Paying for Healthcare...

[bumcheekcity]

Should people who are dreadfully overweight, or smokers pay for treatment they recieve because of their weight/addiction?

The same applies to alchololics, or drug users, and any other group of a simlar situation that anyone can think of.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/25/03 07:38 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Should people who are dreadfully overweight, or smokers pay for treatment they recieve because of their weight/addiction?

The same applies to alchololics, or drug users, and any other group of a simlar situation that anyone can think of.

I see that you're in the U.K., so i guess this question mkaes sense over there in Nationalized Healthcare Land. Here, in the U.S., everyone pays their own share.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/25/03 09:16 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: I see that you're in the U.K., so i guess this question mkaes sense over there in Nationalized Healthcare Land. Here, in the U.S., everyone pays their own share.

You mean there's no health care at all for the poor? What do you do if you get appendicitis and you dont have the $3000 or whatever to pay?

[Slizor]

Commander, would you be willing to break with ideology for pragmatic reasons?

[arnamenta]

At 5/26/03 10:25 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: You mean there's no health care at all for the poor? What do you do if you get appendicitis and you dont have the $3000 or whatever to pay?

Lots of people go into debt. Sad, isn't it?

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/26/03 12:20 PM, arnamenta wrote:

At 5/26/03 10:25 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: You mean there's no health care at all for the poor? What do you do if you get appendicitis and you dont have the $3000 or whatever to pay?

Lots of people go into debt. Sad, isn't it?

You mean people have to take out loans that they can't pay to pay for their operations that they have to have because otherwise they die?

[Alejandro1]

At 5/26/03 12:20 PM, arnamenta wrote: Lots of people go into debt. Sad, isn't it?

It's the price to pay for a capitalist society.

[Jimsween]

At 5/26/03 01:46 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 5/26/03 12:20 PM, arnamenta wrote:

At 5/26/03 10:25 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: You mean there's no health care at all for the poor? What do you do if you get appendicitis and you dont have the $3000 or whatever to pay?

Lots of people go into debt. Sad, isn't it?

You mean people have to take out loans that they can't pay to pay for their operations that they have to have because otherwise they die?

Wait wait wait wait wait... Now hold on there bum, I dont think he has the concept of health insurance so. It took me a while to figure out what he was talking about too.

[Slizor]

It's the price to pay for a capitalist society.

That and a rich, wealthy elite who rule over people in pseudo-democracies using propaganda that Goebbels hiself would be proud of and destroying anything for a profit, be it the environment, countries or people.

[Jimsween]

At 5/26/03 02:36 PM, Slizor wrote:

It's the price to pay for a capitalist society.

That and a rich, wealthy elite who rule over people in pseudo-democracies using propaganda that Goebbels hiself would be proud of and destroying anything for a profit, be it the environment, countries or people.

Riddle me this then sizlor, in a communist society if the governmen was turning corrupt there would be no way for the people to know. Because since they have control over the news thye could just tell the news not to say anything. Which government has more chance of being corrupt now?

[House-Of-Leaves]

Okay, I'll answer the question without getting sarcastic or overly political. No one's really done that yet.

We don't have nationalized health care, but there are several different sorts of health insurance that people pay for and get covered that way.

Those that are poor/homeless/whathaveyou can fill out forms to be considered for Medicaid, a government medical coverage that will only cover so much, but will cover general prescriptions, office visits, surgeries that are for lifesaving reasons (i.e., no cosmetic surgery is covered), and the like. It's also very easy for pregnant women to get state aid when it comes to paying for the OB/GYN.

There's also hospitals that can't turn away people if they lack insurance of the ability to pay for treatment if they go to the emergency room. The treatment given there is given free of charge to them, then paid for by government monies. Sorta like the pro-bono medical world.

We're not totally hopeless, us Americans.

[Slizor]

It's Slizor, SLizor

Riddle me this then sizlor, in a communist society if the governmen was turning corrupt there would be no way for the people to know.

This is a statement, not a riddle, an incorrect statement at that. A Communist state is not a priori totalitarian, unlike any rightist Capitalist state.

Because since they have control over the news thye could just tell the news not to say anything. Which government has more chance of being corrupt now?

Wait, the choice between corrupt government is between one who could offered massive incentives by people with wealth....or one who couldn't really be offered much at all.

[Jimsween]

At 5/26/03 03:11 PM, Slizor wrote: It's Slizor, SLizor

Riddle me this then sizlor, in a communist society if the governmen was turning corrupt there would be no way for the people to know.

This is a statement, not a riddle, an incorrect statement at that. A Communist state is not a priori totalitarian, unlike any rightist Capitalist state.

I never said it was totalitarianism, but if it were to turn corrupt it would be extremely easy for it to turn totalitarianism and never turn back.

Because since they have control over the news thye could just tell the news not to say anything. Which government has more chance of being corrupt now?

Wait, the choice between corrupt government is between one who could offered massive incentives by people with wealth....or one who couldn't really be offered much at all.

But in the first one the news is privately controlled, thereby allowing the people to see when the government does something wrong.

[arnamenta]

At 5/26/03 03:06 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Those that are poor/homeless/whathaveyou can fill out forms to be considered for Medicaid, a government medical coverage that will only cover so much, but will cover general prescriptions, office visits, surgeries that are for lifesaving reasons (i.e., no cosmetic surgery is covered), and the like. It's also very easy for pregnant women to get state aid when it comes to paying for the OB/GYN.

There's also hospitals that can't turn away people if they lack insurance of the ability to pay for treatment if they go to the emergency room. The treatment given there is given free of charge to them, then paid for by government monies. Sorta like the pro-bono medical world.

We're not totally hopeless, us Americans.

Many people covered under these programs are only partially covered. For example: both of my fiance's parents work, and he's covered under their insurance. We still have to pay $20 copay per doctor appointment, and often all of the perscription costs.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/26/03 10:59 AM, Slizor wrote: Commander, would you be willing to break with ideology for pragmatic reasons?

You mean give up 'ideology' in order to give some people free healthcare? Then the answer is no. The net result does more harm than good. By starting to nationalize things like that you start down the path to a socialist society where people are dependent of the government for their most basic needs.

Poor people should be helped, but not through government intervention and control. People helping people within the framework of the community is what I believe in.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 5/26/03 03:38 PM, arnamenta wrote:
Many people covered under these programs are only partially covered. For example: both of my fiance's parents work, and he's covered under their insurance. We still have to pay $20 copay per doctor appointment, and often all of the perscription costs.

Yes, I know this. I was very sick for a while and unable to work, and I was on the Oregon Health Plan, so I understand how the system works.

The fact is, though, I agree with Commander. I weened myself off the government teat when I was healthy enough to work, and I no longer am on Medicaid. Granted, I've yet to be able to find work, because of the job market being in such disarray. But still, I refuse to depend on the government for something that I can ultimately get myself.

I don't believe that free health care for everyone is a positive step to take. Just like Commander said, it sends people on the road to depending on the government for necessities, and while some people can't help it (i.e. the disabled or terminally ill), others CAN, but won't, because government is just that easy to get.

I fully realize that right now, I could -be- on the Oregon Health Plan, because I don't have gainful employment. But I also know that I'd feel not-so-good about it. I'd much rather work for what I get.

[Jimsween]

At 5/26/03 03:38 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 5/26/03 10:59 AM, Slizor wrote: Commander, would you be willing to break with ideology for pragmatic reasons?

You mean give up 'ideology' in order to give some people free healthcare? Then the answer is no. The net result does more harm than good. By starting to nationalize things like that you start down the path to a socialist society where people are dependent of the government for their most basic needs.

Poor people should be helped, but not through government intervention and control. People helping people within the framework of the community is what I believe in.

Ok, first off I'll start with the nationalizing things leads to communism. You could use that same argument to sya eating meat leads to cannibalism, or breathing leads to asthma. And it would be nice if poor people could be helped out through the community but the chances of that are very low. Very few rich people ever give an adequate amount of money to charity (by adequate I mean in proportion to thier wealth) and when they do give money it is in orginazations that spend so much money a very miniscule amount actually gets to people. And as a pre-emptive to you saying it is because they are already paying thier taxes so why should they donate, many times companies set up a business in another country with lower taxes and claim that is where thier business is set up, therefor they do not have to pay American taxes and yet they still do not pay thier workers more or give to charity.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/26/03 03:53 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: The fact is, though, I agree with Commander. I weened myself off the government teat when I was healthy enough to work, and I no longer am on Medicaid. Granted, I've yet to be able to find work, because of the job market being in such disarray. But still, I refuse to depend on the government for something that I can ultimately get myself.

But wouldn't you prefer a Nation Health Service? I agree the one in the UK is a bit crappy, but it's not that bad. I like the fact that the government provides us with basic health care for free.

[Slizor]

You mean give up 'ideology' in order to give some people free healthcare? Then the answer is no.

What if, say if it would stop things such as SARS from ever occuring, or the Plague. Would you consider that a good result? I mean this would seem to have a net benefit if we disregard your erroneus "slippery slope" argument.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/26/03 05:30 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: like the fact that the government provides us with basic health care for free.

Exactly. Many people would like the welfare nanny state. Why? Because it's easy. Hate making decisions? Just let the government do it for you? Can't take care of your own life? Just let the government manage your future.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/26/03 06:46 PM, Slizor wrote:

You mean give up 'ideology' in order to give some people free healthcare? Then the answer is no.

What if, say if it would stop things such as SARS from ever occuring, or the Plague. Would you consider that a good result? I mean this would seem to have a net benefit if we disregard your erroneus "slippery slope" argument.

Erroneous? So you claim, but that is your opinion and mine is my own. I consider you erroneous.

As for scientific research, this is best done by private organizations rather than the government. The government, of course, tends toward stagnation rather than development because it is the path of least resistance and when you're the government and run everything, there is no benefit for being on the cutting edge. With capitalistic private enterprises, however, there is. The company that develops a cure for SARS or any other problem will have a step up in the market and thus make more money. This is called an incentive, something that doesn't work with big government.

[arnamenta]

What about all the people who won't be able to afford the SARS cure? What about all the people who still get the Plague today? It'd be wonderful if people took care of each other, but too many people are too greedy.

[NJDeadzone]

the irony of it all is that nurses are taking over many of the jobs doctors used to perform. The need for a doctorate in medicine is slowly becoming obsolete unless you are in a corporate research job.

US capitalistic healthcare does not allow the patient to see the doctor s/he desires, but rather, the doctor that paid the hefty sum to be on their list. This limits the amount of patients a qualified doctor could be practicing on. In addition, torrential prices for malpractice insurance leave doctors in a debt to start the year.

So where does this leave doctors...surely unless you are a hollywood plastic surgeon, you cannot consider self-employment anymore, especially going solo. So you could share an office with other doctors, or even with a graphic design company!

If you want to see doctors now you'll find them in a hospital. No brainer right? But who does all the screening and blood tests and paperwork nowadays. The RNs and nurses. The time doctor spends with you is cut shorter and shorter, and the amount the doctor gets paid is diminishing.

So what's my argument? Why be a doctor and spend 12 years after highschool studying in order to enter the capitalist society, when you have to work even harder to manage not only the debts you've made over those years, but to actually pay the rent and maybe raise a family?

::sigh::

[Lyddiechu]

i only have one problem with nationalized healthcare:

the lines, the goddamn long lines!!!!! i live in the us and am covered by health insurance, so even though i do have to wait on line occasionally its NOTHING compared to how it is in canada (and i would know, my extended family and myself vacation there every year and someone always undoubtedly gets sick or breaks themselves on a ski hill and then its lines galore)

also i hear the quality of the health care in the UK is absolutely dismal.

other than that though, i think its a great idea. however i think that the government should only pay for rehab for drug addicts/ the extremely obese so that they can become productive members of society once again.

[JMHX]

At 5/26/03 08:32 PM, arnamenta wrote: What about all the people who won't be able to afford the SARS cure? What about all the people who still get the Plague today? It'd be wonderful if people took care of each other, but too many people are too greedy.

Wait, we found a cure for SARS?

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/26/03 11:16 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: i only have one problem with nationalized healthcare:

the lines, the goddamn long lines!!!!! i live in the us and am covered by health insurance, so even though i do have to wait on line occasionally its NOTHING compared to how it is in canada (and i would know, my extended family and myself vacation there every year and someone always undoubtedly gets sick or breaks themselves on a ski hill and then its lines galore)

The lines aren't that bad. I shot a nail through my finger and I had 3 hours in the hospital while they got it out. I waited so long because they wouldn't touch it because they thought it was touching the bone.

also i hear the quality of the health care in the UK is absolutely dismal.

Not at all, the waiting is baddish, and there aren't enough bedfs, but the quality is very good.

other than that though, i think its a great idea. however i think that the government should only pay for rehab for drug addicts/ the extremely obese so that they can become productive members of society once again.

I personally think the government should stop investing so much in tanks and more into doctors.

[Slizor]

As for scientific research, this is best done by private organizations rather than the government. The government, of course, tends toward stagnation rather than development because it is the path of least resistance and when you're the government and run everything, there is no benefit for being on the cutting edge.

There is no benefit? Do you know what foreign countries are? They are markets, if there was this cutting edge technology then these markets would probably want it.....thus a benefit. I would also like to point out that this would bring more jobs, more wealth and more kudos for the Government in power at the time...isn't that good for democratically elected Gov.?

With capitalistic private enterprises, however, there is. The company that develops a cure for SARS or any other problem will have a step up in the market and thus make more money. This is called an incentive, something that doesn't work with big government.

I'm not talking about a cure, I'm talking about prevention. A good healthcare system could prevent most diseases from A) ever coing in to being and B) spreading very far.

[arnamenta]

No, there's no SARS cure. I meant "what about all the people who, at some point in the future when there might be a cure, won't be able to afford it?". Sorry for the confusion.

Maybe the WHO should start global healthcare.

[House-Of-Leaves]

Okay, logically speaking...

SARS or any other uncurable, deadly disease is a threat to the human race. I can almost guarantee that if a vaccine for SARS or AIDS or anything else decided to show it's face, it would be readily available, even to those that can't afford it. If not for AIDS (since that's harder to pass on) then most definitely SARS. If a person can get SARS simply from breathing the same air as an infected person, and it grew to epidemic proportions...why on earth would they NOT let people have the vaccine, whether or not they could pay for it?

I can see it now.

"You don't have health insurance? Or cash? Sorry. We know that SARS is a deadly, highly contagious disease that, if we don't wipe out completely will rear it's ugly head again, but you can't afford it. Go, infect more poor people."

Sorry, but I have a feeling that wouldn't happen.

[Commander-K25]

Let me clarify something, I think government distribution of vaccines, cures, etc. is alright because it concerns a threat to public safety. It's the day to day managing of people's healthcare that I'm opposed to.