DEBATE: is health care a right or a privilege?

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Hey, karma's a, um, female dog I would feel the same way about ANYONE that essentially said "Oh well, too bad about your luck, but my money is more important to me than your life".

My money, MY CHOICE on how to spend it -- or at least what the gov't. lets me keep of what I work hard to earn. I simply don't buy the whole socialist utopia because I've seen it fail way too many times to believe it could work.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Hey, karma's a, um, female dog I would feel the same way about ANYONE that essentially said "Oh well, too bad about your luck, but my money is more important to me than your life".

Once the Fed govt gets out of the business of confiscating money to pay for other people's problems and makes it more attractive for those with the means to help those without, then I think you would see charities and private institutions being able to do more to assist. As it stands now, the Fed Govt takes so much money from people for charity in the form of programs there is little left over for private citizens to choose how to spend it.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
People make choices and in doing so should be prepared to accept the consequences of those choices. Those who declare bankruptcy should be prepared to accept the consequences of that action.

I did not say anywhere in my post that he WASN'T prepared to accept the consequences.

But I'm sick of hearing people make it sound like bankrupcy is an easy out. It is not.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by emmagata

One thing that should stop is the government funding for medical research for the pharmaceutical industry. Especially when they turn around and charge people (in the US) up the wazoo to recoup costs when some of those costs were paid for the people who are buying the drugs.

World, stop the presses! Emmagata and I actually agree on something 100%!

Ok, I'm being a little silly, I know. But I totally agree with you on that point.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
People make choices and in doing so should be prepared to accept the consequences of those choices. Those who declare bankruptcy should be prepared to accept the consequences of that action.

Yes...I remember well the day that my wife's friend decided to get laid off from her job...and then when she decided a month later to develop advanced breast cancer that resulted in her having to have (to date, and updated for one two days ago) roughly 7 different surgeries.

As to the "system" being in place to help her...no, she got EXTREMELY lucky...She got into a medical study at Duke, and it's helped defray a lot of the costs. Not enough to keep from completely ruining their financial future, but enough that she could still actually GET the treatment that she needed.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
If you don't think you could treat the occasional patient who is paying you via payment plan instead of with the cash in hand, than perhaps you should consider a more tradtionally business oriented career. Or be a doctor in a lab somewhere who is not treating patients.

I think the insurance companies contribute to this situation as much as anyone. Doctors will order all kinds of tests knowing that they will likely get paid by the insurance companies.

Let the free market determine the costs of services. Right not, insurance companies and other regulations and programs are getting in the way of the free market.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
If you don't think you could treat the occasional patient who is paying you via payment plan instead of with the cash in hand, than perhaps you should consider a more tradtionally business oriented career. Or be a doctor in a lab somewhere who is not treating patients.

The problem is it's not the "occasional" patient. And the problem is too many healthcare providers have been burned too often by people making promises to pay and then forgetting about the promise. Or just going to their local bankruptcy attorney and getting the slate wiped clean.

I do not fault any healthcare provider who says "Insurance or payment at the time services are rendered, unless you make other arrangements in advance." They have bills to pay and families to take care of also. And they can't do that with promises or payment plans.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yes...I remember well the day that my wife's friend decided to get laid off from her job...and then when she decided a month later to develop advanced breast cancer that resulted in her having to have (to date, and updated for one two days ago) roughly 7 different surgeries.

As to the "system" being in place to help her...no, she got EXTREMELY lucky...She got into a medical study at Duke, and it's helped defray a lot of the costs. Not enough to keep from completely ruining their financial future, but enough that she could still actually GET the treatment that she needed.

I am so sorry for your friend and her family. I hope they are doing better.

 

[cardaway]

Maybe a definition of what healthcare is appropriate.

What about vaccinations? Do you deny them to those who cannot pay and later have sick people walking around infecting others, maybe even needing more expensive critical care later (which currently can't be denied).

What about regular checkups? Do you deny them and suffer the same consequnces as denying vaccinations?

What about antibiotics. Once again, do we risk the consequnces of denial?

