A week or so ago, I shared the photo above on my facebook page. After posting it, I started to think about a specific objection my Right-leaning friends and family might have to it, and I've decided to address some of these potential objections in this blog post.
What follows will be an imagined conversion between somebody who objects to the position above, and me. Everything in red below is from the perspective of somebody who objects to the idea of raising taxes to provide universal healthcare, and everything in blue represents my position.
It's fine that you are willing pay for universal healthcare out of you own pocket, but that doesn't mean the federal government should force other people to support it. You might be able to afford higher taxes, but there are plenty of middle class people who can't.
Well, I believe universal healthcare system will lower health care costs enough for the middle class that it would be offset the any tax increases on the middle class. I'm not saying universal healthcare would be a magic bullet that would be a net benefit to everybody. Some people are definitely going to pay more in in taxes to support universal healthcare than they would get back in benefits from a universal health care system. I get that - that was my whole point of posting the meme above. If we ever have universal healthcare in this country, I'm certainly going to be one those people who pays more in universal healthcare taxes, then they get back in universal healthcare benefits.
Once again, that's your choice to pay more taxes, but I don't buy your argument that there will not be a significant new tax burden on the middle class.
I'll willing to completely cede you point that taxes will be higher for the middle class. If a USA with universal healthcare taxes are going to be higher for everybody. However, I still believe that the momentary value provided by the benefits of universal healthcare will be higher than the cost of the higher taxes for middle class.
All I'm hearing from you is that you want more taxes and a larger federal government.
Yeah, I'm not denying that. If we want to provide universal healthcare, the government is going to have to be bigger and taxes are going to higher, but I still think it's going to be a net benefit for the vast majority of people in this country.
It seems like you are making the ridiculous assumption that a government-run health care system is going to be run efficiently enough to avoid huge costs that will lead to a tax burden that far overwhelms any benefits it provides. Since when has the government run anything efficiently?
I can't possibly imagine how a government-run health care system could possibly be less efficient that the current US health care system. Year after year, studies show that the US spends far more on healthcare than all other industrialized nations, and the health outcomes in the US are among the worst. I think the biggest reason for this is that the for-profit US healthcare system doesn't benefit from reduced healthcare cost and better health outcomes. Theoretically, if the US private healthcare system came up with drugs and clinical methods to keep people healthy all the time, all these US health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies would go out of business. The privately-run US healthcare system profits from sickness rather than health. There is no incentive to keep healthcare cost down, because high healthcare costs keep everyone in the private system in business.
Conversely, government-run healthcare systems have a large incentives to keep costs down by keeping people healthy. They manage to keep costs down and keep people healthy by adhering to the "ounce of prevention" rule. Other industrialized nations focus more on regular preventative care than on expensive procedures. This incentive to keep costs down exists because the less the government needs to spend on healthcare, the more money they have have available to give provide services to and/or give tax break to their citizens. Lower taxes or more generous government services leads to happy voters which leads to re-elected politicians. For that reason, a government healthcare system overseen by elected officials will always have cost reduction as a primary goal.
I understand that any government program is going to have bureaucracy and inefficiencies, but I rather have a government healthcare system that is trying to reduce costs than a private healthcare system in which profits rise as healthcare costs go up.
Wait, you're not suggesting that you think doctors and drug companies want people to get sick?
No, I don't think they want people to get sick, but the in the USA, all the financial incentives are in doing expensive procedures and prescribing expensive drugs. In other countries where the government has to foot the bill for healthcare, there is a bigger focus on preventative care to avoid situations where expensive drugs and procedures are needed. This leads to lower costs.
Well, it can also lead to governments encouraging doctors to skip on care. In the UK, the government is offering doctors financial incentives to reduce outpatient referrals.
Is that really any better than insurance companies refusing to pre-approve procedures that a patient needs? It's true that you can have the freedom to get any medical care you want in the USA, but only if you have the money to pay for it, which a large numbers of Americans don't. Part of the reason why US healthcare is so expensive is that middle men take a really big cut. Does it really make any sense that insurance companies executives can make more money than doctors? That seems immoral to be. Healthcare expenses should be going to the actually healthcare providers, not to insurance companies.
