DEBATE: is health care a right or a privilege?

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by C.Ann
-------------------------------

I thought we already established that we weren't speaking in terms of "free" ?

I'm not sure, C.Ann, if everyone is on that same page.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
If you can't live without medical services, then I'd recommend you plan carefully so that you are never without the resources to pay for it.

Ok...Everyone that plans to get cancer at the age of 40, please raise you hand..............

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ok...Everyone that plans to get cancer at the age of 40, please raise you hand..............

I am certain my father didn't plan to develop Alzheimer's disease or plan to develop any of the other problems that plagued his health in his final years.

What he did plan for was to have the resources necessary to take care of his needs as much as was possible. He saved wisely while he worked, continued working well into his 70's, invested his savings wisely, purchased and paid for supplemental and long-term care insurance policies, made appropriate arrangements and contingency plans for the unexpected.

In short, he planned appropriately and acted responsibily.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Ah yes ... this old argument. I heard that before when someone wanted to nationalize healthcare in the U.S. Even though it has turned out poorly in every country where it is attempted, we (the U.S.) could make it work if we just put the right people in charge of it.

I've heard that said about subsidized housing ...
And welfare programs ...
And educational programs...
And public service programs...

The problem is we just never seem to be able to get the right people because as I said before everything the gov't. touches inevitably gets FUBAR. Some people would argue that's just an opinion; in my experience, it's more like a fact of life.

-----------------------------------------

So it seems that what you would prefer is what I mentioned previously..

Once people have exhausted all other options - spent every penny they have (including all assets; pensions; investments; savings; IRA's; etc.) they can then turn to welfare - right? And who is going to pay for that? You - the tax payer - for many more years than would have been necessary had they subsidized..

Either way, the government and the tax payers WILL foot at least part of the bill (unless we just starting shooting people when they become ill and require medical care) so why not use the least costly method?

Give them 50 cents and have the recipient kick in 50 cents - OR - cover ALL of their expenses forever and ask nothing of them?? I don't see why it's so difficult to figure out which scenario would be the most cost effective.. In situations such as this there are no third options (well - there is if you want to start shooting people) so the question remains - pay less now or MORE later?

 

[Tinks]

Okay, C.Ann, how about this. Doctors do not work for a salary determined by others. They are self-employed. They determine their own worth....well, now insurances do, but that is another topic.

I think the point of not being "free" is that it is a service that must be compensated. That we have established. Sorry if I confused you.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ok...Everyone that plans to get cancer at the age of 40, please raise you hand..............

Like I mentioned before -- DW didn't plan on getting Hodgkin's at the age of 31, but on the off chance that she would (or some other major medical emergency occurred), we made sure we had insurance.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I am certain my father didn't plan to develop Alzheimer's disease or plan to develop any of the other problems that plagued his health in his final years.

What he did plan for was to have the resources necessary to take care of his needs as much as was possible. He saved wisely while he worked, continued working well into his 70's, invested his savings wisely, purchased and paid for supplemental and long-term care insurance policies, made appropriate arrangements and contingency plans for the unexpected.

In short, he planned appropriately and acted responsibily.

---------------------------------------

And what would have happened if your Dad lived another 10 or 15 years and developed even more costly health problems? Oh and wait - what if your MOM also developed serious health problems at the same time that required costly health care? And darn - their health insurance company just up and went out of business.. No one else wants to insure them because they're too high risk.. Wait - the house just burned down and on top of everything else, now they have no place to live! The stock market bottomed out and they just lost a TON of money.. Sadly, they found out that their financial advisor has been skimming money from their accounts and he's nowhere to be found..

Sounds ridiculous, I know.. But the point of all of that is you can NEVER plan "good" enough or "wisely" enough for what may come later on down the road.. "Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans." You can do the "responsible" thing and STILL end up in a boat load of trouble and quite frankly, it's naive to think otherwise.. Bad things can - and do - happen to good people - even the ones who acted "responsibly"...

Don't make the mistake of living your life assuming you have all of your bases covered.. Those bases have a tendency to move all around the playing field when you least expect it..

