National Health Care-Obama Plan

[Gewehr98]

IMHO, it's one thing if they're not healthy enough to get a real job or somehow foot at least part of their health care costs, and honestly want to contribute.

If they feel somehow they're entitled to such social handouts by virtue of them simply drawing breath, then they're not much above whale excrement in the general hierarchy of thing.

[makattak]

The line about poor people getting free care is not accurate.  Hospitals only have to give emergency care; once they stabilize you enough to have answered the acute issues that led to presentation, they can discharge you and refuse to offer any other care (and they do.)  So, for example, a long term condition that destroys the major organs of your body would not be covered by a hospital until organ failure led to an emergency....before that point, you either find a charity (those don't cover everyone) or try to pay (impossible for everyone who doesn't have the money of a Saudi prince.)

That's not exactly "the exact same care" a millionaire gets.

They can?

http://news.aol.com/article/hospital-deports-patient/584523

Seems to me this hospital wasn't allowed to discharge him without a court order. AND is now getting sued for discharging him.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I find this astounding. You really think this is the answer?

Next time I chat to some of my fellow sufferers online I'll tell the 21 year olds with 25% lung function and diabetes, on liver and lung transplant waiting lists, constant IV antibiotics, ports, PEG feeding and the rest that they really should go get a job and earn a "real income" despite the fact that most of them were lucky to stay in school until 16, let alone pick up any qualifications.

They sound real employable, no qualifications after 16, lots of time off sick. Hire me a dozen and I'll pay them enough to live on and cover their enormous medical expenses.

I don't think you have a clue.

I don't know how society got it in mind that everyone is entitled to a long, healthy, carefree life, and if the don't get it the government wave a magic wand and make it happen, but it's a myth.  Sometimes life just sucks.  Any attempt by government to circumvent this reality is bound to fail in the long run.  The notion that government can out-tax and out-spend everyone's problems is just plain stupid.

I'm sorry you got dealt a bad hand in life, Iain, but such is life.  We all have our problems and difficulties to overcome.  You're no different in that regard.  The best solution is to get government out of our way so that we each have the best chance to solve our own problems.

Taking my money from me (or from your fellow citizens) so that you can have your lung treatment may help you, but it comes at the cost of the rest of us not being able to take care of our own problems.  It simply isn't right.  Saying you did it because you wanted to live doesn't change things.  The resources you took from us may well be the resources we need to keep ourselves alive. 

What makes you think you're more important, or more worthy, or more deserving of the chance to live?  What gives you the right to diminish anyone else's life or livelihood to elevate yours?

And then you have the nerve to say that I don't have a clue for not wanting to play along with this scourge?   

So now we get to the root of the matter.  You think it's OK to take our livelihoods from us to preserve your life.  If that's right, then it's equally right for the rest of us to tell you to FOAD in order to preserve our lives, or even take your livelihood away from you to benefit ourselves.  Nay?

[Iain]

Yes, yes, yes. Heard it all before, and it's why I don't get involved in this debate much. I'm a dirty thief, and libertarian principles are far more important than life. It's a lovely theory you have, right up there with communism, and it works just like communism - brilliantly until the real world gets involved. Then you amusingly resort to overblown self-righteous rhetoric.

"The best solution is to get government out of our way so that we each have the best chance to solve our own problems." - great. Except for the simple fact as pointed out by SS, that some medical conditions are absolutely not solveable by persons with ordinary financial means.

So you're talking about closing Pandora's box. Your present medical set-up doesn't do that. Your idealism might think that expensive medicine is some sort of 'bread and circuses' for the foolish masses, but it is life. It is not dying of stupid, preventable stuff. That simply isn't right (two can play that game)

The actual medical system in the US, where people are paying daily for each other anyway, doesn't sound terrible when contrasted with your ideal.

Get the thorough genetic testing that was not available to my parents, and have your kids young to avoid Downs*. Even then you're taking a crapshoot, one that might just give you a clue, but I genuinely hope you aren't that unlucky. So save me your little angry face.

*oh btw - what do you think would happen to the abortion rates in your world?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm afraid you misunderstand completely. 

You seem to understand how money is life when it comes to the money you need to save yourself from whatever fate you lung problem implies.  Somehow you fail to see how money is life to the rest of us, too.  Our money represents the hours of our lives we've spent working, so that we can have the things we need to stay alive.  It represents the things we need now, or will need in the future, to fight off our own medical problems, and to provide for all of the other needs in our daily lives.

