Understanding the Arguments for Universal Health Care (OCON 2015)

Universal health care, a system in which the government guarantees each citizen a certain level of medical care, is considered by many an ideal. In countries that have it, medicine is said to be cheaper, of better quality and available to everyone. This talk by Ayn Rand Institute analyst Rituparna Basu explains the alleged ideal of universal health care and then challenges it.

This talk was recorded on July 8, 2015, at the Objectivist Summer Conference 2015 in Charlotte, North Carolina.

---

ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism.

We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

---

Image credits:
6:50, 45:20 Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

[dd]

Great presentation.  The US also has high medical costs because of Regulations, FDA, Lawsuit capital of the world, Medicare/Medicaid.

[quantumGs_Blackbird]

There's a lot of great research in here and the speaker would have had more time to present it if she didn't repeat every point five times. The last ten minutes are fantastic.. start watching at 45:02 for the meat of this argument.

[davidkundalirose]

Some links to her sources would have been nice

[soapbxprod]

Dear Ms. Basu,
You are a Goddess of wisdom. Your husband must be a truly virtuous man. Wishing you and yours nothing but the best of everything. Thanks.

[theslimeylimey]

It's also a matter of life and death for those people who can't afford the treatment to keep them alive that others can. I live in Canada and I really like knowing I will not be bankrupted by illness or have an insurance company reject me after 20 years of payments because I get sick through no fault of my own.

I think their needs to be a mix. I believe a population could self insure as a collective cooperative (universal health care) without for profit insurance companies preying on the sick but still allow private health care for those who wish to pay extra on top of that. It will not work with an opt in or opt out option. The money should also follow the customer(patient) so if a hospital has no patients they get no money from the government so hospital funding is kept market based.
This is how auto insurance works here. You can buy auto collision insurance from the government and if you need to make a claim to get your car fixed, you take your car to a private body shop of your choice and the government pays them to fix it. If you want extra work done you can pay for that as an extra on top and I have friends who have done exactly that to get a higher quality paint job or better parts.

[lankysapien]

She makes great argument, but this particular presentation is lacking some hard numbers to add to this argument. If anyone is looking for more details, check her medicare presentation. (link at end of video)

[sidd-artha]

Amazing! An American with excellent knowledge about the workings of the European systems. Thank you.

[shaz]

27:32 camera man taking a break from excess camera panning and zooming due to the constantly moving speaker lol

[nissanseller]

If all the universal single payer countries limit access to quality care reduce the time doctors spend with their patients and discourage innovation why do all these countries score much higher on outcomes? I wish the speaker would have explained that point better

[jasonstefanuk]

The truth of universal health care is that for general medicine, general practitioner level. Those services are there. If you require specialist services you will probably die before you get seen. There is little or no research and development in these countries. In the for profit system specialties are available research occurs but general practices are lacking for the masses. The real answer is for those who can to pay to pay and give a bit for the other guy who can't. When Ayn Rand was asked who will look after the poor and needy she replied, " you can if you want." The thing is we should all "want" to help our neighbour. The late Harry Chapin said, " work one day for yourself and one day for the next guy." If we all did it would change the world. No extra taxes and a tax deduction for giving to charity.

[kevinakimou]

If you import drugs from another country, you are STILL paying for innovation; The economic argument given here is spurious. America is NOT subsidising foreign markets. It is selling its "innovative" products on a free world market. That is NOT subsidy.
The UK also earns a lot from pharmaceutical sales. Switzerland and Germany also. That's not subsidy either.

For the record, I never saw a general practitioner in Europe that did not have a receptionist and/or paid assistants. The typical system is three or four doctors' with receptionists on shift, usually a qualified nurse and often somebody to deal with computer and other equipment (maybe part-time). The argument given here that doctors do it all themselves is a fantasy.

[kael]

how much do you spend on military spending?

[reginajanelilianapatterson]

All I heard out of all of that, for all of the good points that she has made here, is Health Care should be a luxury.

[gareginasatryan]

The issue with these arguments is that people put their money where their mouth is. If you like Sweden go live in Sweden, If you like Saudi Arabia, go live there.
Blankly saying, Sweden is better because XYZ, is spurious because people have different preferences.
Switzerland is one of the most well run countries in the world, yet I have met bunch of people who complain how much they hate it there and move to UK, France, even when those countries have a crapton of social problems.
Millions of Americans actually are satisfied with their healthcare. What about those people? Just pointing out dissatisfaction by some is not a good argument, because some cultures complain more openly than others. (Jews vs Japanese)

[peace]

It’s funny how she thinks the amount of people with healthcare in a country shouldn’t be on the list 🤔. You can’t exactly rate a nations healthcare if it’s people don’t have any.

[joshuawentzel]

All I know is I make more than the maximum for Medicaid and I don't make enough to pay for my own insurance. I'm an epileptic... It's pretty important for me to have healthcare. Why can't I get it? Cause I don't make enough? Doesn't seem very fair.

[justifiably_stupid]

I know it is strange, but i feel the ideal system would be a free clinic (ghetto style) that will diagnose any malady at tax payer expense. They will not, however, treat or cure you. They will only provide information of what you have and the possible symptoms.

This is a valuable resource of information to track new diseases and outbreaks before people feel sick enough to get treated by a real doctor

[mwmace]

If I remember correctly, the reason the US came in 37th in the UN study was because the US had mostly private healthcare. The questions were really biased towards evaluating the extent of socialized healthcare for each country.

[duanecrosson]

"Has this woman ever gone to the hospital in the US? You don't think Insurance companies limit services to control costs? Insurance companies motivation is profit, not patient care. The less care they provide the more money they make. I'd love to debate this woman.
There is not a single solution here. The bottom line is these nine countries have better, cheaper healthcare. Deficites are a problem outside of healthcare. Under the current healthcare system in the US were running a $1 Trillion dollar deficit and looking at a total debt of $21 Trillion.
On a more personal note, and this is not sexist. She is talking for 1hr and is out of breath. She needs to hit the gym or she's going to be needing healthcare services.

[youngalexander]

She ends talking about how universal healthcare affects individuals, yet fails to mention that health care in the US costs twice as much PER PERSON.

She says the individual should be able to choose whether they should pursue treatment, people in the US can't even weigh the options because they'll go bankrupt regardless.

And riddle me this, if the WHO put the US so low on the list because they're pursuing a socialist agenda, why is it that the US has for example, the highest rate of obesity, and diabetes, and has lower life expectancies than all of these countries with socialized medicine?

She fails in my opinion to provide hard facts to contextualize her argument, and uses a lot of personal opinion, and anecdotal evidence to support her case. Also at the end there seems to be a sort of faux-emotional high that comes at the end of her argument, and in combining this with my reasons listen above, I do not find her argument compelling to say the least.