 

[Snowwark]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Essentially, I think that's what this entire debate boils down to. I view healthcare as a requirement, not a luxury. It is NOT a commodity, but an essential part of life. Because of this, I believe it to be a "right", as one cannot have "life" without it. For this reason, I believe it is the responsibility of any civilized government to ensure that all of it's citizens have access to quality medical treatment, regardless of their income. I don't call that "socialism", I call it civilization in the 21st century.

I agree!

Our health care system is certainly not without flaws, but it's also something most Canadians hold dear, and part of our identity as a country and a people. To most of us (and certainly to me), health care is a human right.

‘It is a perversion of Canadian values to accept a system where money - rather than need - determines who gets access to care.’
- Roy Romanow, Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada-

 

[Tinks]

And what would have happened if your Dad lived another 10 or 15 years and developed even more costly health problems? Oh and wait - what if your MOM also developed serious health problems at the same time that required costly health care? And darn - their health insurance company just up and went out of business.. No one else wants to insure them because they're too high risk.. Wait - the house just burned down and on top of everything else, now they have no place to live! The stock market bottomed out and they just lost a TON of money.. Sadly, they found out that their financial advisor has been skimming money from their accounts and he's nowhere to be found..

Okay...that's what I thought Medicare, Medicaid and Public Aid were for???? Am I lost???

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Bob Slydell
Like I mentioned before -- DW didn't plan on getting Hodgkin's at the age of 31, but on the off chance that she would (or some other major medical emergency occurred), we made sure we had insurance.

--------------------------------------------

And if you were suddenly stricken with cancer at the same time - or paralyzed from the neck down in a horrible accident and unable to work and/or pay for your health insurance, you would pay for the necessary treatments and medical bills how?

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Tinks
Okay...that's what I thought Medicare, Medicaid and Public Aid were for???? Am I lost???

-------------------

No - you're not lost.. LOL But I think you may be confused about what each of these programs will or won't pay for; what the guidelines are to qualify; and how many people fall through the cracks because of the way these programs are managed..

 

[Toby'sFriend]

And if you were suddenly stricken with cancer at the same time - or paralyzed from the neck down in a horrible accident and unable to work and/or pay for your health insurance, you would pay for the necessary treatments and medical bills how?

Well I'm not Bob but I believe that at that point Disability Insurance from work as well as Social Security Benefits kick in. Many people would also turn to their churches, families, and communities for assisstance.

Nobody is saying that it is possible to insure against every possible bad thing that can happen in this world. But there is a big difference between that and expecting the Government to provide everything for you.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by C.Ann
---------------------------------------

And what would have happened if your Dad lived another 10 or 15 years and developed even more costly health problems? Oh and wait - what if your MOM also developed serious health problems at the same time that required costly health care? And darn - their health insurance company just up and went out of business.. No one else wants to insure them because they're too high risk.. Wait - the house just burned down and on top of everything else, now they have no place to live! The stock market bottomed out and they just lost a TON of money.. Sadly, they found out that their financial advisor has been skimming money from their accounts and he's nowhere to be found..

Sounds ridiculous, I know.. But the point of all of that is you can NEVER plan "good" enough or "wisely" enough for what may come later on down the road.. "Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans." You can do the "responsible" thing and STILL end up in a boat load of trouble and quite frankly, it's naive to think otherwise.. Bad things can - and do - happen to good people - even the ones who acted "responsibly"...

Don't make the mistake of living your life assuming you have all of your bases covered.. Those bases have a tendency to move all around the playing field when you least expect it..

Yeah, we could play the "what if" game forever and I seriously doubt that you would ever be satisfied with my answers. You can create all the doomsday scenarios you want, but IRL doomsday doesn't happen to every single senior. Many of them make it through their sunset years just fine, just like my dad.

I simply don't subscribe to your pessimism. Despite years of having serious health problems complicated by Alzheimer's, my dad's hard work and planning carried him through these trials. I won't say it was without difficulty -- as his healthcare agent I have spent countless hours on the phone with insurance companies, healthcare providers, the VA, Medicare, etc. I am sure I have months and maybe (GASP!) years more work ahead of me to settle everything in his estate.

My point is simply this: my dad managed to do it just fine under the current system. It works, if you plan and are responsible. I am not saying something catastrophic couldn't occur... but if it had, my dad's preparations would probably have taken care of it. It took a lot of hard work, but that's the kind of person he was. It's a legacy I hope to achieve.

