| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2009 06:23:19 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"...working for you ..." -- I do understand that there is often a sizable gap between theory and practice in this area. Congress can legislate a limit on pharmaceutical profits (the other leech on the system) so that drug costs will come down. Why do Canadians pay less for the very same drugs than you do? Because their government says so ... |
Agree 100% there. Why does the exact same drug cost $120 at Walgreens, $60 at the evil Walmart, and $20 at Costco. More importantly, why does the insurance company pay $120 for it at Walgreens when they could tell you to go get it somewhere else where it will be much cheaper? Fix those problems first and see how much better healthcare gets. Then let's talk overhaul and a government run plan if needed. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 06:48:19 PM · #177 |
A long time ago when I helped order pharmaceuticals for a clinic, a popular antihistamine called Chlor-trimeton cost about $1.50 (pre-late '70s inflation) for a blister-pack of 12. We ordered the generic version (chlorpheniramine maleate, 4mg tablet) for less than 1/2 cent each. The difference is in packaging, shipping, promotion, and profit.
Lately companies have been shown to be bribing generic manufacturers to not manufacture a generic version of their product once the patent expires, thereby allowing the company to continue to charge monopolistic exploitative prices.
Pharmaceutical companies traditionally spend more on advertising and promotion (bribing doctors) than they do on R&D -- what does that tell you about their concern for your health versus their bank accounts ...
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 18:49:20. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 08:54:03 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Why not actually try to reform the healthcare system rather then re-create it and call it reform (AKA use less dessing on the salads and try exercising as well)? Fix the known problems, remove the existing restrictions[...] |
Can you identify some of the known problems and propose some solutions that don't involve a public insurance option?
And what are the "existing restrictions" to which you refer? |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 09:27:56 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Why not actually try to reform the healthcare system rather then re-create it and call it reform (AKA use less dessing on the salads and try exercising as well)? Fix the known problems, remove the existing restrictions[...] |
Can you identify some of the known problems and propose some solutions that don't involve a public insurance option?
And what are the "existing restrictions" to which you refer? |
I would hope I could give you a better answer if I worked in the industry or was a member of congress trying to solve the problem, but as a user, as already stated, why does Walgreens charge 600% more for the same medication and why does the insurance company pay it? I just saved 600% on percription drugs. Next, let people and companies cross state lines when shopping for insurance. Let people form groups so they can buy insurance as groups and have negotiating power. Fix the problem General pointed out. But like I said, i would think someone with more knowledge of the system would give a far bigger list. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 09:52:25 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... Pharmaceutical companies traditionally spend more on advertising and promotion (bribing doctors) than they do on R&D -- what does that tell you about their concern for your health versus their bank accounts ... |
Sounds like a business plan to me. Most businesses are IN business to make money. They should give their product away?
A professional wedding photographer is going to spend a good deal of money on advertising their services to promote their business. Do you fault them for that?
If anything, I'd fault the "generic" companies for taking the "bribes" you speak of. |
|
|
|
08/01/2009 01:12:24 AM · #181 |
|
|
|
08/01/2009 01:15:37 AM · #182 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... Pharmaceutical companies traditionally spend more on advertising and promotion (bribing doctors) than they do on R&D -- what does that tell you about their concern for your health versus their bank accounts ... |
Sounds like a business plan to me. Most businesses are IN business to make money. They should give their product away?
A professional wedding photographer is going to spend a good deal of money on advertising their services to promote their business. Do you fault them for that?
If anything, I'd fault the "generic" companies for taking the "bribes" you speak of. |
The fundamental problem is that some people view health care as a business that has to be profitable, and has to follow the raw capitalism principles.
I for one think that the medical calling (including pharmacy, doctors, nurses etc.) should be a higher calling, where people involved will be committed to helping other people.
Otherwise, you will run into situation (if we're not there already) that the cure for disease X is so and so $$$. If there is a need for it, you'll pay. If it is important to you, you'll find the money. Kind of like a wedding photog. If you want good pics, you'll find a good guy/gal. If not, you'll settle for the relative with a p&s, or something similar.
I just do not think that the same rules should apply to healthcare, neither here in the US nor anywhere else in the world. if this means changing the insurance system, so be it. I'm convinced that there will still be people with the desire to become scientists and doctors, and probably be just fine...
