I’ve put “universal healthcare” in quotes is because it’s a pretty
vague term. There’s an element of a motte-and-bailey scam in the way
it’s used. It could mean any kind of free and/or government provided
healthcare, and it could mean single-payer healthcare.
TIL the distinction between an end and various possible means to it
is a motte-and-bailey scam.
…might have to disagree with you on this one. “Universal healthcare”
is kind of a catchall. I’d say that Canada, France, and the United
Kingdom all have universal healthcare, but they each operate their
systems pretty differently. I could be misunderstanding this! but I
think Canada’s is single-payer, France is two-tier, and the UK is
socialized; the first is a network of private hospitals and private
practices who bill the government for healthcare; the second is the
government provides a basic standard of healthcare for everyone, with
room for private companies to provide additional insurance; the third is
that every doc’s a government employee and every healthcare expense is a
govt expense. This isn’t even mentioning places like Germany or Japan,
which provide universal healthcare coverage without nationalizing the
healthcare industry, usually by requiring citizens to purchase one out
of several hundred insurance plans (including a national plan) or pay a
hefty fine for being uninsured.
Each system has its advantages/challenges, and even if the end
(universal healthcare! woo) is roughly the same, the various possible
means to attain it are far different in appearance and
execution. It’s worth distinguishing between them and it’s worth being
confused about, especially because each candidate this cycle has
proposed a different way of attaining “universal healthcare” while
waving their hands and going “I’m being as vague as possible about this
so you’ll think that your ideal scenario is what I’m proposing.”
The OP then uses this confusion to claim that healthcare should
remain totally private and nothing should change which is obviously
batshit.
I think you could justify the phrase by saying "universal" simply means everybody has access. But under that definition even the "individual mandate" that everyone must purchase private health insurance was universal health care.
The thing is, it's all moot because this entire premise is wrong from the beginning:
> A common meme these days is that the coronavirus proves the necessity of "universal healthcare"
As an American, what rock do you have to live under to not know the meme these days is actually "Medicare for All"? Granted, that term isn't quite precise either (Medicaid has better benefits closer to what's proposed), but it's very clearly talking about national single-payer health insurance - specifically like the program that already exists.
The problem with positioning "universal healthcare" as "universal access to healthcare" is that it passes off incomplete coverage as universal coverage. Germany/Japan/Israel(?) style coverage, with buy-in or pay the consequences plans, are unfortunately impossible in the United States after the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare's individual mandate was unconstitutional. [edit: that's mostly wrong, see below.] Which really fucking sucks, because the last decade's GOP might've gone for a *vaguely* Germany-esque model, and that kind of plan kinda crumbles if you don't *force* everyone to buy in. Which double sucks.
Re; meme, I've heard more people say "universal healthcare" re; corona than M4A, but that's just due to me watching more cable news now that I'm shut up with my parents. I haven't been paying attention to the left's response to covid-19. It's possible (read: probable) that Motte posters just don't listen to or move in any lefty circles. Agreed that M4A is a more specific term than "universal healthcare"
Even on the leftyleft, I don't think any remotely prominent Americans are seriously proposing to nationalize all the hospitals and clinics. The discussion has always been about either universal buy-in to private health insurance or extending one of the existing national single-payer programs to everyone. And since the first thing was already tried, there's no room left for ambiguity even if the term itself sounds ambiguous.
But it's possible that people who spend no time either on the left or in the centrist mainstream have all these issues conflated in their minds regardless because some of the proponents (perhaps inaccurately) call themselves sOcIaLiStS.
The Supreme Court didn’t rule the individual mandate was unconstitutional. An appeals court did recently and the supreme will hear the case eventually. Also the penalty was removed in the republican tax bill.
In 2012, the Supreme ruled the individual mandate was constitutional because it was essentially a tax. The Medicaid expansion was ruled unconstitutional in that states couldn’t be forced to accept it, which is why today some states have it and others don’t.
>I think you could justify the phrase by saying "universal" simply means everybody has access. But under that definition even the "individual mandate" that everyone must purchase private health insurance was universal health care.
That's actually just what the word means. Yes, if the individual mandate entails everyone is covered, even through private insurance, then it's universal. Of course some preferred to pay the tax penalty.
But it’s not only people risking infection right now, it’s anyone
doing anything that risks requiring emergency healthcare - whether it’s
driving a motorcycle or getting drunk.
…except that who gives a shit because health insurance is aggregated
by employers regardless
TIL the distinction between an end and various possible means to it is a motte-and-bailey scam.
…might have to disagree with you on this one. “Universal healthcare” is kind of a catchall. I’d say that Canada, France, and the United Kingdom all have universal healthcare, but they each operate their systems pretty differently. I could be misunderstanding this! but I think Canada’s is single-payer, France is two-tier, and the UK is socialized; the first is a network of private hospitals and private practices who bill the government for healthcare; the second is the government provides a basic standard of healthcare for everyone, with room for private companies to provide additional insurance; the third is that every doc’s a government employee and every healthcare expense is a govt expense. This isn’t even mentioning places like Germany or Japan, which provide universal healthcare coverage without nationalizing the healthcare industry, usually by requiring citizens to purchase one out of several hundred insurance plans (including a national plan) or pay a hefty fine for being uninsured.
Each system has its advantages/challenges, and even if the end (universal healthcare! woo) is roughly the same, the various possible means to attain it are far different in appearance and execution. It’s worth distinguishing between them and it’s worth being confused about, especially because each candidate this cycle has proposed a different way of attaining “universal healthcare” while waving their hands and going “I’m being as vague as possible about this so you’ll think that your ideal scenario is what I’m proposing.”
The OP then uses this confusion to claim that healthcare should remain totally private and nothing should change which is obviously batshit.
…
they just hate people who do fun things, or do anything that would even remotely increase their risk of dying.
“Oh man, look at how shitty this government is. Why would I want them to give me healthcare?”
You mean, the government you fucking voted for, dingus?
…except that who gives a shit because health insurance is aggregated by employers regardless