Another glorious nonsensical back and forth between Health and Ubiquitin

Home Forums Politics Another glorious nonsensical back and forth between Health and Ubiquitin

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 130 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1311502
    Joseph
    Participant

    If one believes that government has the moral obligation to provide all its citizenry the universal right to healthcare, including those that cannot afford to pay for it, on the basis that it is necessary for living, then to not be hypocritical they would need to just as strongly believe and advocate for the implementation of government provided universal housing (rent free if the citizen cannot afford it), electricity/air conditioning and gas/heating.

    If any citizen cannot afford to pay for housing, electric or gas, the government should pay for it for all such citizens who are elderly, infirm, unwell physically or mentally, or otherwise simply unemployed and between jobs and/or cannot find work.

    If they have no income the government should fully pay for their rent, electric bill and gas/heating bill. All of these are critical for living. Just as healthcare is. You can’t expect poor or unemployed people to live in the streets, live without heat in the winter or air conditioning in the summer or without gas or electric to cook their food. People can, and do, die by lacking these necessities.

    It thus is illogical to support universal healthcare without fully — and as strongly — supporting universal housing, electricity and gas be implemented by government at the same time as universal healthcare is implemented by government.

    Right or wrong? Explain.

    #1311515
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    I am so confused

    Do you not believe in government providing homeless shelters?
    Is that really a controversial idea?

    #1311519
    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    The government doesn’t have such a responsibility as such, but society does. Charity is a concept that is very important in Judaism.
    Healthcare is a special problem because the costs are artificially inflated. It isn’t fair that people have to pay for something that is not subject to normal competitive markets to keep prices low and quality high.

    #1311522
    Joseph
    Participant

    A homeless shelter isn’t decent housing. The government should be universally providing decent family apartments so that poor or unemployed parents can live together as a family even if they cannot afford to pay a penny in rent.

    Would “universal healthcare” being that anyone can always go to any hospital emergency room to get treated satisfy supporters of universal healthcare? If not, homeless shelters shouldn’t satisfy them either for universal housing.

    #1311556
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    i’m sorry I still dont follow.
    The Government as far as I am aware DOES provide housing for those in need. As I believe they should.
    DO you believe they shouldn’t?

    I’m not sure what the “decent housing”: distinction is supposed to represent. Are you saying the Government should only pay for healthcare at a not so “decent” hospital. Ok I suppose you can talk me into that though I’m not quite sure why you would make that distinction.
    A hospital emergency room is not always enough. for example if someone’s kidneys fail he needs ongoing regular dialysis. He cant just go to an emergency room and be treated. Interestingly, Renal failure is the only condition which DOES have universal health care in this country (thanks to Nixon).
    Sadly however there are other conditions that need regular follow up, medications, etc that an emergency room isnt enough for.

    #1311571
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I think he’s saying there should NOT be a distinction between levels of healthcare and housing.

    #1311573
    Joseph
    Participant

    “A hospital emergency room is not always enough.”

    A homeless shelter is not always enough. For example a married couple with five children can’t be dumped in a homeless shelter with dozens of derelicts. They need privacy as a married couple and for their family of five children.

    Are you opposed to a government guarantee of universal family housing for all, whether or not they can afford paying a penny they will be placed in private family housing with heating, hot water, electric, ac, gas, etc., with the government picking up the tab for every American who can’t afford it?

    #1311644
    Avi K
    Participant

    Joseph, what about civil society? What about encouraging people to work?
    A person who gets something “free” (someone has to pay) or (better) at a price in accordance with his income has no claim on luxury housing. He should live in a mini-house or apartment with only basic appliances. On settlements many people live in mobile home camps or small apartments built as rentals by homeowners.

    #1311667
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    If your mother was sick and needed healthcare , wouldnt you demand she get the best that there is?

    #1311662
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    I admit that Idont know exactly what is provided.
    But on the NYC DHS (Department of Homeless Services (!!!)) webiste their are seperate links for: Adult Families, Families with Children and single Adults. It doesn’t sound like they are all lumped together.

    something I fully support (And again, I dont believe is controversial,)
    and I cant help but notice that you haven’t answered my question are you opposed to homeless shelters?

    #1311671
    akuperma
    Participant

    The creation of “rights” to things such as health care and adequate food and housing and education date to the Franklin Roosevelt’s “four freedoms” speech (which were setting a platform for American entrance into World War II). Arguably he got if from us, since Jewish communities always assumed that our communal government had a duty to address basic needs of the poor.

    One should note that Roosevelt was not known for his skill at economics (he became president at what should have been the end of a recession, and stretched it out into the great depression), and that addressing “freedom of want” is economically challenging.