If it is not clear, I do fault the people involved in my healthcare that have this line of thought: Oh, it looks like there is sufficient number of people that will pay $120 for this pill. If we set a profit margin of 95% on it, we can earn so much, while if we put a margin of only 80%, we would earn this much... |
|
|
|
08/01/2009 02:04:27 AM · #183 |
Sorry to hear about the misfortune of your parents. I would think that given these unfortunate circumstances that you would back some kind of government insurance option. Don't your parents want that now? Is it possible that your parents were denied help because of laws written by previous administrations? Who was it that the Obama administration were referring to when they said: "we don't help your people?" Who is YOUR people?
How much more are they asking from you? Do you have any numbers? More hours worked in the ghettos? More in taxes? My understanding is that taxes will only go up for those making over $250,000/yr, though I could be wrong.
Some people just can't make ends meet no matter how hard they work, for many different reasons that may not be apparent to you or me. They may already have physical disabilities from crappy jobs that paid minimum wage where they were overworked and abused. Or they may have psychiatric disabilities just from living in ghetto-dangerous conditions (PTSD comes to mind). Lack of education, drug or alcohol abuse, inability to find work, etc. Are there lazy people that just want to "suck on the tit?" Sure, but that may be masking other problems as well. Like I said before, it's not that easy to just jump into another's shoes.
Public housing, to my knowledge, is affordable housing, not free housing. People living there still have expenses. How much money does a family of four in Atlanta get in food stamps? Are you sure all these people work zero percent? Have you had access to their 1040s too?
Glad to hear you had the wherewithal and ambition to get out of poverty. Like I said before, you had the benefit of parents that cared enough and loved enough to support you. That may not be the case for all. In that regard you were rich.
Can't imagine why you would have access to their insurance and payment methods. Emergency services get paid for in taxes so you would not be required to access that information. Unless you were looking over the shoulder of an admitting clerk. The only time I had access to my 911 patient's payment information was when I worked for the privates, who required obtaining it before transport. (Btw, does working for New York City EMS qualify as working in an urban setting? I worked for them for 10 years in the 80s and 90s as an EMT-P and served the following areas: Coney Island, Bedford Stuyvesant, Crown Heights. You can't get more inner city than that!)
To sum up, I still think you're missing the point. Even if there are "social parasites" that abuse the 911 system they are minuscule in number and impact compared to other forms of corruption in the US. I was reading about Medicare/Medicaid fraud in NY State alone, and the numbers are staggering. In the billions per year. Think of how much help your parents could receive if that was reversed. But it's much easier to pick an easy scape goat, common people who really have little to no power in life to change their plights and whom you really know little about.
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
While you seem to be fixated on "social parasites" what I haven't seen you speak about is people who have worked hard all their lives and wind up with health problems that prevent them from working and so they wind up losing their health insurance. Wouldn't it be great for people like this to have a government option to fall back onto? |
OH...you mean people like, let's say, my fucking PARENTS?!?! The same ones that have worked their asses off all their lives, only now to be legitimately disabled and absolutely not able to work even an 8 hour shift?!? Those people?!? Gues what the fucking Ogovernement has done for them...go ahead...guess. Let me supple a clue...NOT A FUCKING THING. For the past 6 months, they have all but begged for the governmental system to help them with medical and living expenses. Guess what the O administration has said...sorry, we don't help your people. Guess where that leave me...paying for 95% of their living expenses while also listening to a government that expects ME to offer MORE to help the social parasites I speak of.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Eric, how do you know your 911 patients were "social parasites?" Did you have access to their their health insurance info or payment methods? I never did when I worked the ambulance. You spent all of 45 minutes with each of these people and somehow know they are not working? Paying no taxes or rent? Drive expensive cars? Contribute nothing to society, etc? |
So I am to assume that YOUR 911 patients just lived in the worst shitholes of the city by choice?!? Maybe that was also the case in Atlanta. Maybe they just picked out the most crime-ridden areas to live with their "100% government funded housing, living on 100% government funded welfare/food stamp programs, working absolutely 0%, paying absolutely 0% income taxes, driving their Cadillac Escalades, playing their new gaming system on their 60" plasma screens and expecting that I somehow still owe them something more" Maybe, somehow, I owe them a fucking apology for doing society such a huge fucking favor. My bad.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Hardly the panacea you'd want us to believe they have just because they get a few small government perks. |
Panacea or not, they suck on it like I would a beautiful, Asian 36DD that was offered up. I, too, was raised in a SHITHOLE. I made the personal decision to get the fuck out of it. Those parasites make the decision to keep sucking the tit. And why not? Sucking the tit and expecting the other tit to be offered up is a hell of a lot easier than working menial jobs, maybe even 3 or 4 of them LIKE I DID, while putting yourself through school. I like tits, too, but there comes a time when you should be expected AND required to support yourself and your fucking offspring.