Money is life in a very real way.  You acknowledge that fact when you take our money to save your life, acknowledge it in action if not in word.  What you fail to recognize is that we deserve life as much as you do.  By taking it from us you are literally diminishing our lives to elevate yours.  Even if you have no moral problem with that, we might.

That brings us to the basic question of who deserves life/money more, you or me?  If you claim the right to take my money and/or my life, then I'll claim the right to A) not let you, even if that means you dying, and B) take yours from you just as you're trying to do to me.  You don't get to harm me and claim the moral high ground for doing so.

As for costly treatments, that's why so many of us work hard to buy insurance, so that if we ever need a treatment that would be financially ruinous, we may get that treatment and not be ruined.  There's no need to take from anyone to get proper medical treatment, even the expensive stuff. 

Of course, if there are folks like you taking our money from us at every turn, it tends to limit our ability to acquire the insurance coverage (among other things) we need to stay alive.  See how that works?  Give me a good reason why we should put up with it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

ever read jack londons seawolf?

[Iain]

Give me a good reason why we should put up with it.

You shouldn't. Make sure you never take more from the insurance company than you paid in.

Or would that be acceptable because it is a company and they took that risk when they took you on? They'll ration your care when you get costly too. I pay into a National Insurance scheme, but that's administered by the government, so yeah, evil. I don't think this way is necessarily the better way, but it does seem to take better care of the minority like me.

You haven't begun to address the issue of putting things back in Pandora's Box. It can't be done. Modern medicine works wonders, so even if we dash the sickly newborns against the rocks, a number of people are going to get things they can't afford to treat. Better that we have never learned how to treat cancer than we withdraw all those treatments from the many who cannot afford to pay the real costs of medicine. So it'll never be done.

You have to learn how to deal with that imperfect world. It's ugly and messy, and that's life. I was born with some genetic disease, and you acquired an unrealistic idea of how things should work. It's tough for both of us, and I'll never get all the treatments that I perhaps need, and you'll never be comfortable with the modern world.

In your system you pay for others all the time, your costs reflect this because even big business healthcare recognises how wrong it is to not treat the treatable. Is there a better way of doing it? I don't know, but it isn't the end of the world and the death of freedom when someone suggests that there might be. Is the Obama plan a good idea? Possibly not, but he'll closer to the mark than you are.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

When you choose to buy insurance, you pay for the risk that you yourself represent, which is as it should be.  Not so for compulsive government wealth-redistribution schemes.  You pay whatever the government says without any say or choice in the matter.  You get back whatever the government is willing to give you, even if that's not enough.

As for Pandora's Box, that's not my problem to solve any more than it is yours.  It is certainly true that science now knows how to perform treatments that are so expensive, so resource-intensive, that we cannot afford them. 

What should we do about this?  I proposed that working harder (producing more resources) was a good way to increase our access to pricey treatments.  I still stand by that.  But you rejected that idea for some reason. 

I'm not sure there are any other viable solutions.  Scarcity is a bitch, innit?  Resources must come from somewhere, they must be produced.  Government can promise to give you resources, but it cannot do anything to make the resources exist.  All government can do is take existing resources from one place and move them to another.  If there aren't enough resources to go around there's simply nothing anyone can do (aside from producing more).

You seem to see this situation as some sort of great evil.  I'm not sure why.  Knowing how to treat illnesses doesn't strike me as a problem ever, even if we can't necessarily afford all of the treatments right now.

I'm glad so many wonderful treatments are known, even if I don't have the direct means to purchase all of them.  The fact that I cannot afford all of them is simply motivation to increase my means, and thereby elevate my life.  Access to better medicine is a fair reward for producing more resources than we consume.

[Iain]

What should we do about this?  I proposed that working harder (producing more resources) was a good way to increase our access to pricey treatments.  I still stand by that.  But you rejected that idea for some reason.

Can you read? I'm serious, because if you can, then you can't comprehend.

[Jamisjockey]

We've been making a concerted effort to give this board alot more leeway.  Keep it civil or the gloves come back off..

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Can you read? I'm serious, because if you can, then you can't comprehend.

Do you not understand how as more resources are produced, more resources are available for use in medical treatments?