    #1311832
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Personally I believe a civilized country should provide healthcare for it’s citizens
    The problem is that government tends to mess up anything it touches
    Case in point
    In the news yesterday, David Greenfeld talking about a city renovation of a park bathroom that is now running into the price tag of $5000 per square foot, making that bathroom more expensive real estate then any apartment in NY.
    To quote Ben Shapiro on the subject “Have you been to a DMV? do you really want the DMV making your healthcare decisions?”

    #1311833
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    As yidden, we have a deeper obligation to support those government services critical to providing basic life-sustaining health-care services to those truly in need and who have done all within their capability to provide for themselves. At the same time, I hear you rationalize why families of learners in Lakewood with 10 children should grab all the welfare money they can (even though the parents refuse to work), you offer bogus philosophical objections to an entitlement of basic health care for those truly in need.

    #1311845
    Joseph
    Participant

    Shouldn’t every unemployed family of parents with children be absolutely entitled to rental free Section 8 housing that covers their entire rent as long as they have no income?

    It is at least as vital as having universal healthcare (and by that I mean more than the right to go to any ER in the US for treatment, which anyone can already do for the last 40+ years.)

    #1311846
    Joseph
    Participant

    Ubiq: I support homeless shelters, at minimum. Do you support universally government guaranteed fully paid rent Section 8 vouchers to every family of parents and children who have no income?

    #1311848
    yitzchokm
    Participant

    You’re forgetting that most important to those who believe in a single-payer system, is that we should all be the same. The government shouldn’t allow people with more money to receive a better Healthcare just because they have more money. We should all be exactly the same.
    Joseph is pointing out, that with that logic, the same should extend to homeless shelters, housing, and other necessary amenities. We should either all live in mansions or none of us should.

    #1311905
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    “Do you support universally government guaranteed fully paid rent Section 8 vouchers to every family of parents and children who have no income?”

    Doesnt everybody?
    Dont we do that already?
    Are there really people who would have families with children living in the street?
    People are so worried about a mabul another thread. We should worry about being like Sedom too

    #1311908
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “The government shouldn’t allow people with more money to receive a better Healthcare just because they have more money.”
    Dont speak for other people.
    Who are the “those who believe” . It may be “some” who believe that. Though if you can provide (mainstream) sources for that would be great

    #1311928
    Joseph
    Participant

    Ubiq: No, there is currently no universally guaranteed right for poor people to receive Section 8 housing. And even those poor lucky enough to be on Section 8/HUD, they don’t get their full rent paid even if they have zero income.

    Good luck trying to get on Section 8 in NYC.

    Ubiq: Do you support the absolute right and entitlement of every poor American to have their rent paid by the government?

    Why aren’t those demanding universal healthcare also demanding universal rent subsidies?

    #1311980
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Joseph,

    I lean towards favoring universal health coverage, but not simply because I believe the government has a “moral obligation” to provide it. Rather, the government exists to provide for the general welfare of the citizenry, and I believe increased health care coverage benefits everyone, not just the poor. Take your example of “universal coverage” by ER visits. Yes, the ER will treat everyone, even those who cannot pay, but that “model” of care is very inefficent, cost-ineffective, stresses hospitals, and delays urgently needed treatments for others. Increasing access to preventative care and clinics for non-emergency injuries and illnesses ends up being cheaper than using the ER as your primary care facility.

    As far as universal housing, HUD already provides quite a few programs for low income homebuyers and renters. We can probably do it and still have the world’s largest military. BTW, taking care of health care would have the additional benefit of reducing the need for housing assistance. Health problems among earners are frequently the impetus for housing insecurity, and perhaps the majority of the chronically homeless suffer from mental health or other health problems that should be treated.

    #1311986
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    mentsch1,

    To quote Ben Shapiro on the subject “Have you been to a DMV? do you really want the DMV making your healthcare decisions?”

    Park bathrooms fall under municipal government. DMVs are state government. And DMVs can be made a LOT better if states invested more in their IT infrastructures and technology. Same with health care.

    Have you ever met an older person who wishes he didn’t have access to Medicare?

    #1311995
    akuperma
    Participant

    Whether “rights” are “natural” (meaning, in the bottom line, given by G-d), or are based on law, is a highly philosophical question. If the government passes a law creating a right, it is then a right. Of course, what the government gives, the government can take away, and there is certainly no guarantee that a government administered “right” will prove to be wise and efficient (cf. the constitutional right to postal service).

