To save Healthcare, let the sickest 20% die

[Craig234]

This sort of topic is going to be inevitably coming up much more because of the compelling economics of healthcare. It's far beyond 80/20.

I can't really see how we can avoid some cuts, given the high costs, under any system, public or private, though of course any public cuts will be exploited for propaganda by the profit industries to try to scare people into opposing better public systems, similar to the way the AZ governor exploited the issue when it came to opposing public healthcare, serving her masters in the profit industry - then did it herself and more, cutting even tiny funding jeopardizing almost 100 lives.

 

[Patranus]

You sound like Ezekiel Emanuel

 

[HAL9000]

Another moral cripple.

Fat people are self inflicted cripples.

 

[JEDI]

Until then, no. The government providing healthcare is far more practical and moral.

and will be the straw that kills the US.
we're barely surviving w/social Security and medicare. 2 fine examples of govt mismangement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This sort of topic is going to be inevitably coming up much more because of the compelling economics of healthcare. It's far beyond 80/20.

I can't really see how we can avoid some cuts, given the high costs, under any system, public or private, though of course any public cuts will be exploited for propaganda by the profit industries to try to scare people into opposing better public systems, similar to the way the AZ governor exploited the issue when it came to opposing public healthcare, serving her masters in the profit industry - then did it herself and more, cutting even tiny funding jeopardizing almost 100 lives.

Well if anyone really wanted to an honest assessment of the state of health care could be made with the emphasis facilitating the effective practice of medicine and presenting the realities and options in advance of corrective legislation, but hey no one wanted that. It all came down to the control of the dollars and the assumption that insurance was health care.

We approach this like anything else- a battle of political ideologies first and everything else taking a back seat.

 

[Rainsford]

Making sure people don't die unnecessarily seems like the FIRST priority of any worthwhile government. That means food standards, police, fire, military to protect from foreign threats and the best health care possible. Maybe there are different ways to provide all of those things, but I think it's the duty of the government to make sure they are provided for EVERYONE.

Health care can't and shouldn't be a luxury service, available only to the select part of the population that can afford it. That could mean government funding of health care provided by private doctors and hospitals. Maybe it means the government directly running the health care industry (I don't think so, but it's an option). But while I believe our society should encourage working hard and earning a living, I'm not sure basic needs like staying alive should be subject to economic factors.

 

[Hacp]

Making sure people don't die unnecessarily seems like the FIRST priority of any worthwhile government. That means food standards, police, fire, military to protect from foreign threats and the best health care possible. Maybe there are different ways to provide all of those things, but I think it's the duty of the government to make sure they are provided for EVERYONE.

Health care can't and shouldn't be a luxury service, available only to the select part of the population that can afford it. That could mean government funding of health care provided by private doctors and hospitals. Maybe it means the government directly running the health care industry (I don't think so, but it's an option). But while I believe our society should encourage working hard and earning a living, I'm not sure basic needs like staying alive should be subject to economic factors.

So you advocate stealing from productive members of society just so your own personal moral fantasies can be realized? There is nothing stopping you from personally giving your money away to the poor. Don't force others to do it.

 

[her209]

So you advocate stealing from productive members of society just so your own personal moral fantasies can be realized? There is nothing stopping you from personally giving your money away to the poor. Don't force others to do it.

What about the disabled? Too bad?

 

[Red Dawn]

So you advocate stealing from productive members of society just so your own personal moral fantasies can be realized? There is nothing stopping you from personally giving your money away to the poor. Don't force others to do it.

So paying taxes is stealing?

 

[nyker96]

<screaming voices> Death Panel <screaming voices echo>

 

[Hacp]

What about the disabled? Too bad?

There's nothing stopping kind hearted souls like you from giving to the poor.

 

[Red Dawn]

There's nothing stopping kind hearted souls like you from giving to the poor.

But you wouldn't would you?

 

[Brainonska511]

But you wouldn't would you?

He'd rather steal ice cream from his roommate.

 

[Zebo]

I missed the health care part in this idea of 20&#37; dying. Anyway there are 30 systems around the world that work just fine spend less than half of us per capita and even insure that 20%. Funny how we refuse to look at what works.

 

[Hacp]

But you wouldn't would you?

Ya, I'll give a few billion when I'm as rich as Warren Buffet. Until then, I want to keep all my money for ME.

 

[Patranus]

Ya, until I'll give a few billion when I'm as rich as Warren Buffet. Until then, I want to keep all my money for ME.

The funny thing is that the rich people who don't pay income tax yet want to raise taxes on everyone else don't give their money to pay for all of these "progressives" programs, they give them to private charities like the Gates Foundation because they don't trust government to spend their money.

 

[Engineer]

I missed the health care part in this idea of 20% dying. Anyway there are 30 systems around the world that work just fine spend less than half of us per capita and even insure that 20%. Funny how we refuse to look at what works.

Damn socialist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[shortylickens]

How about this? If you can't afford it, you can't have it.

Then it will be more like 50/50.

Of course what the OP doesnt consider is that medicine is business, not a service. The unhealthy people needing advanced care is just an excuse for the industry to charge more. If that 20% disappeared they would just jack up the prices for the rest of us.

 

[Phokus]

So you advocate stealing from productive members of society just so your own personal moral fantasies can be realized? There is nothing stopping you from personally giving your money away to the poor. Don't force others to do it.

It just blows my mind that a thief such as yourself keeps talking about 'stealing'.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I missed the health care part in this idea of 20% dying. Anyway there are 30 systems around the world that work just fine spend less than half of us per capita and even insure that 20%. Funny how we refuse to look at what works.