At the 911 level, YES, I did have access to their insurance and payment methods. An, guess what, at least 95% of the population that I WAS ABUSED BY "served" depended 100% on government...assistance, unless you include the drug deals and prostitution that we have forced them into. It is very obvious by your posting that you did not work in an urban 911 EMS setting. EMS in surburbia is a very different beast. I can absolutely appreciate your misunderstandings and never-ending hopefulness. I wish that you keep that unrealistic outlook on life and are never forced into seeing the true and ugly side of humanity. If you can do that, you have been a lucky, lucky person. |
|
|
|
|
08/01/2009 09:00:24 AM · #184 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... Pharmaceutical companies traditionally spend more on advertising and promotion (bribing doctors) than they do on R&D -- what does that tell you about their concern for your health versus their bank accounts ... |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Sounds like a business plan to me. Most businesses are IN business to make money. They should give their product away?
A professional wedding photographer is going to spend a good deal of money on advertising their services to promote their business. Do you fault them for that?
If anything, I'd fault the "generic" companies for taking the "bribes" you speak of. |
Originally posted by srdanz:
The fundamental problem is that some people view health care as a business that has to be profitable, and has to follow the raw capitalism principles.
I for one think that the medical calling (including pharmacy, doctors, nurses etc.) should be a higher calling, where people involved will be committed to helping other people. |
Crap!
I agree that the people involved should do their best to care, and do their very best, but how is that any different from any job? You're supposed to take pride in what you do whether it's cutting edge IT technology, or if you're just responsible for the custodial services of an apartment building. It speaks of your personal character and integrity that you rise above the bare minimum and perfom the tasks set before you in an exemplary manner.
Too many people don't give a shit.......they just put their time in and demand a paycheck.
The medical profession *IS* a business........if you're not in it for a paycheck as well, who's going to feed your family?
If you want to take it to a higher calling, that simply means that you understand that getting out of bed in the middle of the night to take care of a sick 18 month old goes with the territory. But if you're the general manager of a gas station, you're going to get out of bed to secure the station if some joyriding kids throw a rock through the window and set off the alarm and the cops come.
It's all a matter of how much you're willing and able to take on, and not everyone is going to be willing to be on call 24/7, or responsible for the things that the majority of the population just won't do. |
|
|
|
08/01/2009 11:48:06 AM · #185 |
Talk abour your disconnect between reality and health industry propaganda, former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala remarked in an interview today that, when asked what those covered think about our current examples of "socialized medicine," one person said "Keep the government's hands off MediCare!"
Essentially the same story is told by Paul Krugman (Nobel prize-winner in Economics) in this article: Health Care Realities.
BTW, all that "waste and fraud" in MediCare everyone always compains about is being committed by hospitals, doctors, and industry bureaucrats, not by patients. And you don't suppose those millions spent on lobbyists by Big Pharma had anything to do with Congress making it illegal to negotiate lower drug prices for the MediCare system, do you?
Message edited by author 2009-08-01 12:51:56. |
|
|
|
08/01/2009 01:39:59 PM · #186 |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 12:49:02 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... Pharmaceutical companies traditionally spend more on advertising and promotion (bribing doctors) than they do on R&D -- what does that tell you about their concern for your health versus their bank accounts ... |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Sounds like a business plan to me. Most businesses are IN business to make money. They should give their product away?
A professional wedding photographer is going to spend a good deal of money on advertising their services to promote their business. Do you fault them for that?
If anything, I'd fault the "generic" companies for taking the "bribes" you speak of. |
Originally posted by srdanz:
The fundamental problem is that some people view health care as a business that has to be profitable, and has to follow the raw capitalism principles.
I for one think that the medical calling (including pharmacy, doctors, nurses etc.) should be a higher calling, where people involved will be committed to helping other people. |
Crap!