Well, a lot of those costs go indirectly to lawyers. Doctors in the USA wouldn't be doing so many expensive tests if they were not worried about being sued for malpractice. We could cut healthcare costs a lot if you liberals were not always blocking tort reform.
Hey, don't lump me in with the Democratic politicians who are beholden to trial lawyers. I've actually always been in favor of tort reform. I agree with you on that point, but it seems like we don't agree on much else. I don't think were ever going to agree about whether universal healthcare is a good idea, so let's back back to the original issue about taxes. ( Editor Note: This is all I really wanted to "talk" about in this post. However, my Devil's advocate persona took this post in directions I didn't anticipate it would go. ) I don't think a universal healthcare plan will saddle the middle class with unaffordable taxes. As I mentioned earlier, I think middle class people will wind up with more money in their pockets due to reduced health care cost. However, even if you don't believe that, any universal health care system I'd support would be financed by very progressive taxes. Middle class people would have to pay a healthcare tax, but their tax rate would be much lower than the healthcare tax rates for people at higher income levels.
I don't want middle class people to have to pay taxes they can't afford. I grew up in a middle class family, and I understand that between things like mortgages expenses, college expenses, car expenses, and the basic necessities of life, middle class families don't have a lot of money to spare. However, I've been fortunate enough in my life that I do have some money to spare. I'd be very happy if some my spare money was used to finance a universal healthcare system that would ensure that all my fellow Americans would have access to good healthcare. Sure, that would mean I'd have less money for other stuff, but I'm okay with that. I'd be fine with going on vacation a little bit less and staying in slightly less nice hotels. I'd be fine with spending slightly less on family cars in the future and keeping those cars longer. I'm fine with having a 60 inch TV instead of a 70 inch TV. I'm fine with upgrading my laptops less often. I'm fine the idea of having slightly less money to put into my retirement account each year and delaying retirement by a year to account for that.
I believe that people at a higher income level than me shouldn't mind giving up a little bit more that me to support universal healthcare. I think people that would usually have a Mercedes and BMW in the garage could get by with a BMW and a Honda instead. I don't think it would be a big deal if some people couldn't afford a second home or simply bought a smaller second home. I don't think it would be a big deal if a rich person couldn't afford a yacht, or really rich person couldn't afford that private island. I think everyone who has worked hard and has succeeded in life is entitled to enjoy some luxuries, but I think every person fortunate enough to be able to afford luxuries should be willing to give up some of those luxuries to make sure all Americans have access to affordable healthcare.
Holy crap, comrade! You do realize, you sound like a total communist now, or at the very least a socialist.
What you see as socialism, I see as shared sacrifice for our fellow Americans. I've got no problem with people making money, but I also think we all have a responsibility to make sure our fellow citizen's don't go bankrupt from medical expenses or die from treatable diseases. Those who have the most money to spare should have the greatest responsibility. I'm not advocating that money or material goods be distributed equally. I'm just saying that if higher taxes forced an American billionaire to buy a 300-foot yacht instead of a 400-foot yacht, and some other Americans got 100 yatch-feet worth of extra healthcare, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
I don't even have any yacht money to spare myself, but I do have car, vacation, and TV money I could spare, I'm willing to give it up to help my fellow Americans.
I see where you are coming from, but I completely disagree. I also don't think you've been quite fair to me in this "argument". You seem to be able to ramble on for as long as you want, and my concerns just seem to be jumping off points for you rants. Something's fishy here.
Yeah, well, I had kind of hoped you wouldn't notice, but the sad truth is you don't exist. You're just a figment of my imagination, and I admit that I haven't given your side of the story of a fair hearing. I did the best I could, drawing from my memories of being a Reagan-loving conservative back in the 80s, but you can't really have a good debate on the subject unless you have a real flesh-and-blood person arguing each side. With that in mind, I'd like to invite any conservatives reading this to put in their own 2 cents, and I will do my best to respond. You can either comment on this blog directly, or if you found this blog post via facebook, you can comment on the facebook post associated with this blog post.
Hope to hear from you soon!
Rich
