... pretty much... — Banno

Get informed. You might want to understand better why China doesn't have universal healthcare and the social turmoil that has been associated with this fact.

To the actual question, which I realise I didn't address...poor health is, as we've discussed, difficult to discern the cause of, but without doubt it is at least contributed to by the consequences of government policy (anything from investing in a factory to taxing sports equipment) so it seems only fair that same institution pay for the health impact of those consequences. — Isaac

It's not super apparent to me why it should work this way. Can't people litigate to receive compensation when they're victimized? Can't a govt agency like OSHA guarantee their safety?

My view is that a civilized state works to build cohesive community and the health and happiness of its citizens through the provision of care, essential services and amenities.

. — Tom Storm

Why?

But I think the state has an interest to eliminate poverty, disease, crime, etc. from society as much as possible. Otherwise a vacuum can develop that can threaten the state's own existence. — Apollodorus

This is not a moral argument, but it's a good one. In fact, this argument was the primary reason for post war embedded liberalism.

The only curiosity here is, why can't 'mercans see this? What went astray in 'mercan culture? — Banno

Free health care and the metric system - it's cominism I tell you! Cominism!

Funny thing is, pretty much anywhere outside of 'merica, the provision of healthcare to all is taken as a given.

And the world does not fall appart.

The only curiosity here is, why can't 'mercans see this? What went astray in 'mercan culture? — Banno

"The Lost Cause". Too many nonwhite citizens & immigrants scares White 'Murica. Also, antebellum nostalgia is still the religion, or ideology, of +40% of our electorate. :shade:

We have free medical care in Australia and have had so for many decades, It works pretty well and people are not bankrupted here if they get sick. — Tom Storm

:clap:

:up:

The shareholder state? No. Stakeholder self-government? Of course.

The shareholder state? No. Stakeholder self-government? Of course. — 180 Proof

Does this say something about whether healthcare should be publicly or privately funded?

It suggests you're asking the wrong question.

Why? — frank

So it can be a civilized state. And I've seen it work very well here all my life. I understand some Americans with a libertarian bent don't agree or understand. Such is life.

So it can be a civilized state. — Tom Storm

There are and have been civilized states that didn't provide healthcare.

Remember that healthcare as we know it emerged in the 20th Century, mostly after WW2. Why should this new capacity be essential to civilization? What principle is at work?

So far, I think the best answer was the nonmoral, non-leftist answer: because social stability is at stake.

It's a rather intriguing dilemma if you ask me.

Either you nationalize the health sector or you privatize it.

If you nationalize the health sector, more people can afford healthcare but quality takes a hit.

If you privatize the healthsector, quality is A1 but fewer people can afford it.

Also, why is (junk) food easy on the pocket but treatment of obesity-related issues expensive? Why is smoking cheaper than treatment for lung cancer? It's as if the state, that's us actually, finds it highly profitable to make us sick first and then treat us for that sickness.

I'll first make you buy the poison dirt cheap and then once you fall ill I'll make you pay through your nose for the antidote. — The State

Reminds me of Fregoli Delusion.

The Fregoli delusion is a rare disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that different people are in fact a single person who changes appearance or is in disguise. — Wikipedia

Also, why is (junk) food easy on the pocket but treatment of obesity-related issues expensive? Why is smoking cheaper than treatment for lung cancer? It's as if the state, that's us actually, finds it highly profitable to make us sick first and then treat us for that sickness. — TheMadFool

This is the same issue Isaac raised. I think that's more capitalism than the state, tho.

Get informed. — frank

Think you might have that around the wrong way.

But hey, it's your health. If paying more for a worse result is what you want...

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

A healthy population (and healthy workforce) is essential to a strong economy. In most countries health care is either funded by, provided by, or managed by the State. Given that the State is in the best position to coordinate public and private health care, it should be in charge.

The reason that health care is dominated by commercial interests (for-profit hospitals, clinics, and insurance rackets) is that the US (the state, and the nation of individuals) has always and strongly preferred to receive goods and services in a capitalist marketplace. Health care is just one more service and set of goods.

Inefficiency and diminished efficacy is no reason (under capitalism) to socialize medical care, since the corporate purpose is to generate profit. If an excess number of people die because of that decreased efficiency and efficacy, well... Who cares, as long as there are no unbearable liability issues?

However health care is managed and financed, it will cost money. The question is how much. We could certainly receive the same level of care we receive now for less money in a government financed / government managed plan.

We could deliver much better collective health care (aka public health) services were we free of supporting the profit level of corporate healthcare. Public Health services are directed mostly at disease prevention.

Personally... I've been satisfied with the quality of care I have received over the last 50 years. But, I've also been employed and have had fairly stable finances during these decades. People without employment and stable finances are not in a position to be proactive in their own health care. A visit to the doctor costs too much if one does not have health insurance, so one eventually ends up in the ER or hospital with more advanced, less readily treatable disease. Or, one dies without needed care.

Think you might have that around the wrong way.

But hey, it's your health. If paying more for a worse result is what you want.. — Banno

So you don't have an answer other than ’because I'm in the middle of nowhere and I like the way we do it until our economy runs up on the rocks and we can't do it anymore'

Great. Thanks

Fyi – State-run "social healthcare" was first instituted by Bismarck in 1883. England, Russia, New Zealand ... before WWII. A little info can't hurt.

