Hacker News Reader

Comment by patrickmay | Hacker News Reader

Universal health care doesn't require government coercion. Many more people in the US would have access to health care, including insurance for catastrophic events, if the state and federal governments stopped interfering in the supply side. The same groups that use force to prevent new hospitals being built, restrict the number of doctors, prevent nurses and nurse practitioners from treating many problems they're more than qualified to address, and disallow insurance being sold across state lines say that the solution to the problems they created is more government. It's almost like they have an ulterior motive.

Big government programs raise taxes and decrease liberty. To quote Penn Jillette, "Why not err on the side of a little more freedom?"

View on HN

Many people would also lose access to health care. Remember when a pre-existing condition meant you were fucked for life? It wasn’t that long ago.

Fully privatized, deregulated systems can work out great for people who are lucky enough to avoid financial hardships, bad planning, or being born into bad circumstances. I’d rather not just screw everybody else.

You're operating under the assumption that insurance companies would continue acting as they do now, even if there is much more competition.

Insurance companies shouldn't want to deny you coverage just because you have a pre-existing condition. They most likely would just charge you more, because you're at a higher risk of costing them money.

Of course they’ll just charge you more. That’s how it was before, too. But when the premiums are so high that you can’t possibly pay them, there’s no real difference between that and being denied.

Wow good points. I’m sure those tens of thousands of people a year who die due to lack of health insurance are so glad nobody got coerced into helping them out. What a useful definition of liberty, that allows the richest country on earth & in history to deny its citizens preventative care so that they end up dying of easily preventable diseases. We have the liberty to beg on GoFundMe! Health insurance companies have the liberty to insert themselves as middlemen to suck up profits for pushing cash around and denying care!

To not quote a fucking TV magician, “Why not err on the side of every first world nation except us?”.

You should consider refuting his argument instead of countering with a rant.

>Many more people in the US would have access to health care, including insurance for catastrophic events, if the state and federal governments stopped interfering in the supply side.

I really don’t care about how to slightly tweak our current unjust system to make it slightly less bad. The fact that it’s unjust (hence why I’m calling out his moral arguments) makes any details a irrelevant. Like asking “How could the trains to Auschwitz have been more efficient - why won’t you debate me on this?” (Sorry for Godwin’s law-ing)

There are alternatives that are picking up support, like Medicare for all, that are worth more time and energy discussing.

Penn Jillette also believes global warming is a conspiracy. No nation with free market health insurance has universal healthcare, so as the person making an extraordinary claim, it's on you to come up with proof.

> Penn Jillette also believes global warming is a conspiracy.

Ummm, no he doesn't? This was something he believed in the past but has since changed his mind about.

Well, he spouts whatever makes a youtube video gets hits. Without research or background. He is an entertainer after all. What he actually believes is probably unknown.

That's a fairer criticism, although I disagree. You could say "what he actually believes is unknown" about anyone, really. He makes his views quite well known, at least from what I've followed him.

Still, I think replying to someone's quoting Penn with the equivalent of "well he denies climate change, so why would we listen to him?" is pretty pointless for a debate, especially when what you say is wrong! We might as well throw out the ability to quote anyone, since basically everyone has some view that someone disagrees with.

Ok maybe he's saying what he thinks when he posts those rant videos on whatever subject. But in them he appears shallow and sophomoric. I think he's smarter than that, so I disbelieve they really reflect his opinions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com