What's also interesting is that not only does the US pump more money into medicinal research than any other country, but we also spend the most. I see it almost like the textbook market. Charge the US college student to hell and back for a basic text book and offer the same book over int he asian and indian markets for a fraction of the price.

I wonder how well those other 30 systems would work if everything were forced to be equal. To ensure that the same amount of development goes into biomedical research today, and to offset the US putting less into research and paying less for drugs. If the US got the opportunity to put out the same amount of money per capita that other countries do, and all the other countries had to pick up that remaining balance, how well would those other, more socialised systems work?

I think we do indeed practice socialised medicine, only its done on a global scale rather than a local scale. Only recently has big pharma started offering their own socialised system, allowing some to pay less and allowing those with insurance and big bank accounts to foot the offset.

I'm far from a supporter of big pharma. I dislike how orphan drugs exist and how much money is sunk into advertising and making 1,000 different drugs that are all the same thing, each heavily marketed.

That said, I *also* understand that the world view wouldn't be so cheery, if it wasn't for the US bankrolling most of it.

 

[Phokus]

The funny thing is that the rich people who don't pay income tax yet want to raise taxes on everyone else don't give their money to pay for all of these "progressives" programs, they give them to private charities like the Gates Foundation because they don't trust government to spend their money.

Actually Warren Buffet hasn't given all his money yet and he wants to raise taxes on the income that he and other wealthy plutocrats CURRENTLY make.

 

[JSt0rm]

on a long enough timeline dont we all fall into the sickest 20%? :sneaky:

 

[Rainsford]

So you advocate stealing from productive members of society just so your own personal moral fantasies can be realized? There is nothing stopping you from personally giving your money away to the poor. Don't force others to do it.

Whatever ridiculously overblown language you can come up with to describe it, that's what government IS. It takes wealth, in the form of taxes, and spends it on things. If you stridently oppose the concept in terms of health care, then you oppose the concept of government in general. If you oppose the "moral fantasy" of living in a civilized society working together, then I suppose we have nothing to really debate.

The reason I gave specific examples of things OTHER than health care, an approach I notice your incredibly generic rant lacks, is that most people seem to be in favor of "stealing from productive members of society" to "realize their moral fantasies" in a number of similar areas. Emergency services and the military are two almost universally supported examples of things "productive members of society" could easily pay for themselves, yet are provided by the government.

And while I would argue that there's nothing wrong with supporting a cause for the sake of morality (that's not a bad word, you know), there is also an element of self interest to it as well. We ALL benefit from living in a healthy, safe and educated society. Libertarians have embraced this idea that individuals would be better off if they just looked out for themselves, but the fact is that individual success CAN'T happen without the benefits of civilization. And civilization is something we all have or we all don't have, you can't buy yourself just a little island of it.

That's why I'm OK with the idea of asking you to pay taxes to support this stuff. Because it directly benefits those who need it, and it indirectly benefits you and me...even if YOU don't think so.

 

[Rainsford]

Then it will be more like 50/50.

Of course what the OP doesnt consider is that medicine is business, not a service. The unhealthy people needing advanced care is just an excuse for the industry to charge more. If that 20% disappeared they would just jack up the prices for the rest of us.

That's the interesting part of the discussion that has been mostly ignored by both sides of the national health care debate. As it stands right now, "health care" is an enormously successful industry where the goal is to make as much money as possible from treatment. Or in other words, there seems to be more economic incentive to prolong treatment instead of cure or prevent problems. And more than that, the economic incentive is to provide the treatment that pays the most...which might not always be the treatment that benefits people the most.

I'm sure a lot of doctors and research scientists want to prevent and cure illness, but the money is not always in doing that. Making at least SOME of the medical industry about helping people in the most efficient way possible seems like a good thing. And providing benefits without obvious economic incentive is one of the things government is better at than private industry.

 

[Zebo]

What's also interesting is that not only does the US pump more money into medicinal research than any other country, but we also spend the most. I see it almost like the textbook market. Charge the US college student to hell and back for a basic text book and offer the same book over int he asian and indian markets for a fraction of the price.

I wonder how well those other 30 systems would work if everything were forced to be equal. To ensure that the same amount of development goes into biomedical research today, and to offset the US putting less into research and paying less for drugs. If the US got the opportunity to put out the same amount of money per capita that other countries do, and all the other countries had to pick up that remaining balance, how well would those other, more socialised systems work?

I think we do indeed practice socialised medicine, only its done on a global scale rather than a local scale. Only recently has big pharma started offering their own socialised system, allowing some to pay less and allowing those with insurance and big bank accounts to foot the offset.

I'm far from a supporter of big pharma. I dislike how orphan drugs exist and how much money is sunk into advertising and making 1,000 different drugs that are all the same thing, each heavily marketed.

That said, I *also* understand that the world view wouldn't be so cheery, if it wasn't for the US bankrolling most of it.

There is lots of factors but R&D is not one of them. Plenty of German/English/French medical device and pharmaceutical companies out there at forefront.

You'll never get costs under control with multi layer system we have with billers, insurance companies, lawyers and skimming off the care.

You'll never get costs under control with providers banking millions and CEOs hundreds of millions a year. All the other viable systems cap such things. Granted a orthopedic in uk is not poor but he.ll make $200,000 instead of $2,000,000 like here.

I know of no German CEOs like pfizers making 120 million a year either.

Since we grant them monopoly status which we do with patents and medical licensing they can charge whatever they want so long as you want to live. That needs to change one way or the other. You can't have free market with government created and enforced monopolies. You either have to control them to control costs or do away with system entirely.