5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

^And it's reasons like that, our healthcare is worthless to millions. There are hundreds of reasons to not insure a person a liability. It's sad when governments over the world have proven they can do it better then business.
 
Last edited:
Timeliness. And in the heroic pursuit of "lost causes" -- for example, no one thinks twice when a 77 year old man in failing health, when diagnosed with brain cancer, is rushed into surgery, and all types of procedures and medications are used at great expense, even though the "best case" is that the gentleman might live for another 18 months at most.

Steve

If that senior citizen is insured well, he will get that care. Heck, that's not what's expensive in your system, it's that they put you in an MR machine if you get a cold, just to avoid liability should you end up with cancer.

If you are sick, you should be able to go to a hospital, and get the care you need. You should not have to worry about paying a bill afterwards if you are not insured.

In this day and age, the guarantee of health care is paramount, it is a self evident right, and in the end, it is beneficial to society.

Is it your right to get protection from the police if you need it? Yes. Is it your right to have the fire department come if your house catches fire? Yes. Is it you self evident right to get treatment if you get cancer? Hell yes.
 
A majority of Americans remain concerned that virtually all plans currently proposed tend towards reducing the overall quality of healthcare in exchange for universal coverage. That's not a solution -- it's just a different problem.
And a majority of Americans want public option. I doubt very much that we're going to see a substantial change in our actual healthcare. It's not like we're switching to a socialized system like the UK or the VA.

Timeliness. And in the heroic pursuit of "lost causes" -- for example, no one thinks twice when a 77 year old man in failing health, when diagnosed with brain cancer, is rushed into surgery, and all types of procedures and medications are used at great expense, even though the "best case" is that the gentleman might live for another 18 months at most.
The only thing that I see changing with this legislation (in respect to your comment) is that there will be more people being rushed to surgery when they might not make it or survive long after anyway. And more people going to see a doctor instead of waiting until they're dying and showing up at the ER.

It's sad when governments over the world have proven they can do it better then business.
That's what I don't get. We know it works. We know that it's cheaper. A lot cheaper. And everyone will be covered. People live longer, "happier" lives. And yet there are some people who are fighting even just public option tooth and nail.
 
Is it your right to get protection from the police if you need it? Yes. Is it your right to have the fire department come if your house catches fire? Yes. Is it you self evident right to get treatment if you get cancer? Hell yes.

Actually, there's a non-trivial argument that says you should have the right to determine your own level of health coverage. If you live an immensely healthy life and want to only carry coverage that kicks in after, say, $50,000 in bills are racked up (which would cover the cancer scenario, for example, which would likely run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars), why shouldn't you be able to do so? Why shouldn't you be able to chose to take care of yourself and then put the health care savings in your pocket?

Why should someone that takes care of themselves be required to have the same level of coverage (and pay the same) as someone that doesn't take care of themselves at all?

You talk about police protection. A major difference there is that an individual has less control over the public environment to "take care of themselves." Some folks DO opt not to live in the cities, but rather in rural areas with less crimes, and they DO pay less in taxes for the police force, but, still, it's not something a person can control as much as their own health and finances.

As far as people wanting the "public option" -- sure. How many Americans know what the "public option" is? It's not even defined. Everyone assumes that it will be some wonderful and inexpensive option...which would be great. In that case, I am all for it. Of course, that's assuming it costs me less and gives me no reduction in health care.

But as always, I think it's important to see what supporters of healthcare DON'T say, even more than what they DO say.

For example, we heard "you will not have to give up your existing healthcare" but what wasn't said was "but you may have to pay more to keep it." There's a reason even the liberal bastion of America, the labor unions, are against this health care plan -- because many union health care plans will be considered "Cadilliac plans" under this bill and be subject to a 40% tax.

When more Americans realize that the public option will really mean that the middle class will have to pay to subsidize it, I think you'll see support for the public option drop like a lead balloon. The politicians already know it and that's why all but the most liberal are not pushing any 'public option.'