    #1312001
    Avi K
    Participant

    Avram, who says that the general welfare would be promoted by socialized medicine. In fact, socialism has always turned gold into lead. In countries where this exists people clog up ERs and clinics with imaginary or minor illnesses just to talk to someone or simply because it is free.

    #1312016
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Avi K,

    Avram, who says that the general welfare would be promoted by socialized medicine.

    And who says that universal healthcare has to be centralized, or even publicly administered?

    In countries where this exists people clog up ERs and clinics with imaginary or minor illnesses just to talk to someone or simply because it is free.

    Are you arguing about something real world, or are you making something up that sounds plausible to you? Your example is probably more apropos to a typical ER in the U.S.

    #1312276
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    If I am not mistaken Avi K lives in Israel with Socialized Medicine. Ive never heard him complain about Kupat Cholim and frankly havent heard much complaints about it either.

    So it must be working

    #1312159
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    I dont know what is available to such people. so I cant speak to specifics.

    I do believe that the right to “Life” is an unalienable right as was written 241 years and 2 days ago.
    I agree with you that “universal housing” is necessary for living. I am not sure why a homeless shelter doesnt satisfy that need. you say it isnt, I dont quite get why. Again, I admit I am not familiar with the specifics available, from the DHS website it sounds like families are kept apart from singles I’m not sure why this doesnt satisfy your need for “They need privacy as a married couple and for their family of five children.” nor do I understand why that need for privacy is included in the need for housing, a claim you have made.

    In short, yes the government should provide housing to those who cant afford it.
    Again, though I was not aware that this is a controversial issue. Do you disagree ? D o you believe the govt should leave families with children living in the street? (Ive asked this a few times, and I dont see if/where youve answered)

    those with failing kidneys cant live without dialysis I believe society (ie the govt) should provide that . thankfully the Government does. Those with diabetes cant live without insulin (type 1 anyway) I believe the government should provide this too. Sadly the government doesn’t as of yet, but thanks to Obama zul zain gezunt un shtark we have taken a step in the right direction.
    Note unlike housing this is not abstract to me, I have met someone who didnt have access to affordable insurance due tio her preexisting diabetes she would cut back on insulin when she was strapped for cash. sure the ER would help her when she went into diabetic ketoacidocis and stabilize a her unti ldischarge but long term she would not be able to live if not for Obama and the Democrats. The True “Pro-life” party

    Avi

    “In countries where this exists people clog up ERs and clinics with imaginary or minor illnesses just to talk to someone or simply because it is free.”

    The exact opposite is true. In the US many without insurance clog up ER’s with imaginary illnesses. In countries with universal healthcare they can go to their local clinic and dont need the ER for an earache.

    #1312709
    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    I think we should be very cautious when it comes to putting the government in charge of something. It’s like the old saying: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for one day, but if you give a man a poisoned fish, you feed him for the rest of his life.

    #1312708
    DovidBT
    Participant

    Two points:

    1) “The government should pay for it” is a euphemism for “other people should be forced to pay for it.”

    2) Universal, affordable health care is a myth. The basic problem is that the underlying costs are too high, e.g., salaries of doctors and other medical professionals, costs of medical equipment, profiteering by drug manufacturers.

    #1312707
    ColumbiaGrad17
    Participant

    “If you think universal healthcare, universal college, clean elections & a living wage is too much to ask for, the ‘radical’ is you.”

    #1312736
    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    College is not a necessity.

    #1312737
    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    If someone cannot pay for basic needs such as healthcare and shelter, other people should provide them with it. The government is one means of accomplishing that.

    #1312743
    Joseph
    Participant

    Universal healthcare and universal healthcare insurance are two different things. America already has, and has had for many many decades, universal healthcare. Any ER in the US will serve anyone regardless of ability to pay.

    #1312747
    DovidBT
    Participant

    “Any ER in the US will serve anyone regardless of ability to pay.”

    An ER will provide the minimum (i.e. cheapest) services to deal with urgent medical needs. Then they will aggressively try to collect payment for their services.

    #1312752
    ColumbiaGrad17
    Participant

    “College is not a necessity”

    It’s likely a necessity for those who wish to live a secular lifestyle. Moreover, everyone should have the capability of attending a public university without worrying about finances.

    #1312754
    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    But unlike food, healthcare and shelter, one can choose not to participate. The push for everyone to go to college is part of what’s wrong with this generation.

    #1312760
    Joseph
    Participant

    “An ER will provide the minimum (i.e. cheapest) services to deal with urgent medical needs.”

    An ER will provide non-major medical services as well. And most ERs in the US go beyond the minimum.

