Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,377
- 126
I agree with most of what you say here, and acknowledge that I get carried away with my responses from time to time. I'm a fairly intense person.
There is no pure logic that can be applied here. I do believe that great efforts should be made to keep people alive, and particularly the young. I do acknowledge the problem of the elderly who are very expensive to keep alive, but I have no quick answer to that. Possibly there could be a review of the prognosis for long-term survival, and if the percentage is less than a couple of percent, the patient could be moved into stages that focus on managing pain, and less on artificial organ-duty replacement.
What got me hot was the callous defense of money without regard to human life, even children with illnesses that are fabulously expensive to treat. No qualification was given on this issue. Not to mention that in recording the results of treatment given to complex cases like these, much is learned for future use. More efficient treatment in the future = less expensive for many reasons.
It's the opposite of capitalism? I'm referring to the concept of communism, not the implementation we've seen around the world.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,377
- 126
I do, but I also think that there is enough wealth in this nation to balance it somewhat. It makes me uncomfortable supporting somewhat socialist stands on something, as I don't agree with much general welfare beyond small and short-term help.
Btw, I do support a graded tax scale because of these issues. I think that beyond a point (maybe 50x the average income?), that wealth accumulation becomes degrading to the national interest.
I don't agree in a fully socialized system however, and I do think that we should allow the rich to pay for specialized care.
It's very complicated, so I am willing to yield based on additional experience and information, but my general perspectives are pretty firm (ie; life > money).
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Ok, that's fine. Of course, life > money. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, except that you could easily (and rightly IMO) be accused of trying to grab the moral high ground with a simplistic outlook on a complex issue (i.e., "think of the children!")
However, don't you think you ought to rethink your statement of "Infohawk's attitude is one of absolute selfishness, that borders on pure hate. "??
I find it fascinating that people continue to think healthcare is just another commodity like phone service or cable.
For instance, the single greatest public health initiative ever was sanitation . . . in essence effective garbage disposal and keeping regular and human waste out of the water supply (potable water).
A distant yet far from insignificant second is uinversal vaccination.
Universal vaccination provides tremendous benefits to a society. It makes sense to vaccinate everyone against communicable diseases. We've got an extensive kiddie battery but due to lame arse administrations/Congresses we've never gotten around to universal flu vaccination . . . despite the fact that 30k will die, hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations, a huge healthcare tab, and loss of productivity EVERY year.
HPV is the tip of the iceberg. There will be more vaccines over the coming decades for obesity, diabetes, infectious diseases (HIV hopefully), and possibly even smoking or alcoholism. Only the most moronic of societies would put itself at a competitive advantage to the rest of the developed world by failing to provide basic healthcare.
Now from a 'personal accountability' perspective . . . that gets kind of tricky. Tax deductions or credits for 'healthy' lifestyle behaviors?
Now just because 'health maintenance' is a collective good doesn't mean that certain aspects of healthcare cannot remain primarily 'consumer-driven' and 'consumer-responsible.' Cosmetic procedures, sexual health augmentation, conception/birth control, fertility procedures, etc should be the responsibility of individuals not the state. Granted, most of these drugs/procedures are not covered by typical insurance policies now. The future likely holds even more of these 'lifestyle augmentation' products/procedures.
For instance, the single greatest public health initiative ever was sanitation . . . in essence effective garbage disposal and keeping regular and human waste out of the water supply (potable water).
A distant yet far from insignificant second is uinversal vaccination.
Universal vaccination provides tremendous benefits to a society. It makes sense to vaccinate everyone against communicable diseases. We've got an extensive kiddie battery but due to lame arse administrations/Congresses we've never gotten around to universal flu vaccination . . . despite the fact that 30k will die, hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations, a huge healthcare tab, and loss of productivity EVERY year.
HPV is the tip of the iceberg. There will be more vaccines over the coming decades for obesity, diabetes, infectious diseases (HIV hopefully), and possibly even smoking or alcoholism. Only the most moronic of societies would put itself at a competitive advantage to the rest of the developed world by failing to provide basic healthcare.
Now from a 'personal accountability' perspective . . . that gets kind of tricky. Tax deductions or credits for 'healthy' lifestyle behaviors?
Now just because 'health maintenance' is a collective good doesn't mean that certain aspects of healthcare cannot remain primarily 'consumer-driven' and 'consumer-responsible.' Cosmetic procedures, sexual health augmentation, conception/birth control, fertility procedures, etc should be the responsibility of individuals not the state. Granted, most of these drugs/procedures are not covered by typical insurance policies now. The future likely holds even more of these 'lifestyle augmentation' products/procedures.
The question is not whether a person can obtain medical care, but what the quality of that care is. I'm obtaining mine from the VA, which is probably like what would be available to others under a national health care system. I can assure you that the care that the VA provides is minimal, and too often not even applicable to the problems that a person may have. Obviously, if the medical community was force to serve everyone equally, the care given would be equally bad. But, it would not hurt the doctors, etc. financially, because they would make more than ever from the tax supported system.