Steve
 
Actually, there's a non-trivial argument that says you should have the right to determine your own level of health coverage. If you live an immensely healthy life and want to only carry coverage that kicks in after, say, $50,000 in bills are racked up (which would cover the cancer scenario, for example, which would likely run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars), why shouldn't you be able to do so? Why shouldn't you be able to chose to take care of yourself and then put the health care savings in your pocket?

Why should someone that takes care of themselves be required to have the same level of coverage (and pay the same) as someone that doesn't take care of themselves at all?
Fine with me if you want an opt-out. I wouldn't call it essential, but fair enough.

What I find more disturbing is the fact that people do not recognize that all people should have the RIGHT to get treatment in a civilized society.

I will say, though, that no matter how healty you live, you can get illness, it can be genetic, it can be falling down from a ladder while painting your house, it can be getting rammed by another car running the lights..

You talk about police protection. A major difference there is that an individual has less control over the public environment to "take care of themselves." Some folks DO opt not to live in the cities, but rather in rural areas with less crimes, and they DO pay less in taxes for the police force, but, still, it's not something a person can control as much as their own health and finances.
That might be so, but I still maintain that medical treatment when one needs it is a right, a self evident right in today's society.

As far as people wanting the "public option" -- sure. How many Americans know what the "public option" is? It's not even defined. Everyone assumes that it will be some wonderful and inexpensive option...which would be great. In that case, I am all for it. Of course, that's assuming it costs me less and gives me no reduction in health care.
You spend twice as much per capita compared to Britain, without covering all citizens. Somewhere along the line, there is something iffy.

But as always, I think it's important to see what supporters of healthcare DON'T say, even more than what they DO say.

For example, we heard "you will not have to give up your existing healthcare" but what wasn't said was "but you may have to pay more to keep it." There's a reason even the liberal bastion of America, the labor unions, are against this health care plan -- because many union health care plans will be considered "Cadilliac plans" under this bill and be subject to a 40% tax.
A problem that might be, but to be frank it is nowhere near the problem of people not getting coverage at all.

When more Americans realize that the public option will really mean that the middle class will have to pay to subsidize it, I think you'll see support for the public option drop like a lead balloon. The politicians already know it and that's why all but the most liberal are not pushing any 'public option.'

Steve
The middle class already pay to subsidise most things in a society. Progressive taxing has been around for several hundered years.
 
The middle class already pay to subsidise most things in a society. Progressive taxing has been around for several hundered years.

I think this statement shows that you simply do not understand the American system. The middle class in this country do not pay the burden of taxes. The top 5% of the country pays most of the taxes. The top 1% alone pay more taxes than the bottom 95% combined.

Almost a quarter of tax filers making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay no federal income tax.

But as far as health care being a "right" -- it's not. It is a policy. And that's true of every single country out there. And before you argue that, ask yourself this: Does my health care have any limits with regards to level of treatment, access to treatment, and cost/benefit?

Because if we ask ourselves "what country provides limitless access to health care for anything and everything under all conditions" you will have the following answer: None. So then, is your disturbance boundless since not a single civilized nation truly protects what you feel is a right of health care?

Steve
 
Timeliness. And in the heroic pursuit of "lost causes" -- for example, no one thinks twice when a 77 year old man in failing health, when diagnosed with brain cancer, is rushed into surgery, and all types of procedures and medications are used at great expense, even though the "best case" is that the gentleman might live for another 18 months at most.

You've got your rhetoric mixed up. Our "Communist" system is supposed to have death panels that basically told said gentlemen to go away and die.
 
I think this statement shows that you simply do not understand the American system. The middle class in this country do not pay the burden of taxes. The top 5% of the country pays most of the taxes. The top 1% alone pay more taxes than the bottom 95% combined.

Almost a quarter of tax filers making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay no federal income tax.

But as far as health care being a "right" -- it's not. It is a policy. And that's true of every single country out there. And before you argue that, ask yourself this: Does my health care have any limits with regards to level of treatment, access to treatment, and cost/benefit?

Because if we ask ourselves "what country provides limitless access to health care for anything and everything under all conditions" you will have the following answer: None. So then, is your disturbance boundless since not a single civilized nation truly protects what you feel is a right of health care?

Steve
Health care IS a right. In a civilized society, it is a right, it is nothing to deny, life is a right, and being robbed of that life when it could be saved, in a civilized society, that is being robbed of ones life.