But hey, it's your health. If paying more for a worse result is what you want... — Banno

It's The 'Murican Way (you foreigners just don't get how "exceptional" we are). Wealthcare über alles, y'all! :victory: :mask:

One thing's for sure: the American experience shows privatized healthcare is an utter failure that not only entrenches misery and poverty, but costs multiple times more than a public healthcare system. Those arguing the 'costs' angle against public healthcare are empirically wrong.

This is the same issue Isaac raised. I think that's more capitalism than the state, tho. — frank

What a lovely coincidence! Good to know I'm on the same wavelength as Isaac.

What can I put on the table that someone hasn't already? Let's see...

It's not the ill that kills you, it's the doctor's bill that kills you! Double jeopardy! The state has to figure out why this is the case.

A healthy population (and healthy workforce) is essential to a strong economy. In most countries health care is either funded by, provided by, or managed by the State. Given that the State is in the best position to coordinate public and private health care, it should be in charge. — Bitter Crank

Why is the state in the best position to coordinate care?

Imagine that we go back in time to the 1960s and delete the coordinated effort to undermine black people.

People have good paying jobs and don't worry about healthcare, which is privately funded. What's wrong with this?

My view is that a civilized state works to build cohesive community and the health and happiness of its citizens through the provision of care, essential services and amenities. — Tom Storm

Why? — frank

People living in a civilized state where they experience a reasonable level of community cohesion and enjoy good health, education, personal security, and "amenities" experience much less social friction.

Too much social friction begins to undermine the stability of society, such that there is more disorder, more disruption, less production, less consumption, and so on. If social friction becomes very severe, one ends up with a revolution or worse, a failed state.

Social friction has been slightly elevated since Covid-19's appearance, and mild social unrest related to police-black community interaction. Moderate unrest? Yes, moderate. Nothing close to "severe" where the rioters burn down the richer folks' housing. Poor people burning down their own neighborhoods is more or less tolerable, depending how far close one is.

With more malignant neglect and aggravation, we could get beyond "moderate friction" to "serious friction" or even "severe friction". Some people say "speed the day." Those people generally do not have a pot to piss in.

There are and have been civilized states that didn't provide healthcare. — frank

According to the web, the United States is still the only country in the developed world without a system of universal healthcare.

Remember that healthcare as we know it emerged in the 20th Century, mostly after WW2. — frank

For what it's worth, it is my understanding that President Truman proposed universal health care in the US in the early 1950s. Richard Nixon also supported a system similar to Obamacare back in the early 1970s.

One thing's for sure: the American experience shows privatized healthcare is an utter failure that not only entrenches misery and poverty, but costs multiple times more than a public healthcare system. — StreetlightX

:100:

Too much social friction begins to undermine the stability of society, such that there is more disorder, more disruption, less production, less consumption, and so on. If social friction becomes very severe, one ends up with a revolution or worse, a failed state. — Bitter Crank

Correct. I think this principle has no power at the moment because neoliberalism says fuck social stability. Just raid and move to the next one.

According to the web, the United States is still the only country in the developed world without a system of universal healthcare. — T Clark

China doesn't have universal healthcare. They're a hell of a lot bigger than we are.

Why is the state in the best position to coordinate care? — frank

a) it is national in scope
b) it has the power to compel compliance
c) it has law making authority
d) it has great revenue-raising capacity

Because it is national in scope, it can eliminate regional inadequacies (such as exist in the SE and SW United States).

Because it has the power to compel compliance, institutions (hospitals, AMA, pharmaceutical corporations, etc.) and individuals can not disregard state directives on minimum standards of care (affecting every aspect of health care). The state has extraordinary leverage when it is the pocketbook from which providers will be paid.

The state is in a position to legislate how health care will be organized.

Because the state has national revenue raising capacity, it can distribute the cost of care across the entire tax base (including corporations who would no longer have to provide expensive health care insurance programs).

For what it's worth, it is my understanding that President Truman proposed universal health care in the US in the early 1950s. Richard Nixon also supported a system similar to Obamacare back in the early 1970s. — T Clark

I said "healthcare as we know it". That means x-rays and lasix. I work in ICU, so my view of healthcare may be a little skewed. Pretty much all of the basics of an ICU came along post WW2, specifically from doctors who had been in the military.

China doesn't have universal healthcare. They're a hell of a lot bigger than we are. — frank

Perhaps China is not included among the "developed world." Anyway, the web says that 95% of Chinese are covered by subsidized healthcare.

) it is national in scope
b) it has the power to compel compliance
c) it has law making authority
d) it has great revenue-raising capacity

Because it is national in scope, it can eliminate regional inadequacies (such as exist in the SE and SW United States).

Because it has the power to compel compliance, institutions (hospitals, AMA, pharmaceutical corporations, etc.) and individuals can not disregard state directives on minimum standards of care (affecting every aspect of health care). The state has extraordinary leverage when it is the pocketbook from which providers will be paid.

The state is in a position to legislate how health care will be organized.

Because the state has national revenue raising capacity, it can distribute the cost of care across the entire tax base (including corporations who would no longer have to provide expensive health care insurance programs). — Bitter Crank

All true. But competition between hospitals also improves care. So a private/public combo?

If you nationalize the health sector, more people can afford healthcare but quality takes a hit.

If you privatize the healthsector, quality is A1 but fewer people can afford it. — TheMadFool

There is nothing intrinsically worse about the quality of socialized health care. There is nothing intrinsically better about the quality of privatized health care.