I agree that the people involved should do their best to care, and do their very best, but how is that any different from any job? You're supposed to take pride in what you do whether it's cutting edge IT technology, or if you're just responsible for the custodial services of an apartment building. It speaks of your personal character and integrity that you rise above the bare minimum and perfom the tasks set before you in an exemplary manner.
Too many people don't give a shit.......they just put their time in and demand a paycheck.
The medical profession *IS* a business........if you're not in it for a paycheck as well, who's going to feed your family?
If you want to take it to a higher calling, that simply means that you understand that getting out of bed in the middle of the night to take care of a sick 18 month old goes with the territory. But if you're the general manager of a gas station, you're going to get out of bed to secure the station if some joyriding kids throw a rock through the window and set off the alarm and the cops come.
It's all a matter of how much you're willing and able to take on, and not everyone is going to be willing to be on call 24/7, or responsible for the things that the majority of the population just won't do. |
OK, medical profession is a career. I will not contest that here or anywhere. There is no doubt that doctors need to earn money to feed their families, and I believe that they can continue to do so under a different form of pay structure and healthcare coverage. The fundamental method the opponents of gov't managed healthcare use is scaremongering by comparing the 'social' aspect of it with other 'social' stereotypes - and many people just connect the two in their heads, adding miraculously what they know or what they thought they knew about 'socialism'. The principle that works the best to instill fear, as every psychologist would tell you and as every propagandist would tell you too is, to provide just a little bit of factual content and a little bit of direction, and then just let the people's imagination drive it to extreme views. Works every time. Pisses me off every time, too.
That is why there are so little facts you will see... everything else is just a set or sets of conclusions derived from this 'lead technique'. Pretty scary when you think about how this defines our lives year after year...
Continuing on the paycheck topic, what I do disagree with is that running a hospital must attract same kind of 'entrepreneurs' that used to run mortgage companies and investment banks. Also, how many times have you (in the US) had a chance to attend a fundraiser or similar money-collecting activity where philantropists (thank goodness for those people - we would have been in a much deeper doodoo if it weren't for those folks) pour millions into building new hospitals and other care centers? I have been bombarded by invitations to help with numerous such projects.
I have never seen an invitation to donate money to help build a car dealership or a bank building in my town.
There must be a difference (or am I completely off in my understanding of the world) between healthcare and other money making machines. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 06:41:07 AM · #188 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A basic summary is here. |
Interesting chart and worth highlighting.
Most of the arguments I see here against socialised healthcare in the US are non-issues. It is not as if you lose the private option - you simply gain a basic level of care for everyone and eliminate a huge waste of resources currently engaged in administration.
Private healthcare will get cheaper and better - to compete with the public system, but also because the existence of a good public system will reduce the level of reliance on the private system.
The public system will be able to coordinate and use professionalism and purchasing power to drive down the cost of drugs in the free market (socialised healthcare does not mandate price regulation for the drug companies).
The taxpayer will be subsidising some poor malingerers - but then insurance premium payers are currently subsidising plenty of rich malingerers through their private health insurance premiums (though they may not know it). The temptation to defraud an insurance company will be much reduced if there is a national system to fall back on.
Society as a whole should become healthier and more productive.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:02:28 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A basic summary is here. |
Interesting chart and worth highlighting.
Most of the arguments I see here against socialised healthcare in the US are non-issues. It is not as if you lose the private option - you simply gain a basic level of care for everyone and eliminate a huge waste of resources currently engaged in administration.
Private healthcare will get cheaper and better - to compete with the public system, but also because the existence of a good public system will reduce the level of reliance on the private system.
The public system will be able to coordinate and use professionalism and purchasing power to drive down the cost of drugs in the free market (socialised healthcare does not mandate price regulation for the drug companies).
The taxpayer will be subsidising some poor malingerers - but then insurance premium payers are currently subsidising plenty of rich malingerers through their private health insurance premiums (though they may not know it). The temptation to defraud an insurance company will be much reduced if there is a national system to fall back on.
Society as a whole should become healthier and more productive. |
So as this applies to the Right vs Priviledge question, is it accurate for me to read your position as; a basic level of health care is a right, with the option of those with more resources (money) to have a better private plan as well? Kind of like public education versus private education. All pay taxes to support a basic education system called public schools, while some families decide to forego their tax money spent, and pay an additional amount for their children to attend a private school (often parochial).
eta: If the (tax supported) public system is an overall benefit to society as it lowers the cost of the private sector and better ensures all benefit, then those in my state with 40% adult illiteracy (can't read to a 6th grade level) do not support the position that a tax supported public education system is very effective - as society as a whole should have become more educated and more productive.