I shall again point out that you spend twice as much per capita on health care compared to the UK, and you still do not cover everyone.

That's stupid, and it's morally wrong.
 
You've got your rhetoric mixed up. Our "Communist" system is supposed to have death panels that basically told said gentlemen to go away and die.

Actually, let me quote Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor under Clinton and one of President Obama's advisors, with regards to "what the truth would be" about health care if we were honest about health care reform:

...by the way, we are going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of weeks. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. (emphasis added)


Steve
 
Last edited:
Health care IS a right. In a civilized society, it is a right, it is nothing to deny, life is a right, and being robbed of that life when it could be saved, in a civilized society, that is being robbed of ones life.

How is this different from being put on long waiting lists when you are elderly because you are of a lower priority? Isn't that a violation of one's "right"? isn't it morally repugnant not to build a health care system that doesn't have enough capacity to provide prompt and complete health services?

Don't you find it the least disturbing that countries such as Norway actually factor in how much longer one is expected to live into the health care resources devoted to a person?

I shall again point out that you spend twice as much per capita on health care compared to the UK, and you still do not cover everyone.

And I shall point out again that the US is a country of primarily poorer immigrants, and that the US also spends significant amounts of money on care for the elderly that other countries do not, since waiting times for medical procedures in the US are significantly shorter than they are in, for example, Norway.

Steve
 
Don't you find it the least disturbing that countries such as Norway actually factor in how much longer one is expected to live into the health care resources devoted to a person?

Steve

They do that here already! A relative of mines grand father needed a new valve for his heart, IIRC they pull these from pigs so not like they are hard to come by, but before the hospital could be bothered to consider the work (or insurance pay for it) they wanted "proof" he was still active. A picture of him from 4 years ago was pulled up showing him "roofing his shed" and they did the surgery.

He survived for almost another year before passing away. That 1 year he was mostly bed ridden, nearly always in pain from something, and several trips to the hospital for serious issues were made before he was finally let die. Even he was saying the surgery was a waste of money and time for everyone.
 
How is this different from being put on long waiting lists when you are elderly because you are of a lower priority? Isn't that a violation of one's "right"? isn't it morally repugnant not to build a health care system that doesn't have enough capacity to provide prompt and complete health services?
Yup, that's is morally wrong. And it should be adressed. But it is still a smaller problem than no treatment at all, which is despickable. :)

Don't you find it the least disturbing that countries such as Norway actually factor in how much longer one is expected to live into the health care resources devoted to a person?
We do? Both my parents work at the local public hospital, and, well, they don't. :)

And I shall point out again that the US is a country of primarily poorer immigrants, and that the US also spends significant amounts of money on care for the elderly that other countries do not, since waiting times for medical procedures in the US are significantly shorter than they are in, for example, Norway.
Yes, they are in some cases. But having to wait is less of a problem than not getting care at all. I stand with my view that not covering every single person in a modern, civilized nation is just wrong. It's a question of fundamental right and wrong, it is not acceptable too actively deny somone life saving health care. That is a fundamental right in a modern society.

:)
 
Yup, that's is morally wrong. And it should be adressed. But it is still a smaller problem than no treatment at all, which is despickable. :)

Not even close to as despicable as the willful minimization of the violation of what you claim is a fundamental right.

And that it isn't even being actively addressed! Why aren't you infuriated that your so-called "civilised" nations have made a conscious decision to violate such a basic human "right."

"We violate people's rights to health care but it's okay because we're not the worst"

Epic Fail.
 
Seeing things a bit too black & white, aren't you?
 
Not even close to as despicable as the willful minimization of the violation of what you claim is a fundamental right.

And that it isn't even being actively addressed! Why aren't you infuriated that your so-called "civilised" nations have made a conscious decision to violate such a basic human "right."

"We violate people's rights to health care but it's okay because we're not the worst"

Epic Fail.

No, there's no such thing as a perfect system. But there's differences.

One system guarantees equal right to treatment to all, another system gives good care to some, but by no means all. I take the first system to the latter system, it's called solidarity.
 
