Well yes they can, because if you rack up a hospital bill or insurance bill and don't pay for it, they will sue you, get judgement, and then collect using *gasp* force when the sheriff seizes your home/car/etc. You of course have the bankruptcy option but they'll have seized all your money and possessions by the time that happens, and the government will be forced to pay the balance.

Well the government isn't doing this either, not even in the commie places like Canada and the UK. Hell McDonalds has been in Russia for like 35 years and they actually WERE communist.

Uh huh, and what if you have a heart attack, get cancer, have a child with a birth defect, or any one of a hundred other possible situations that will cost literally MILLIONS? What then? I mean, even if there was the outside possibility that you could pay that debt off one day, why should the hospital even front you the money? Why shouldn't they just let you or your kid die?

Some people are ok with the government using force to make people do things. For people that support this, at what point is a minority "large" enough to protect. Clearly, if Bill Gates accumulates all the "stuff" in the world a mob will form and take it from him. At what point should responsible citizens say "wait a second, just because we want his stuff, it isn't right to just take it."

This is a silly hypothetical.

If Mr. Gates "accumulates all the stuff in the world" I'll probably be ok with using force to take most of it away. I think the world where people aren't starving and suffering because Mr. Gates is hoarding resources is better than the alternative. Don't you?

If somehow Mr. Gates get access to all of the oil in the world and decides to keep it for himself to drive the rest of humanity into the stone age - aren't you ok with going in and taking that oil? Would you really be sitting there thinking - this sucks that modern society as we know it is ending but golly gee I'd hate to take something from Mr. Gates.

This being a poker forum and all, you should know that the answer to your question is 'it depends'.

What makes money spent a better way of looking at it than resources consumed? If the US is spending more because they are wasting it, that is an argument that society is better off without that system. If they spend more because some people are making a profit, that is not necessarily an argument against that system. One way of measuring which of two options is better is to sum up the wealth of everyone under both systems. If the extra expenditures in the US system are going to large corporations that are in turn held by the very people that are paying these extra expenditures, the people paying can be better off even though they are nominally paying more for health care. That being said, I don't know where the money is going, but it is by no means the end of the discussion to trot out a number showing it is more expensive in the US.

I think the problem in this thread (and every time this comes up) is there are valid arguments for and against UHC. There is a strong tendency for people to ignore arguments made by the other side. This makes one side feel the other side is being dumb when they ignore something that on its face has to be true.

No I am saying that everyone agrees that would be ok. At some point a minority (whether it is based on assets, or skin color) is large enough that it deserves to be protected from the majority.

RR - You have a fair point - and feel free to show research backing that up. I'd love to read it.

But until then - it seems pretty reasonable to evaluate the system by looking at Money Spent and Health Care Services offered* for that money (and most importantly, I think you'll agree that a countries tax rate has little correlation to health care costs). I don't really see an argument for why these aren't good proxies for the inputs/outputs of the system.

My feeling is that most of the "valid arguments" against UHC are all based off of principles and assumptions. Some might be valid and some might not. But I've seen little hard evidence actually backing up the conclusions. On the flip side - there's a lot of solid evidence (although maybe not enough to 'prove' in the scientific sense) that UHC is a pretty good system.

Edit: * - This was probably a bad wording. I mean more like overall improved health outcomes. So extended life expectancy, better quality of life, etc.

Ah. Well then of course the answer is "it depends". What are the benefits of the persecution (saving society like in the Bill Gates example or just because it makes some people feel less-icky like in an anti-gay-marriage example), why are we persecuting them, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Sorry but like most libertarians your whole position just boils down to the fact that you don't like to pay taxes and have tailored a bunch of absurd arguments to try and support that position. It really gets pretty boring after a while.

I wish i had access to Health Economics, but I don't currently. I am planning to go back and start a PhD in economics this fall. I don't know that this would be an area of research for me, but I enjoy reading what I have found.

What I said about people ignoring the arguments made by the other side are making a serious mistake applies in both directions. I am opposed to UHC, but it would be silly to pretend that there isn't an efficiency argument for a single payer system.

You are right. I work for my money and I would like to keep it. What other ways would you like to spend my money? How much of someone else's labor do you feel you have a claim to?

Great. You found what's essentially a scam that's since been corrected. What does this have to do with anything? Wouldn't this be more of an argument for UHC if anything?

Free market health care ftw.

That's true, but you just aren't making them. You're using arguments against taxation and arguments against democracy as arguments against healthcare.

Jogs, sorry I missed your evidence post.

So what you should have said is that: "The bill for a 911 call in SF is occasionally $1500. It's usually around $350 but some crazy **** happens sometimes and when it does going to the media will probably result in them backing way the **** off.".

Basically your statement is equivalent to me saying:

"Using your cellphone costs $800/month" and then linking to an article about some poor bastard who lived on the border of Canada and the US and was charged the out-of-country roaming rates.

One of the arguments against UHC is that, even if you concede everything the supporters of UHC say, it is immoral to use force to make people buy into a system they don't want.

Where do you get 32k from?

Yes, it is one of the arguments.

40% of 80K. That's right, you're arguing with someone that doesn't even understand how tax brackets work.

A downside to being a libertarian is agreeing with Republicans on some issues.

at 80k euro the tax rate in france is 40% 4*8 = 32 so that would include health care.

Because this is a pet peeve of mine, I'll actually explain how tax brackets work:

You pay the posted rate for each portion of your income. So an €80,000 a year income will result in the following taxes

0 for the first 5,875.
321.48 for the next 5845 (5875-11720)
2003.40 for the next 14210 (11720-26030)
13125.90 for the next 43753 (26030-69783)
4086.80 for the next 10217 (69783-80000)

So a grand total of: €19537.58

No,

it goes like this:

(11720-5875)*0.055+(26030-11720)*0.14+(69783-26030)*0.3+(80000-69783)*0.4 = 19537.58

TOO SLOW!

Yeah this is just an argument against taxation. You could say people are forced into paying for police, fire, and military protection as well.

Are you against all forms of taxation? Are you against all forms of government healthcare? Medicare? Medicaid?

ok the source i used did not specify if it was a marginal rate or not.

i just dont think i can trust the gov to do this correctly.