Message edited by author 2009-08-03 10:11:12. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:21:03 AM · #190 |
| Education vs health care is an apples to oranges comparison. There are people who don't want to be taught and people who can't be taught. I don't know of anyone who is ill and doesn't want to have access to a doctor. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:34:44 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Education vs health care is an apples to oranges comparison. There are people who don't want to be taught and people who can't be taught. I don't know of anyone who is ill and doesn't want to have access to a doctor. |
They *do* exist, just not as frequently as people who don't want an education. (and everyone CAN be taught, just perhaps not with a standard curriculum). |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:45:05 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I don't know of anyone who is ill and doesn't want to have access to a doctor. |
I can introduce you to a bunch of people like that in my neighborhood; they are called Christian Scientists, and they oppose any sort of mandatory health insurance.
R. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:55:22 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I don't know of anyone who is ill and doesn't want to have access to a doctor. |
I can introduce you to a bunch of people like that in my neighborhood; they are called Christian Scientists, and they oppose any sort of mandatory health insurance.
R. |
I believe my father-in-law was one of them. He died some time before I met my wife . . . |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 12:38:10 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Education vs health care is an apples to oranges comparison. There are people who don't want to be taught and people who can't be taught. I don't know of anyone who is ill and doesn't want to have access to a doctor. |
But there are some who wish to forego any treatment as it is futile and government agents who would decline care for others as the dollar return versus life expectancy does not make financial sense - or even those who wish to end their lives early. I would submit to you that anyone who smokes in this age of enlightenment in knowingly committing a form of suicide. What about other risky behaviors like heavy drinking, unprotected sex with multiple partners, or even hiking on the Iraq/Iran border? Are these to be included in the public's tax paid healthcare system.
Perhaps I missed the discussion on right versus priviledge. Do you believe that some "x" standard of health care is a right or a priviledege? If it is a right, then is it not a right for every human being? Or is it a right for only select human beings? If it is a right for all human beings, then how do we support those in other countries to ensure they get the definition of "x" standard? Who pays for it?
Compassion might compel a person to support health care as a right, but it gets a little more dynamic when one has to decide who is and who is not covered and why? If some are not covered for reason "a" then certainly others could not be covered for reason "b". Then "c", and "d" and "e" and ...
The term universal healthcare is a bit misleading.
Message edited by author 2009-08-03 13:07:21. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 01:02:20 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Education vs health care is an apples to oranges comparison. There are people who don't want to be taught and people who can't be taught. I don't know of anyone who is ill and doesn't want to have access to a doctor. |
Perhaps I missed the discussion on right versus priviledge. Do you believe that some "x" standard of health care is a right or a priviledege? If it is a right, then is it not a right for every human being? Or is it a right for only select human beings? If it is a right for all human beings, then how do we support those in other countries to ensure they get the definition of "x" standard? Who pays for it?
Compassion might compel a person to support health care as a right, but it gets a little more dynamic when one has to decide who is and who is not covered and why? If some are not covered for reason "a" then certainly others could not be covered for reason "b". Then "c", and "d" and "e" and ...
The term universal healthcare is a bit misleading. |
I personally believe access to healthcare should be a right. As for world wide coverage, that's a pipe dream for now. But eventually it will happen. AFAIK the usa already does provide many other countries with basic preventative services such as vaccinations though I don't have statistics on who or how it's paid for. Yet if I don't have coverage I can't get for my child what's given away for free by us to other countries. I really don't know what everyone is so afraid of. They don't have any plans to take away the private plans from people who have them. They just want to make sure that those who don't have private plans have access as well. Our tax dollars pay for healthcare for the President, congress, etc. Why shouldn't those same tax dollars pay for our coverage?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2009 01:09:19 PM · #196 |
...
Message edited by author 2009-08-03 13:53:37. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 01:10:05 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Education vs health care is an apples to oranges comparison. There are people who don't want to be taught and people who can't be taught. I don't know of anyone who is ill and doesn't want to have access to a doctor. |
Perhaps I missed the discussion on right versus priviledge. Do you believe that some "x" standard of health care is a right or a priviledege? If it is a right, then is it not a right for every human being? Or is it a right for only select human beings? If it is a right for all human beings, then how do we support those in other countries to ensure they get the definition of "x" standard? Who pays for it?