 

[jrydberg]

And homeowner's insurance and portfolio diversification would take care of two of those major issues. Good planning.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Originally posted by Toby'sFriend
Well I'm not Bob but I believe that at that point Disability Insurance from work as well as Social Security Benefits kick in. Many people would also turn to their churches, families, and communities for assisstance.

Nobody is saying that it is possible to insure against every possible bad thing that can happen in this world. But there is a big difference between that and expecting the Government to provide everything for you.

I'll save the keystrokes and just say what TF said.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by C.Ann
-------------------

No - you're not lost.. LOL But I think you may be confused about what each of these programs will or won't pay for; what the guidelines are to qualify; and how many people fall through the cracks because of the way these programs are managed..

But some NEW program, still operated by the government, would be guaranteed to be better? Excuse me for being cynical, but I seriously doubt it.

 

[Deb in IA]

Originally posted by Tinks
Doctors do not work for a salary determined by others. They are self-employed. They determine their own worth....well, now insurances do, but that is another topic.

Actually, Tinks, that only applies to my collegues who are in private practice. I work in a large academic medical center with a state owned hospital. And my salary is most definitely determined by others.

 

[Deb in IA]

Originally posted by Toby'sFriend
I think there are numerous doctor's in our country who donate a portion of their time in providing lower cost or free care to patients who can't pay. But the fact remains that they are still a business with employees and overhead that must be paid. We are a capitalist society and NO business can expect to remain viable for long if they are required to provide their skills at no cost to a significant portion of their clientele.

When Doctors and Hospitals can no longer afford to operate in a community, they shut the doors and move away. It has happened in many of our smaller towns and cities. The hospital in my Mom's town has teetered on bankruptcy for years. They have now closed down almost all services and they simply operate as an outpatient Urgent Care clinic with a small staff of doctors who commute from a lager hospital on alternating days.

When that happens, everybody in the community loses.

ITA, Toby's Friend .

 

[Deb in IA]

Originally posted by C.Ann
-----------------------

A doctor who "treats" without the proper diagnostic tests should not be treating patients at all..

"Tests" do NOT equal "good care", and "no tests" does NOT equal "poor care".

Get over your dependence on "tests".

The best doctors "treat" based on experience, clinical acumen, training, and a sound knowledge base. Tests can be used to confirm a suspicion that is already being entertained. To indescriminately blast a patient with every conceivable test is irresponsible, inappropriate, and has been a major factor in driving up the exorbitants costs of health care today.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Yeah, we could play the "what if" game forever and I seriously doubt that you would ever be satisfied with my answers. You can create all the doomsday scenarios you want, but IRL doomsday doesn't happen to every single senior. Many of them make it through their sunset years just fine, just like my dad.

I simply don't subscribe to your pessimism. Despite years of having serious health problems complicated by Alzheimer's, my dad's hard work and planning carried him through these trials. I won't say it was without difficulty -- as his healthcare agent I have spent countless hours on the phone with insurance companies, healthcare providers, the VA, Medicare, etc. I am sure I have months and maybe (GASP!) years more work ahead of me to settle everything in his estate.

My point is simply this: my dad managed to do it just fine under the current system. It works, if you plan and are responsible. I am not saying something catastrophic couldn't occur... but if it had, my dad's preparations would probably have taken care of it. It took a lot of hard work, but that's the kind of person he was. It's a legacy I hope to achieve.

--------------------------

You're right - you and I will never see eye to eye on this.. What you view as pessimism, I view as seeing reality for what it is.. This sort of thing happens all the time.. And yes, it happens to people who were every bit as responsible as your Dad.. It may not happen to "every" senior or "every" family that has fallen on hard times for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.. Ignoring it won't make it go away and I'm sure not comfortable with the third option of just shooting these people when they become ill, so I have to believe that the best - and most cost effective option - is to manage the programs we currently have in place to get the most bang for the buck.. (No pun intended.. LOL ) To me, that means subsidizing healthcare - not creating a financial hardship that will eventually result in the government having to foot the bill for a persons ENTIRE existance (housing; utilities; clothing; food; medical care; etc.) when they end up on welfare..