I don't know many people looking to make frivilous healthcare free to those who want it. I do know people that agree with me that there are some things that are really illogical to deny your immediate neighbors.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by emmagata
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more affordable health care but I don't think a Universal Healthcare system is the answer.

One thing that should stop is the government funding for medical research for the pharmaceutical industry. Especially when they turn around and charge people (in the US) up the wazoo to recoup costs when some of those costs were paid for the people who are buying the drugs.

JMO, but I think you're attacking that from the wrong side...The government SHOULD help in funding research...It's about the best use of tax dollars I can think of outside of defense But that should also be reflected in the price charged by the pharmaceutical company, and unfortunately, that part isn't happening.

Price controls are the way to fix that...and it could be made pretty simply: If you receive government aid in developing the drug, you cannot have a greater than X% markup.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
The problem is it's not the "occasional" patient. And the problem is too many healthcare providers have been burned too often by people making promises to pay and then forgetting about the promise. Or just going to their local bankruptcy attorney and getting the slate wiped clean.

I do not fault any healthcare provider who says "Insurance or payment at the time services are rendered, unless you make other arrangements in advance." They have bills to pay and families to take care of also. And they can't do that with promises or payment plans.

I would be interested in seeing the actual numbers here. I'm only guessing that is the occasional patient. I truly think most people can pay and will pay their bills. Otherwise the whole credit system (credit cards, loans etc.) would have dissapeared long ago.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by dmadman43
So, I should spend 12 years in school to learn to be a doctor only to be beholden to the Fed Govt to determine how I am compensated?

Not to mention $140,000 in tuition for medical school (if you're paying in-state rates).

 

[vernon]

I would say it is a privilege, but that it should be a privilege available to people who live in a civilized society, if they need it even if they are in a (temporary) situation where they can not pay for some/all of it.

I don't think the US system works as well as it could for the good of the whole of American society. I would also add that I think the system in the UK (and Europe) could also be critisised in the same way, but from the opposite end of the spectrum.

I do believe that it should be possible to provide a system that lies somewhere between the ideas of free healthcare for all as is attempted in Europe (and is helping to bankrupt the countries) and the American ideal where the most needy of society can fall through the gaps. Both systems have some acknowledgement of the benefits of a "middle road" in the UK private healthcare is quite a big business but the demands put upon the government run "national health service" are still too wide ranging and costly. For example I do not think sex change opperations, cosmetic surgery and fertility treatment should be paid for by the state. Two of those are "personal choice" issues and for fertility treatment, IMHO if you can't afford $2,000 for the treatment you damn well sure can't afford to have kids because the total cost is astronomical. In the US you have Medicaid, but IMHO this does not cover sufficient cases and can be too hard to qualify for.

I'm not a socialist by nature and I do not like Governments interfering in the day to day lives of it's citizens, but IMHO health and education are two areas where the issues are so large that, in any civilised society, there needs to be an institution that makes sure the interests of all are catered for. There are, IMHO two issues as to the payment side of things one is the individuals ability to pay for his or her healthcare and the other is a societies ability to pay for the needs of it's members. There are a number of ways where that can work side by side to give a better answer to the needs of the individual and of the society.

I think the best system is one where there is a basic level of healthcare available for those that need it (better and more widely available than Medicaid) , this can/should be coupled with a private medical system that (obviously) would offer a better standard of comfort of treatment and a wider range of treatments. This private medical should receive decent tax breaks (not completely the case here in the UK) to encourage people to make their own provisions.

I can't argue with you that something should be done to try to make healthcare more affordable, but, IMO, that stems more from problems with excessive and outrageous lawsuits that the medical profession faces these days (but that's a different debate altogether).

I agree 100% with this comment, unless the US finds a way to deal with the ridiculous levels of law suits and payouts it's going to be very difficult to come up with a viable system that is going to benefit ALL the people of America.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by cardaway
Maybe a definition of what healthcare is appropriate.

What about vaccinations? Do you deny them to those who cannot pay and later have sick people walking around infecting others, maybe even needing mroe expensive critical care later (which currently can't be denied).

What about regular checkups? Do you deny them and suffer the same consequnces as denying vaccinations?

What about antibiotics. Once again, do we risk the consequnces of denial?