When my grand-dad wanted to die because he was very sick and he would never recover, they didn't let him. They kept him alive so he could die in great pain and he suffered a lot. So i really don't understand what you are talking about... He was 85 btw.
 
The same did happen to several members of my family. I know of no case where the health service has deliberatly neglected someone because it didn't make sense to help them.

Saw it on MASH, but that was a TV-show, and it was TV-show about MASH units in war.
 
I read somewhere that the waiting time for a hip replacement in Norway is a bit over 4 months, compared to just 21 days in the US.

I suppose you could just minimize these things and say "oh, heck, it's just three months."

And the question is... does a 77 year old man in poor health, that is diagnosed with brain tumor, always get rushed to the hospital, given surgery and every possible heroic effort? Broadly speaking, while that IS true in the US, it's not true in most national health systems. But don't take my word for it. Take Robert Reich's word for it. As I said before, he's a current advisor to the Obama administration. Not exactly buddies with Sarah Palin, for example :)

And when we throw around terms such as "fundamental rights" and then casually accept intentional violation of them because it "isn't a big deal compared to some other issues" that just seems silly.

I see little difference between the unwillingness to spend massively on health care for the elderly, and not yet having some form of universal health coverage. Ultimately, both are decisions of policy.

One might argue that the solution is to have both universal coverage AND not only be willing to expend heroic efforts on the elderly, but also to make all resources available on very short timelines. The trouble is, of course, that it would be very, very expensive. So all countries have made some form of policy and accept something less than that standard.

In fact, clearly, using Norway as an example, there's not even much desire to improve their system. They've made their decisions, and are okay with the balance they've set. But to speak of health care "rights" and then casually dismiss the systemic violation of that right by nationalized health care systems is despicable.

Steve
 
Don't you find it the least disturbing that countries such as Norway actually factor in how much longer one is expected to live into the health care resources devoted to a person?
Like thedguy said, we do that here. We do it all the time. I've gone to the hospital with my head split open, with an ACL and meniscus torn and with fractured ribs from a car wreck. Every time I waited because there were others in worse shape. They gave me those little adhesive strips for the head wound (took 10 stitches the next day) and I had to wait weeks to get my knee worked on. And that was an outpatient procedure. Of course there isn't a thing they can do for fractured ribs except load you up with painkillers. So that one wasn't bad.

Also, consider that 1 in 7 Americans have no health insurance. IIRC, more people file bankruptcy over hospital bills than anything else. We also pay twice as much (per capita) for healthcare as any western European nation. Despite tort reform and other legislation healthcare premiums are skyrocketing. I have seen nothing from the GOP that would resolve either of those problems so I'll take public option, thanks.
 
I read somewhere that the waiting time for a hip replacement in Norway is a bit over 4 months, compared to just 21 days in the US.

Just because one person dies during a heart transplant, noone else should get a heart transplant?

The massive, massive elephant in the room for you is that in Norway, everyone will get that hip replacement and in the USA, 50 million people won't. It is all well and good that you can pick out hypotheticals or individual one-off cases of people for whom it didn't work, but of those 50 million people in the US, how many do you think that replacement hip will help rather than hinder?

And I shall point out again that the US is a country of primarily poorer immigrants, and that the US also spends significant amounts of money on care for the elderly that other countries do not, since waiting times for medical procedures in the US are significantly shorter than they are in, for example, Norway.

Because the profit-driven health industry know that they've got a customer for (oh-ho) life. The US system, especially the hospitals are volume driven. Like any profit-driven business, they are incentivised to get people through the doors.

21 days to have their op. And how many times will they have to go back? How many prescription drugs will they be on as long as possible afterwards?

And the question is... does a 77 year old man in poor health, that is diagnosed with brain tumor, always get rushed to the hospital, given surgery and every possible heroic effort?

So basically, what you are saying is, if you were in charge, instead of treating them, that person should effectively be told to fuck off and die. Lets take that to its logical conclusion.

Marine gets his legs blown off in Afghanistan? Tough shit, stumpy.

8 year old kid breaks their arm in the garden? Screw'em, they'll be dead in 70 years anyway.

When does a hopeless case become a hopeless case?
 
Top