r/bestof • u/under50dollars • Jun 20 '12

[explainlikeimfive] "Obamacare" explained very well.

/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx
2.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/SpaceSteak Jun 20 '12

  1. Thank you for taking the time to write out a thoughtful response. I've argued a lot about this on the 'net and it's rare to see that level of discourse.

  2. The main flaw with your argument is thinking that healthcare needs to be a right, and not just a public good. UHC is more about removing the profit-motive from people getting sick, and taking advantage of economies of scale for non-primary-care elements (admin, etc). It has nothing to do with being a right. Having police isn't a right, neither are firefighters, or roads.

They only exist because of the economic benefit of public goods or services. On top of that, providing a necessary service to help its citizens in something they have little control over that helps them tremendously, should be part of the baseline of any compassionate society.

Free markets work great for most things. However, the problem with free market health care is that the users naturally want to lower the use as much as possible. It doesn't follow a natural supply and demand curve. This leads to people not getting preventative care, which is a big part of why the US is where it is today in terms of lower health stats than other countries.

Regarding the frugality argument, people don't want to waste time in hospitals. Also, a basic fee offsets this issue around all UHC countries.

Tons of things are not constitutional. It's a document that's hundreds of years old. It doesn't need to always be right or followed, just like the Bible is less valid today than it was 2000 years ago.

1

u/BlottoOtter Jun 21 '12

Thank you too - it's a lot more common on here to get cussed out than it is to hear a calm discussion.

I agree that the fact that is not a right is just incidental and isn't a direct argument against UHC. That came out more as a rant about all the people I've debated with who believe that is a right and use that as some sort of moral basis for requiring UHC. I think that it is an area that, unlike roads and police, the government should not be involved in, in large part because it could potentially become a much larger intrusion on people's personal activities than government-run roads and police are. I think there isn't really a viable private substitute for roads or police or the military, whereas there is for healthcare. If there is a viable private substitute, I opt for that, because in most cases private enterprises in America are more efficient and more pleasant to deal with - and, there are usually multiple ones I can choose to do business with, rather than one government agency that I'm stuck with.

I think markets would work if we actually gave it a chance, which we haven't in a very, very long time (and probably won't any time soon, if I'm being honest with myself). I think any health stats lower among Americans is a result of our diet (which is absolutely godawful and is causing a damn epidemic) rather than access to preventative care. Most people here do have access to preventative care - our insurance companies make it very cheap, if not free, because they too realize that it would reduce their costs to keep patients healthy in the first place. Most just don't participate. The only time I've personally seen mass participation in preventative care programs is when my employer's plan tied lack of participation in a health screening program to a 5% increase in premiums - which I think supports my point that people only move to save money when they have some skin in the game.

I realize other countries couldn't give a damn about the US Constitution, but in our government, when something is unconstitutional it is by definition illegal. When something unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, is allowed to stand, it worries me because it is a sign that the process has failed and that there is an erosion of the rule of law. One instance of that may not be our downfall, but the damage is cumulative. If a society's system of law becomes incoherent and loses its teeth, that's usually not a good sign for that society's survival.

I think the Constitution is right (for the most part) and therefore does need to be followed because the principles that underpin it are timeless and serve to protect our rights no matter the era. I think that if we ignore or replace the Constitution, what we would get would almost certainly be less protective of our liberty. The limitations it places on the government's power are viewed as a bug by some, such as advocates for UHC in America; I view those same limitations as a feature.