The solution to the problem of scarce resources is to either produce more resources, or to use less resources.  Nothing else is viable.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly makes an effort to earn a real income, and who places their health care as a high priority in their finances, would be unable to afford a decent high deductible health insurance plan to cover major medical emergencies.



how many insurance policies have you bought?  i mean you bought personally  not ones that were a part of a social welfare program offered by an employer.
is it possible you over look those folks who can't work as a result of their illness?  it might not be a large enough number of folks to be important.... unless you end up one of them  or a family member does. then your perspective might change

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

When you choose to buy insurance, you pay for the risk that you yourself represent, which is as it should be.

my understanding is that insurance is based on shared risk, so aren't you also paying for the risk everyone else in yur plan represents?

[Iain]

This is to be my last contribution in order to respect JJ's post.

HTG - meet 27 year old Jessica from Canada:


Get a job Jessica. Oh wait, she's dead.

That is what you are not comprehending. Your ideal world does not begin to deal with Jessica and the needs she had.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

This is to be my last contribution in order to respect JJ's post.

HTG - meet 27 year old Jessica from Canada:


Get a job Jessica. Oh wait, she's dead.

That is what you are not comprehending. Your ideal world does not begin to deal with Jessica and the needs she had.

You can post all the emotional baggage you want.  Fact remains that resources are not unlimited.  This is not my fault, I'm merely the calling your attention to the fact.  So don't blame it on me, or accuse me of not comprehending.

Scare resources are scarce.  Either produce more, or use less.  Unless we count the Star Trek replicator thingie, there aren't any other options.

[Iain]

Ok, so I lied. Or I'm being misunderstood and want to clear it up.

I've never denied that resources are scarce. Earlier I stated outright that there is rationing in the NHS. In a world where it is immoral that anyone is paid for at all by another then Jessica is ignored. You are not drawing my attention to the scarcity of resources alone, I know they are scarce, you are drawing my attention to the fact that in your ideal world Jessica and others like her are not accounted for.

You think you are accounting for them, but that is where your lack of comprehension comes in, and it is down to your apparent lack of appreciation for the impact that serious illness has, especially on the ability to work, or as you put it, produce resources.

It's my baggage yeah, but it's a lot of peoples baggage. And it is reality, we live or die by the ideas that dominate healthcare, some younger than others.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly makes an effort to earn a real income, and who places their health care as a high priority in their finances, would be unable to afford a decent high deductible health insurance plan to cover major medical emergencies.

how many insurance policies have you bought?  i mean you bought personally  not ones that were a part of a social welfare program offered by an employer.
is it possible you over look those folks who can't work as a result of their illness?  it might not be a large enough number of folks to be important.... unless you end up one of them  or a family member does. then your perspective might change

Three.  All were high deductible plans, which was all I could afford since I was only making about 15 or 20 grand a year, but they were enough to buy the best treatment in the world if I needed it.  

I also bought a disability plan to protect against the possibility that I wouldn't be able to work.

And oh yeah, I also save money for a rainy day.

Believe it or not, it is possible for reasonable people to take care of themselves.  It's expensive, and it's difficult, and it requires you to give up some of the luxuries we all want.  It's just plain no fun.  But that's what responsible people do.

When you choose to buy insurance, you pay for the risk that you yourself represent, which is as it should be.

my understanding is that insurance is based on shared risk, so aren't you also paying for the risk everyone else in yur plan represents?

Eh, I suppose this is a matter of semantics.  It depends upon what you mean by paying for everyone else's risks.  The premiums you pay will almost certainly will go to pay for someone else's care, so in that sense you are paying for their risk, too.  On the other hand, you're not obligated to pay their costs no matter what they happen to be, so in that sense you're not at risk for their expenses.

You pay premiums in exchange for having the insurance company assume you risk.  It isn't risk sharing in a strict sense, it's risk transferal.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

but they were enough to buy the best treatment in the world if I needed it.

we paid for what i call middle high class treatment for my mom the bills were well over 7 figures  probably 10 percent or so not covered  experimental treatment/overseas treatment  and she died in 81.

and heres some stuff on shared risk
http://www.canyon-news.com/artman2/publish/Labor_Week_1134/article_4337.php

http://www.voices.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=22806&articleId=6286 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It isn't risk sharing in a strict sense, it's risk transferal.

so isn't it still someone else paying your bills?  in amounts in excess of what you paid in?  aren't you opposed to that?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ok, so I lied. Or I'm being misunderstood and want to clear it up.