    #1312765
    ColumbiaGrad17
    Participant

    I vehemently disagree, especially as it pertains to the Orthodox community. The refusal of many yeshivos to push college as a legitimate option for their students is precisely why some “non-learners” (otherwise labeled as second class citizens by many Orthodox communities) struggle to find their career path at an appropriate age.

    #1312796
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph
    Please stop repeating the same silliness.
    Many people need ongoing healthcare. Those with diabetes need regular insulin, an ER does not provide that.
    While Regular insulin is fairly cheap , there are other ongoing treatments not provided by ERs that are prohibitively expensive for many.

    And as mentioned while the ER will treat the pt for say a heartattack, the patient will sstill be hounded with a likely 30- $50,000 bill afterwards plus medications that need to be taken, f/u etc that he ER will not cover

    DovidBT
    Regardign your first 2 points

    1) “The government should pay for it” is a euphemism for “other people should be forced to pay for it.””

    Yes, obviously. I explicitly pointed that out in a comment.

    2) Universal, affordable health care is a myth. …”
    Im sorry but youve been lied to. In fact Universal healthcare is the standard throughout much of the civilized world (and some uncivilized as well)
    and dont get me started on the nonsense that is this line “Universal healthcare and universal healthcare insurance are two different things. America already has, and has had for many many decades, universal healthcare. “

    #1312792
    Avi K
    Participant

    Ubituqin, that is because the ERs have to give free treatment. Waitinglsits for surgery in Canada and the UK and super long. Socialism turns gold into lead.

    Columbiagrad,
    1. Many professions do not require college degrees. For example, a paralegal need not have attended a degree program. In fact, even lawyers did not have to go to college at one time. They apprenticed themselves to experienced lawyers who taught them the job and prepared them for the bar exam.
    2. In order to demand a living wage one must produce more than that wage. That is Economics 101.

    #1312777
    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Key word: option.

    #1312813
    blubluh
    Participant

    Is tzadakah an obligation of the individual or the society? Assuming – as I do – that it’s the former, then no government involvement is needed, unless the topic is enforcement.

    The Torah supports Capitalism, not Socialism. Taxes imposed by a king are paid by the individual, not the kingdom. Terumot, Maasrot, Lekket, Shichacha, Lending, etc. are taken from the individual’s harvest or possessions.

    But, because the elected governments in our day enforce tax collections which result in astronomically large pools of money, people daydream of limitless funds from which to pay for every worthy cause. Yet, even astronomically large pools of funds are finite (unless, of course, one piles unbridled borrowing on top of the mix. Then, suddenly, the discussion moves from mere daydreaming into the delusional).

    Sure, one can provide unlimited food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, transportation, police, fire, sanitation, courts, jails, armies, mail, street lights, paved roads, etc. without regard to ability to pay, age and citizenship. But, someone (or a lot of someones) has to pay for it all.

    #1312816
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avi you are shifting your argument

    you originially said “In countries where this exists people clog up ERs and clinics with imaginary or minor illnesses j”

    This is simply false. In fact as mentioned, the reverse is true.

    You now discuss wait-lists for surgery. A new topic but a fair one and certainly a related one.
    First it is worth noting that this is for elective surgery
    Second keep in mind in the US for those without insurance the wait time is much longer than anybody in Canada’s ever was.

    If your question is should we wait a bit to get a (deductable free) knee replacement so that anybody who needs one can get one? I say yes

    #1312838
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Bluhbluh
    “The Torah supports Capitalism,”

    This is an oft repeated refrain but is demonstrably false.

    A prime mover in Capitalism is interest.- Assur according to the Torah
    Competition is limited- hasagas gevul
    The amount of profit a person can make is limited – Anna’as maamon
    There ar restrictions on land/house sales – for how long can be sold
    Yovel.

    I ma not saying the Torah supports socialism But it definitely doesn’t support capitalism

    I dont understand this line “Taxes imposed by a king are paid by the individual,”
    Taxes imposed by the US Govt are also paid by the individual are they not?

    Then you really confused me
    “Sure, one can provide unlimited food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, transportation, police, fire, sanitation, courts, jails, armies, mail, street lights, paved roads, etc. ”

    I was not aware that “police, fire, sanitation, courts, jails,…, street lights, paved roads”
    Where controversial ideas

    (Until This thread i dint know homeless shelters were controversial and I am still not clear if joseph opposes them)
    Are you really suggesting that jail only be reserved for criminals who have paid their taxes, OR alternatively for crimes committed against taxpayers?
    I have never heard anyone suggest that “ability to pay, age and citizenship. ” should eb a factor whith jails. Nor many of the other things on your list

    #1312842
    ChanieE
    Participant

    The biggest reason healthcare is so unaffordable is that there is no price transparency, largely because there is a disconnect between the people using healthcare and the people paying for it.

