where profit concerns need to be trumped by, for example, necessity of healthcare.

[Q]

Free market healthcare operates on the basis of profit. I recommend the movie Sicko to see ample of examples of the social effects that such a system has.

For an example of socialised healthcare, that is run on the basis of need as opposed to profit, I point you to this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-launches-world-t160907/index.html) that is about a vaccine to treat lungcancer:


She said the CimaVax-EGF has gone through clinical studies and trials in over 1,000 patients across the island and is currently distributed free of charge in all hospitals of the Caribbean island nation.

The British NHS, hugely imperfect though it is, is also an example, also featured in Sicko.

[cheguvera]

private health care , private education should not exist in a civilized world.it is a shit idea of dirty capitalism. if every body cant have a decent health care, education why would we have a government?
No one deserve to live long because he is rich. Till we chop the head of american capitalism, these dirty dogmas will thrive...