Compassion might compel a person to support health care as a right, but it gets a little more dynamic when one has to decide who is and who is not covered and why? If some are not covered for reason "a" then certainly others could not be covered for reason "b". Then "c", and "d" and "e" and ...
The term universal healthcare is a bit misleading. |
I personally believe access to healthcare should be a right. As for world wide coverage, that's a pipe dream for now. But eventually it will happen. AFAIK the usa already does provide many other countries with basic preventative services such as vaccinations though I don't have statistics on who or how it's paid for. Yet if I don't have coverage I can't get for my child what's given away for free by us to other countries. I really don't know what everyone is so afraid of. They don't have any plans to take away the private plans from people who have them. They just want to make sure that those who don't have private plans have access as well. Our tax dollars pay for healthcare for the President, congress, etc. Why shouldn't those same tax dollars pay for our coverage? |
I thought they did. The local Hospital that I interact with daily has case after case after case of uninsured that get treated there with the taxpayer picking up the tab. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 01:10:46 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
... Our tax dollars pay for healthcare for the President, congress, etc. Why shouldn't those same tax dollars pay for our coverage? |
If it's the same tax dollars, ok - but don't raise my taxes to make it happen.
One thing I heard, and no I can't verify it at the moment (I'll try to find it later), is one of the options being floated to pay for this new healthcare plan is to tax the private (employer) healthcare benefits we currently receive as taxable income. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 01:16:09 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I personally believe access to healthcare should be a right. As for world wide coverage, that's a pipe dream for now. |
I really understand your position. I do believe it highlights the delema. If the standard for minimum healthcare is the standard we provide through government aid to 3rd world countries with no support structure, then that might be an acceptable minimum standard for the uninsured around the world. However, I am not convinced that that is the standard. I somehow suspect the standard to be significantly higher. And if it is higher for us, then is it not a tad hypocritcal to not also argue for that same standard for all human beings? |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 01:19:41 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Education vs health care is an apples to oranges comparison. There are people who don't want to be taught and people who can't be taught. I don't know of anyone who is ill and doesn't want to have access to a doctor. |
Perhaps I missed the discussion on right versus priviledge. Do you believe that some "x" standard of health care is a right or a priviledege? If it is a right, then is it not a right for every human being? Or is it a right for only select human beings? If it is a right for all human beings, then how do we support those in other countries to ensure they get the definition of "x" standard? Who pays for it?
Compassion might compel a person to support health care as a right, but it gets a little more dynamic when one has to decide who is and who is not covered and why? If some are not covered for reason "a" then certainly others could not be covered for reason "b". Then "c", and "d" and "e" and ...
The term universal healthcare is a bit misleading. |
I personally believe access to healthcare should be a right. As for world wide coverage, that's a pipe dream for now. But eventually it will happen. AFAIK the usa already does provide many other countries with basic preventative services such as vaccinations though I don't have statistics on who or how it's paid for. Yet if I don't have coverage I can't get for my child what's given away for free by us to other countries. I really don't know what everyone is so afraid of. They don't have any plans to take away the private plans from people who have them. They just want to make sure that those who don't have private plans have access as well. Our tax dollars pay for healthcare for the President, congress, etc. Why shouldn't those same tax dollars pay for our coverage? |
I thought they did. The local Hospital that I interact with daily has case after case after case of uninsured that get treated there with the taxpayer picking up the tab. |
Those are emergencies. You can't compare stuff that's not comparable. Would they treat my son's ADHD? No. Would they treat my heart condition? No, unless I was in the middle of a heart attack.
Let me tell you a quick story. We have insurance, but apparently not the right insurance for a local hospital. My husband recently broke his ankle very severely. It needs surgery. We went to the local hospital who took x rays, splinted it and sent him home with a shot of painkiller and a referral to see an orthopedic surgeon. By the time we were able to get an appointment to the surgeon it had swelled so bad surgery was not possible. It's now been almost 3 weeks. Still no surgery. He goes back next Monday to try again. If we had gone to a different hospital (one that takes our insurance) he would have been admitted and surgery would have been done the next morning. |
|