    I had a procedure done at my local in-network hospital, for which they billed the insurance company $17,000. The network negotiated rate is about 10 percent of that and the hospital wrote off over $15,000. Without insurance they would have come after me for that money.

    If they are willing to accept $1,700, why not just charge everyone $1,700? You could say that they won’t collect $1,700 from everyone who has this procedure. Probably true. But why should uninsured people bear the hospital’s costs? If the procedure is truly worth $1,700 then that it what they should charge, and we should have a better system for socializing the unrecoverable costs.

    I’ve had similar situations with lab work where the insurance company pays pennies on the dollar, but the lab won’t accept anything less than payment in full for tests that are not covered by insurance.

    Contrast the price structure of procedures where most people have insurance with those that are not usually covered, such as cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery is a standard marketplace with actual prices and some negotiating. Insured procedures are billed at exorbitant rates and preferred customers get massive discounts while poor folks are taken to the cleaners.

    #1312863
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ChanieE

    You hit the nail on the head!
    It gets more complicated when you consider that healthcare doesn’t really reflect basic economic laws. ITs not liek a person having a heart attack can shop around
    It gets worse when if a person DID want to shop around it is very hard to pin down a hospital to get a price of a standard non-emergent procedure like child birth (sure there are occasional complications but usually not, youd think hospitals can give you a price they wont. See the video made by vox a few years back “Giving birth costs a lot. Hospitals won’t tell you how much.”

    #1312864
    ChanieE
    Participant

    On health insurance v. health care …

    Insurance is designed to protect against an unlikely event. Every year I give my auto and homeowner’s insurance company money and in good years, they don’t pay me a penny. I’ve had life insurance for many years and BH it hasn’t paid out yet. After 120 years, my kids will get some money. That’s insurance.

    For many people, health insurance pretty much works the same way. They get an annual physical and that’s it. For many other people, though, what we mean by insurance is really a way to pay for anticipated health care. Calling it insurance isn’t really accurate but that boat has sailed. My other post touches on the cost of care and here I want to share some thoughts about the cost of insurance.

    Most nonelderly Americans get health insurance through their employers, although health insurance is not inherently related to work and the only reason we have such a system is World War 2-era wage controls that exempted fringe benefits. Tying insurance to a job introduced several distortions, one of which is that it removed a huge chunk of people from the pool of potential insurance buyers.

    Insurance works by spreading costs over a large group of buyers. When there are fewer people willing to buy insurance, because they are already getting tax-advantaged insurance at work, insurance prices go up. Obamacare tried to address this problem with the individual mandate, but the economics don’t work because uninsured sick people were thrilled to have insurance but for young, healthy people who don’t expect to need medical care, it’s cheaper to pay the penalty than to pay for someone else’s health care.

    I believe that a much better way of driving down insurance costs is to increase the number of people buying insurance, and the way to do this is to change the tax code so that it is better for companies to give their employees more money that the employees can then use to buy the insurance policy that fits their needs. This also requires that government drop some of the coverage mandates. For many people, a catastrophic plan is a smart move, and face it, with the high deductibles some Obamacare plans have now, plenty of people effectively have only catastrophic coverage anyway.

    The idea is to make insurance coverage attractive so it is something people want to buy, not have to buy, and this can be done by (a) allowing insurance companies to craft policies people want and (b) increasing the number of buyers by breaking the distortionate link between insurance and work, which will bring costs down by spreading them over a larger pool.

    #1312867
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Cosmetic Surgery is optional and people can choose not to have it, If you need triple Bypass surgery , you need triple bypass surgery

    #1312874
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Tying insurance to a job introduced several distortions, one of which is that it removed a huge chunk of people from the pool of potential insurance buyers.

    Insurance works by spreading costs over a large group of buyers. When there are fewer people willing to buy insurance, because they are already getting tax-advantaged insurance at work, insurance prices go up.

    I don’t understand that. What difference does it make who is paying for the insurance?

    #1312878
    ChanieE
    Participant

    To address Joseph’s original question, he’s right in theory. The reality is that our safety net grows (mutates?) based on which lobby has the upper hand at any given time and we live in an imperfect world, so the question is what to do about it. It is politically difficult to roll back benefits that have been granted, so we have to be very careful about expanding government benefits.

    #1312883
    ChanieE
    Participant

    You are absolutely correct that when someone needs a major surgery, they need it. My point is that medical providers would not get away with their pricing nonsense if prices were transparent.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 130 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.