Hacker News Reader

Comment by Simulacra | Hacker News Reader

Some anecdotal evidence: In my volunteer work with the homeless, and prisoners, dental care is painfully, ridiculously absent. As much as I am opposed to the idea of universal health care, I think we can all 100% get behind universal dental care.

View on HN

Can you please explain how you're opposed to universal health care but 100% behind universal dental care? These seem at odds.

Not GP but dental care is a lot cheaper than medical

Maybe on average, but dental care can suck when you need a lot done. Root canals, crowns, and implants are expensive. And dentists often expect payment in full up-front before doing any work.

But it's a definitive payment. Medical bills from hospitals and doctors offices are often padded, or somehow magically they grow in cost. Dental bills don't. It's generally a one-time thing.

Australia has free medical but not dental care since its expensive.

I don't want to pay for your decades of poor health, because your poor decisions will lead to a lifetime of expensive care. However, dental care is a finite expense. Replace all the teeth in your mouth and it's still a finite expense. Since when has "health care" ever had a finite expense?

You're opposed to the idea of universal healthcare? Really? The concept that everyone has the right to quality medical care? Do you really believe that all those folks you volunteer with don't deserve medical care?

Really? You believe doctor and nurses should be slaves? That they must meet the demand for unlimited health care and if there aren't enough of them we should force people to be come them?

There's a limited amount of health care to give because there is a limited amount of people willing to provide it. There is no concept of "right to health care" that doesn't require slavery.

You can argue for universal health care but arguing that people have "a right to health care" makes no sense.

How is it slavery? By that logic literally every government worker is a slave.

It's pretty simple.

Imagine there is 1 doctor. Doctor doesn't want to treat patient (could be sick, could be tired) but patient "has a right to health care". The only way to honor that right is to force the doctor to treat them.

I'm not sure how "every government worker is a slave" fits. The things most government workers do have nothing to do with "rights". As an example there is no "right to protection" even though we have police. There are rights that prevent the police from doing bad things but there is no right that forces police to help anyone.

I don't know of any universal healthcare system in the world that uses slavery. What you do is have the government pay the salaries of the health workers, just like they do for every other public social service workers like police, fire, military, beat attorney etc. What makes health care so different to any of these?

I never said universal heathcare uses slavery. In fact I specifically said it doesn't

What said was claiming people "have a right to healthcare" requires slavery.

Universal Health Care != "right to healthcare"

And how about we actually pay for the schooling for doctors and nurses, so people want to go to medical school without incurring crippling debt?

Surely by the same logic OP believes dentists should be slaves???

How do you draw that distinction between the quality of heath care and the quality of dental care among those groups?

I can't imagine that the homeless are adequately covered. I think it's painfully, ridiculously absent as well.

How is dental health not part of bodily health? I mean, I take my mouth off my body (or just mouth off) at night right after I take my eyes out (actually, I leave my contacts in) but really, they're each interconnected aspects of our persons.

When you say, "I am opposed to the idea of universal health care", does that mean you believe some people shouldn't have health care?

Most dental care is aesthetic (and expensive). I would absolutely be opposed to subsidizing it. Homeless people in the US already have access to emergency dental care - e.g. pulling infected teeth.

How can anyone be opposed to the idea of universal health care? Does your ideology oppose the general welfare and wellbeing of others? I don't get it. I can understand if you don't think that implementing it is a good idea, but the idea?

Well it's the implementation that counts. Most people opposed to it presume that it will cost more, deliver worse outcomes, and increase authoritarian control in their own lives.

To be clear, I'm not in that camp, but there are rational lines of thought to oppose a state-run healthcare system.

(And also to be clear, I can't personally see how it could possibly be worse than our current system)

I want to see healthcare coverage for all, but not when hospitals, doctors, device makers, drugs companies, everyone's cousin, is going to pad the bill. At least with dental care it's generally a straight forward thing: crown, root canal, fill a cavity, etc. Dental care - IMO - is easier to manage and control costs. Which, if you're going to have universal care, you absolutely must do.

Who said anything about state-run healthcare?

(I personally believe we should have state-run healthcare, but universal healthcare != state-run healthcare.)

I guess that goes back to the implementation. How is it possible to mandate universal coverage without some sort of state-provided funding? Nothing in life is universal without government support. And with that funding comes control and regulation. Things that fierce individualists fear the most.

Sure, the day-to-day administration of such a system could be in a single agency, or distributed among private providers, or some blend. But the core thing that opponents fight is still there.

It's a fair argument, but not personally convincing because what we already have all that control and regulation. It's just that it's handled by a small number of unelected for-profit insurance companies instead of "the government".

Success would be wholly dependent on the implementation in any case. Our current implementation is a local minimum of effectiveness, maximum of overhead. There are better solutions with either public or private bases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com