I don't know many people looking to make frivilous healthcare free to those who want it. I do know people that agree with me that there are some things that are really illogical to deny your immediate neighbors.

That's not a bad plan, actually. But. how do you ensure the idiots and the religious fanatics of the world comply?

I wouldn't have a problem with subsidized "preventative healthcare". In a way it's like your car warranty. If you don't maintain your car according to the mfg's warranty then when your car craps out as a result of something you faild to take care of, then well..you're on the hook for the costs.

Granted it doesn't cover the folks the choose to smoke, drink, not eat well, etc. But, again, they know the consequences of that, so why should society pick up the costs for other's stupid decisions?

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by wvrevy
So why not just come out and say "If you're too poor to afford health insurance, you should just die quietly and shut the hell up about it ?"

By the way...I KNOW someone in nearly the same situation that Esmerelda described. She was diagnosed with breast cancer shortly after losing her job in a layoff. Their family has three kids, and the husband works two jobs trying to make ends meet. They are shortly going to be declaring bankruptcy due to the staggering medical bills facing them. So, by your light, my wife's friend should now be dead, since they couldn't afford the first of the procedures it has taken to keep her alive, right ?

I know you should never wish ill on someone, but I just can't help hoping that someday, people that think like that get to feel what it's like to be in that position. Somehow, I just can't believe that they'd be quite so cavalier about letting people die if it was them or their loved ones dying.

Justy curious. Did you help this person at all?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
JMO, but I think you're attacking that from the wrong side...The government SHOULD help in funding research...It's about the best use of tax dollars I can think of outside of defense But that should also be reflected in the price charged by the pharmaceutical company, and unfortunately, that part isn't happening.

Price controls are the way to fix that...and it could be made pretty simply: If you receive government aid in developing the drug, you cannot have a greater than X% markup.

Look! Out the window! Pigs are flying!!! I agree with wvrevy!!!!

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
I did not say anywhere in my post that he WASN'T prepared to accept the consequences.

But I'm sick of hearing people make it sound like bankrupcy is an easy out. It is not.

As I never said and don't believe I implied bankruptcy was an easy out. However, I believe people use it to avoid paying their debts and despite reforms, it can still be used to avoid paying what one owes. For that reason, I do not fault healthcare providers for operating the way they do.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
I am so sorry for your friend and her family. I hope they are doing better.

Thanks, Esmeralda....The surgery she had on Wednesday was essentially a hysterectomy (they'd begun taking out a few things in an earlier surgery, this just basically finished the process). She's home now and seems to be doing well.

She and my DW basically grew up together, and at 32 (and with 3 kids), it's just kinda hard to take.

 

[cardaway]

Originally posted by dmadman43
That's not a bad plan, actually. But. how do you ensure the idiots and the religious fanatics of the world comply?

I wouldn't have a problem with subsidized "preventative healthcare". In a way it's like your car warranty. If you don't maintain your car according to the mfg's warranty then when your car craps out as a result of something you faild to take care of, then well..you're on the hook for the costs.

Granted it doesn't cover the folks the choose to smoke, drink, not eat well, etc. But, again, they know the consequences of that, so why should society pick up the costs for other's stupid decisions?

See, you thought we were way off when we really are not.

I think my opinion is shared by most people thinking "healthcare" should be a privilege. I doubt they are thinking of laser eye surgery or liver transplants for the gin blossoms. If they are, I'm with you in letting them live with their decisions.

My only addition to preventative health care would be things that really are unforseen and unavoidable. Basically the system that is currently in place for emergency rooms and clinics.

 

[arminnie]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yes, because only the wealthy should be able to afford the best health care

In most cases the best health care plans are for people that work for large companies. Self-employed people who have a history of severe medical problems often can't get insurance at any price. Someone making a relatively low salary at a company with good benefits probably has access to better care than a self-employed person with a high income.

There's a disparity in health care but not always a direct corelation to income. I realize that you said wealth not income but wealth can be very subjective. When you have nothing someone with $100,000 in the bank looks pretty wealthy but that would not be enough to pay for a patient with very severe medical problems requiring multiple complex surgeries.