When considering this question, one should look to how it would apply to all other human needs. Everybody needs food, shelter and clothing as much as they do medical care. Should we then have a national system to provide these for everyone...equally? At this time, anyone that requires emergency medical service is given the treatment that they need, so a national system would only result in a higher tax rate that nobody could really afford.
When considering this question, one should look to how it would apply to all other human needs. Everybody needs food, shelter and clothing as much as they do medical care. Should we then have a national system to provide these for everyone...equally? At this time, anyone that requires emergency medical service is given the treatment that they need, so a national system would only result in a higher tax rate that nobody could really afford.
Um, if everyone knew the total cost, then there would be no health insurance, one of the main facets of health care today. The world would be a completely different place, which is not comparable to this world in the least.
This is a really stupid question.
This is a really stupid question.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,213
- 5,794
- 126
It would do no good. Certainly a few might be able to benefit, the Healthy, but most people would not be able to plan their futures to pay for the Costs, because they'd end up being discriminated against and refused Employment for better paying positions due to Sick Time. This also only applies to Hereditary Diseases and makes no concessions for Accidents or other Diseases that are not Hereditary in nature. Just one event can throw decades of planning out the window.
Besides, if it was as simple as simply choosing your future to create the Wealth you wanted(in this case needed) everyone would already be doing it. Unfortunetly the system is structured in such a way that everyone can't just be what they want to be. The reasons are numerous:
1) only so many people are needed for various High Paying tasks
2) only so many people can afford the Education for those tasks
3) only certain people are capable of those tasks
4) even the Healthy want to do those tasks(unless you are going to give the future Unhealthy first dibs on those tasks)
5) even if the Future Unhealthy acheive a High Paying task, they still may not have enough time available to save enough money to actually pay the Cost for Treatment
Society would have to be restructured completely in order to function in this way. The Healthy would feel discriminated against and the focus of the members of Society would be skewed in such a way that Wealth Creation would be stifled in favour of Savings. No, everyone paying into a system to cover the Cost of certain Others with Health issues is the best way to deal with Healthcare. It allows everyone to live their lives however they choose and without a Monkey on their back. Free to pursue Wealth, Free to start a Business, Free to enjoy Life with minimum worry.
Besides, if it was as simple as simply choosing your future to create the Wealth you wanted(in this case needed) everyone would already be doing it. Unfortunetly the system is structured in such a way that everyone can't just be what they want to be. The reasons are numerous:
1) only so many people are needed for various High Paying tasks
2) only so many people can afford the Education for those tasks
3) only certain people are capable of those tasks
4) even the Healthy want to do those tasks(unless you are going to give the future Unhealthy first dibs on those tasks)
5) even if the Future Unhealthy acheive a High Paying task, they still may not have enough time available to save enough money to actually pay the Cost for Treatment
Society would have to be restructured completely in order to function in this way. The Healthy would feel discriminated against and the focus of the members of Society would be skewed in such a way that Wealth Creation would be stifled in favour of Savings. No, everyone paying into a system to cover the Cost of certain Others with Health issues is the best way to deal with Healthcare. It allows everyone to live their lives however they choose and without a Monkey on their back. Free to pursue Wealth, Free to start a Business, Free to enjoy Life with minimum worry.
I have to admit part of me is playing devil's advocate, but I have a question for those of you that think a collective system is better. What if a parent knows their child would need millions of dollars worth of treatment, but still decided to give birth to the baby? Imagine know if this same parent wants to have five such children, because, after all, she lovers her children and others pay for it. Would you really just look the other way and fork out the money?
A lot of people seem to think we can cure everyone by just sharing. Economic choices are being made every day, including in our own system and people are dying all around the world because of it. We could save hundreds of thousands of lives by spending more on certain kind of foreign aid if you believe sharing is the solution. Of course, most people aren't outraged that tax money is being spent on roads, tanks and art subsidies instead of saving a child's life in Africa. If you think my original position was callous, look closer at the current situation and you will see that this attitude rules today and that, except for a few conscientious people, you aren't really that worried about it.
Fact is, we could spend the entire world GDP on medicine, and people would still die. You have to make an economic choice at some point. I hope people will see the real question is where to draw the line and not whether we have to draw a line or not. We cannot wish away the choice between economics and death.
A lot of people seem to think we can cure everyone by just sharing. Economic choices are being made every day, including in our own system and people are dying all around the world because of it. We could save hundreds of thousands of lives by spending more on certain kind of foreign aid if you believe sharing is the solution. Of course, most people aren't outraged that tax money is being spent on roads, tanks and art subsidies instead of saving a child's life in Africa. If you think my original position was callous, look closer at the current situation and you will see that this attitude rules today and that, except for a few conscientious people, you aren't really that worried about it.
Fact is, we could spend the entire world GDP on medicine, and people would still die. You have to make an economic choice at some point. I hope people will see the real question is where to draw the line and not whether we have to draw a line or not. We cannot wish away the choice between economics and death.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,213
- 5,794
- 126
Of course, there isn't a Cure for everything and everbody can't be cured, but many can be made pproductive members of society with treatment. Sharing the cost amongst all works and makes sense because it decreases the costs for those who need it while providing a safety net for those who may need it.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Another twist on how to reduce taxes.
