There is a key difference between the two. The second approach is recognising that lives have monetary values placed on them, and looking to save 2 lives instead of 1. That is, why spend $100k giving someone 1 month of extra life to an old sick person if you could spend the same money on a young sick person and give them 30 years of extra life? Hence a value needs to be placed on life to evaluate whether government spending is worthwhile. For example with traffic safety, why spend $10m on some safety measures to cut road deaths by 1 if instead you could spend that money elsewhere to save 100 lives?

Best argument against government financing of healthcare I've heard put forth in awhile.

Sounds great, until you're the old geezer. Will you lay down so easily when it's your turn? Should you have to? The politicians won't, their covered. I'm sure they're glad folks like yourself are willing to die for their policies. Too many people think they will be young forever. Let me tell you life is short, no matter how long you live. Logan's Run anybody?

Soylent Green.

I think it's a double argument.

If it is true that two lives saved are better than one life saved, we should use tax payer money to pay for public hospitals in Africa, where people die from diseases a bit of money can easily cure.

For the price of two Americans you can save at least a dozen Africans.

If 2 Americans > 1 American, are not 12 Africans > 2 Americans?

(If not, why not?)

You're quite right, Leauki - the 'value of a life' argument has no logical endpoint.

it actually does have a logical endpoint... 12 africans > 2 americans is the logical end point. Thus we should completely discontinue all healthcare to americans, but at the same time force them to pay for healthcare for people around the globe who could be saved cheaply...

As for the "one month to an old person vs 30 years to a young person"... sounds logical... except you aren't GIVING. You are taking from the old person by force and making him PAY for the young person's treatments. You choosing to give a month to an old person instead of 30 years to a young person is very different then taking from the old person to give to the young person; on the belief that the old person needs it less, and the young person is more entitled to it.

Lastly, what key difference? the two are identical. The democrats accuse republicans of something republicans never said while the democrats say the exact same thing they accuse republicans of... which is actually the modus operandi in all aspects when I think about it.

It's people!!!!

Then I propose a compromise.

We use some tax money, less than the universal health insurance would cost, and build some hospitals in poor African countries.

That way both those who want everyone to pay for themselves and those who want to save as many lives as possible will get what they want (assuming that both sides are completely honest in their demands).

No, the sad truth is that your life is worth more depending on where you are born. How else do you explain countries with both a benefits system (of any kind) and an immigration policy? People will quite readily agree that children should get free education in their country, but you'll be hard pressed to find those that would support bringing in all the children from other countries that don't get an education and providing it to them. Similarly developed countries will have some form of benefit for those who are poor, but won't give the same funds to someone who is poor in a different country, or let those people come here.

Countries having significant immigration will also often see rises in tension when jobs are scarce, such as 'stop all these immigrants coming in and taking our jobs'.

So 2 Americans > 1 American, 2 Africans > 1 African, but 1 American != 1 African.

You can also see the difference at a simplistic level in terms of average expected lifetime income - the figure is much higher for an American than an African, hence the American's life value is higher.

The irony is that an alternative system of no UHC (which I'm presuming you support given your opposition to this argument, which is one in relation to UHC) is even worse - instead of not providing treatment to those where the cost is prohibitive, you're not providing it to anyone - they all get left on their own to try and find the money to pay for it. Also with UHC those elderly people who might only get 1 month extra life are still perfectly entitled to spend their money on obtaining the extra healthcare they desire, just as they would be without UHC (unless the UHC system chosen is a poor one where private healthcare is prohibited, something which is detrimental to everyone). On the positive side, since they're elderly they'll also have had far more working years of life to build up savings to fund such healthcare, unlike someone who turns 18 and is struck with an expensive (and potentially life threatening) illness.

A US healthcare safety net already exists.  It doesn't involve Vegas junkets and plasma TV's (yet) but nobody goes 'without' healthcare unless they simply choose to.

We aren't debating universal health 'care' - we're debating universal (government) health 'insurance.'

You forget that africans (in africa) do not VOTE in the USA. So the typical democrat has no interest in helping them... s/he wants to take from others to give to themselves. They will vote to whomever promises them more "free stuff" and by free I mean "stolen by the government from other people" 

It is neither sad nor unreasonably... Rich countries are rich because of a successful culture. Bringing everyone over will bring about their collapse. And nothing is stopping people from improving their own countries. Except many cultures do not show the respect to technology, industry, education and innovation needed to be successful.

This is part of the problem, the american PEOPLE no longer have respect towards capitalism, entrepreneurship, and industry. All three have become "evil" in their mind and must be shunned. That is the real cause of the problem, we have a majority party that honestly represents the majority in its wish to destroy industry to save the planet, destroy money because money is the root of all evil, destroy capitalism because capitalism is evil exploitative greed...

Lets follow through how government provided insurance works then. Firstly, what kind of insurance is provided? Well the government could give really nice insurance to one person that covers every imaginable need, and realy poor insurance to someone else. That would be unlikely to go down very well with most people, hence it's most likely they'll either provide the same insurance package to people (funded by taxes based on income) or they'll go for a more progressive system where the insurance provided by the government reduces according to your income.

Taking the first option, what is that insurance? It's basically the government paying for your healthcare for various items covered in the insurance, and doing the same for everyone else as well. So, it's a form of universal healthcare.

Let's take the US's current healthcare system - it still has a form of universal healthcare, because everyone is entitled to receive emergancy care regardless of their ability to pay. It's an incredibly low level of universal healthcare compared to other countries, but is still a form of UHC.

Therefore mention of UHC to me seems quite on-topic in a thread about government controlled health care.

Let's see, person A lives in the US, person B in Africa. They both can do the same job equally effective. Person B wants to come to the US and is happy to do it for $2 an hour, person A wants to keep doing it for $10 an hour. In a truely capitalist economy you should let both of them compete for the job. The wage rate will fall as a result, so companies hire more workers, and they both end up being employed at say $6 an hour, while the economy also benefits from the increased production.

Disagree? Ok, let's change the scenario. Person A is in a trade union, person B isn't.

No, it isn't.

Healthcare is the provision of services, insurance is a means of paying for them.

Health insurance does NOT increase supplies. In fact public health insurance creates a monopsony and monopsonies lower prices. And lower prices lead to less supply.

Government _can_ provide "universal healthcare", but this is NOT what this bill is even trying to do.

That's unlikely.

Most African countries do not have education systems remotely comparable even with American play schools. Most Africans do not have the equivalent of an American high school diploma, many cannot read at all. It is unlikely that there are many jobs for which an African is as qualified as a random American.

For this to work we'd first have to improve the education systems in Africa.

The African who managed to become as qualified as an American will likely not work for $2 an hour. He will realise that he can earn $10.

Yes.

Wages will fall, as will prices.

When more people can be hired for less, we will have an over-supply, hence prices will fall.

Money will be more valuable and inflation will be counteracted.

Trade unions are trusts that attempt to monopolise a market by fixing prices (for labour). Anti-trust law has specific exemptions for trade unions (and, unrelated to the subject here, airlines) because liberals do not believe that something is also bad when done by their voters.

Many people, despite not living in caves, believe that the economy is a zero-sum game. But it's not true.