I've never denied that resources are scarce. Earlier I stated outright that there is rationing in the NHS. In a world where it is immoral that anyone is paid for at all by another then Jessica is ignored. You are not drawing my attention to the scarcity of resources alone, I know they are scarce, you are drawing my attention to the fact that in your ideal world Jessica and others like her are not accounted for.

You think you are accounting for them, but that is where your lack of comprehension comes in, and it is down to your apparent lack of appreciation for the impact that serious illness has, especially on the ability to work, or as you put it, produce resources.

It's my baggage yeah, but it's a lot of peoples baggage. And it is reality, we live or die by the ideas that dominate healthcare, some younger than others.

Look, I'm sorry that people die of diseases, Iain.  I really am.  I nearly died of a childhood disease myself.  I've watched good friends pass away.  Illness and disease is not some rare event that only you are capable of understanding.

I read some of the story about Jessica.  I'm not sure what relevance she has to the discussion of resources.  She died of cystic fibrosis, which has no cure at any price.  It's a sad story, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

You speak of your Pandora's Box, about the fact that there are known cures and treatments which are more expensive than can be provided for everyone.  You asked me what the solution was.  As I've said, the only solution to limited resources is to produce more or use less.  We can't wish more doctors into the world, or more hopsital beds, or create cures out of thin air.  It sucks, but that's the way it is.

People die, Iain.  It's a fact of life, inevitable for all of us.  For some people it comes sooner than for others.  It's not fair.  Sometimes we can do things to help someone live longer.  Sometimes we can't.  That's not fair either, but that's life

What do you want me to say?  Do you want me to pretend that there's a solution when there isn't one?  Want me to sing Kumbayah with you around the fire while we all pretend that there is nothing bad or unfortunate in the world?  Want me to act as though government has a magic wand that can right all wrongs and make all of the scary realities go away?  Want me to act like all we need to do is believe harder, or hope more, or something like that?

Want me to post a bunch of sob stories of Brits dying under NHS?  Would that inform the discussion any?

[PTK]

Sometimes life just sucks.

Repeated for truth.

Just this past month, I've stacked up $4.2k in medical bills I have no way to pay. I may or may not get to keep the lights on for next month.

I'm still against government run healthcare.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It isn't risk sharing in a strict sense, it's risk transferal.

so isn't it still someone else paying your bills?  in amounts in excess of what you paid in?  aren't you opposed to that?

In most cases you pay far more into insurance than you get out.  It's rare that any one person gets more from an insurance plan than they pay in, else the system doesn't work.

That's the root of the health care "problem" in the United States.  Everyone wants to get more out of their health insurance plan than they put in, and to some extent they succeed.  Then they get indignant when the insurance company has to increase the premiums. 

Apparently it's a national crisis that you can't get more care (and more expensive care) without paying more for it one way or another.

[makattak]

Here's my question:

It seems some people think that either the government pays for people with very expensive care for which they could not pay themselves or we let them die.

As one person noted, we have insurance for some people.

Another option we have is CHARITY. Just because we think the government should not be forcibly taking money from one person in order to care for another does not mean we want those who suffer to just die and leave us alone.

I would much prefer if people who could not pay for themselves ("sob stories") went to a charitable organization.

It's also generally far more compassionate than the government system AND it still encourages innovation.

But, why take the chance that someone might not want to help you when you can force them to do so at the point of a gun.

[Boomhauer]

Another option we have is CHARITY. Just because we think the government should not be forcibly taking money from one person in order to care for another does not mean we want those who suffer to just die and leave us alone.

I would much prefer if people who could not pay for themselves ("sob stories") went to a charitable organization.

I'm much more inclined to donate to charity, and doubly so if the government isn't holding a gun to my head. Unfortunately, because the government is busy mugging me, I have little to contribute voluntarily.

[sanglant]

as i said before, if you don't have insurance you sit down BEFORE treatment. and lay out your financial status, and the hospital lowers the bill(they are forced to do it this way by the gooberment) and work out a no interest payment plan, as little as 5 bucks a month. If your to good or lazy for that, to D... bad.