But are you willing to be on the losing side of this? Are you sure your income will meet your medical costs?
Over 30% of my income taken in taxes. I want it to go to providing good health care to everyone.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Now HERE is something far more practical and actually worthy of discussion . . . how we choose to use limited resources.
Anyone with real experience in our healthcare system is well aware of how wasteful it is. In essence, we expend most of our resources providing care that will benefit the fewest number of people. But it's the nature of the system . . . interventional disease care. Before managed care NO ONE drew the line. All available care was provided as long as someone could pay the bill.
Medicare threw a big monkey wrench in the system b/c all of a sudden there was a 'payer' that didn't just have deep pockets . . . they were infinite. Modern Medicare is a bit more prudent with the exception of the ridiculous drug benefit passed in 2003. A MSM report gave a perfect example the drug Enbrel costs 11k a year in the Medicare program but only 4k if its the VA.
In the grand scheme, the overall choice isn't between health and economics. It's between prudence and profit. Unfortunately, few care about the former and everyone that cares about the latter likes the current system.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I like the commie approach but way differently than currently implemented.
As it is now, people I call Liabilities, representing about 40% of Americans in our national healthcare system called Medicaid/Medicare, enjoy free heathcare while contibuting nothing and most likly never will.
This system makes no allowance for the working poor/temporaly unemployed etc who do pay taxes most of the time and have furture earnings potential. This sometimes includes students as well. They get sick they are screwed and uninsured/uninsurable. This is the area that needs to be addressed. The so-called 40 million uninsured workers etc...I'd boot the Liabilites above off and pick up Assets like any investment.
As it is now, people I call Liabilities, representing about 40% of Americans in our national healthcare system called Medicaid/Medicare, enjoy free heathcare while contibuting nothing and most likly never will.
This system makes no allowance for the working poor/temporaly unemployed etc who do pay taxes most of the time and have furture earnings potential. This sometimes includes students as well. They get sick they are screwed and uninsured/uninsurable. This is the area that needs to be addressed. The so-called 40 million uninsured workers etc...I'd boot the Liabilites above off and pick up Assets like any investment.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I think we do provide those nessesities to peoples. Food definity (food stamps) shelter (section 8), Clothing (welfare) and as you say emergnecy medicine. The real question to my mind is would it be financially beneficial providing basic preventative and early detection care to all instead of just emergency. I don't know the answer but it would seem so based on what socialistic health care counties spend per capita for heath care compared to us, about half. And if it sux and is minimalist like VA well there's always private for those with the money and for those without money, something is better than nothing.
Another thing I don't like about these discussions is why must we assume national health care will result in state owned hospitals and care centers like a VA? Could'nt we cut checks for everyone to private care providers much like Medicare does right now?
Agent11
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2006
- 3,535
- 1
- 0
No. I find it disgusting that while we are capable of so much as a people there are still those who would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to not give medical care to the ill only because of their finances.
There are two options for society on this issue .. Have everyone pay in for the greater good of all.
Or.
Screw the poor and allow suffering in mass.. not to mention the strain it would put on our society..
Do not think for a second that the poor who you right off so easily would just sit back and watch the rich receive medical care while their children and loved ones die.
I do not know how much you make in a year, although I can guarantee that one major medical condition would wipe you out if you had sole responsibility to pay for it.
Being as you are of the ignorant opinion that you care more about the small amount deducted from your paycheck, I truly hope life sends a wake up call your way one of these days. You need it.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
I see, so anybody who disagrees with you makes you sick. So basically, you do hate the free exchange of ideas, and freedom scares you. Gotcha.
Edit: BTW, just out of curiosity, exactly how much in US dollars is saving one life worth. What is the maximum amount you would spend to save one person.
Agent11
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2006
- 3,535
- 1
- 0
No.
You have no idea what freedom is, and your idea of a free exchange of ideas is placating the conscience of other sick people who harbor destructive beliefs that would bring back the gilded age.
If you had your way this country would be a democracy in name only. The rich would be the only ones with medical care and there would be no middle class.
Aristocracy.
You are not worth arguing with, because you do not listen. Hopefully life will teach you exactly how wrong you are, but I am not going to try.
/Have fun this thread can kiss my ass
You have no idea what freedom is, and your idea of a free exchange of ideas is placating the conscience of other sick people who harbor destructive beliefs that would bring back the gilded age.
If you had your way this country would be a democracy in name only. The rich would be the only ones with medical care and there would be no middle class.
Aristocracy.
You are not worth arguing with, because you do not listen. Hopefully life will teach you exactly how wrong you are, but I am not going to try.
/Have fun this thread can kiss my ass
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Positive liberty (such as the "right" to healthcare) is inherently authoritarian, which is evidenced by the fact that you equate freedom with restraint, and become offended when others insist on breaking that restraint. Isaiah Berlin said that what makes positive liberty in a social democracy so dangerously authoritarian was that the state, represented by the majority, would force upon the people a certain way of way because the way that it would choose would be considered the only rational choice. Now what if we don't want your way of life? Tough, right? Kindly don't lecture about freedom anymore, ok?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter