Health Care for Everyone

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 1,658 comments
  • 200,637 views
Danoff
It seemed like this thread needed to be bumped based on the current political climate.
Click to expand...

Word. Where do we want to start?


I did find this interesting...

Bill O'Reilly Backs Public Option

O'REILLY: The public option now is done. We discussed this, it's not going to happen. But you say that this little marketplace that they're going to set up, whereby the federal government would subsidize insurance for some Americans, that is, in your opinion, a public option?


OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.
Click to expand...

Oh snap. I think my head just exploded.
 
Bill O'Reilly supports this government intervention into the health insurance business.

Lots of people listen to him. Uh oh.

I love the title of the story. "Bill O'Reilly backs public option...public as in, by the government for the people, and not by the free market for the people"

As for what Nanci said about the frustration amongst everyone lately, she's right that people sometimes misunderstand and overreact. But her stance on the "balance" between safety and freedom is all wrong, and her understanding of where all this anger comes from in the first place is also wrong. The anger generally comes from government meddling. The more the meddling, the more the anger. Probably what happened in Cali, though I don't know much about that incident. I like how she avoided citing that Milk incident specifically so it didn't seem like she was suggesting it will happen again, even though that's obviously what she was referring to. People like me who had never even heard of it would have just skimmed over it like, yeah, okay. Thanks for citing it directly, FK. It'd have never even crossed my mind otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Omnis
Why? Bill is a typical socialist neocon. You didn't know that?
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. These guys support whatever moves their agenda or point forward, without concern for what it means for liberty. Or do we need to mention Glenn Beck's health care debacle?
 
Hilarious, and interesting. Obviously The Daily Show is supposed to be funny, but every now and then they do a bit like that which actually has a point.

And that pretty much proves that he's all about the money, too. He's probably making more of it at FOX than at CNN. Too bad. I was hoping somebody out there with the tools to speak to the whole country was actually genuine, but I guess not.
 
Omnis
Why? Bill is a typical socialist neocon. You didn't know that?
Click to expand...

*shrug*

Hes a Conservative in my book, and that's not a typical answer for them. Especially on FOX.

keef
And that pretty much proves that he's all about the money, too. He's probably making more of it at FOX than at CNN. Too bad. I was hoping somebody out there with the tools to speak to the whole country was actually genuine, but I guess not.
Click to expand...

All "news" is about money. Same with the "commentary." It doesn't matter what you're saying, as long as you're making money.

...Yet another reason why I get most of my news from NPR and the BBC.
 
Oh please. Don't insult conservatives by lumping-in Billo. The guy is nothing more than a demagogue.
 
I have about ten insurances, including a health insurance. I have paid more money for all of these insurances than I got out. But instead of getting angry about that all my money is spend by the insurance companies for others, I'm happy it's that way. I hope I never need some of my insurances.

The German NHS is familiar with the one in The Netherlands. The German NHS (GKV) has a list of "80 expensive deseases". You can get any of these deseases anytime without fault. Even AIDS. The health insurance is the only insurance I don't want to miss, even though I rarely need it. But the older I get, the higher the chances I get ill. I can also have a heavy accident anytime. And I don't have the money to pay a treatment without an insurance.

I'm glad a health insurance is obligatory for 95% of all Germans. Whenever I watch an American medical drama television series and see hospital employees dealing with not insured patientshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_series or documentations about American medical camps with tents (totally surreal!) for free treatment, I wonder why it is like this in the most advanced country in the world.
 
Omnis
Oh please. Don't insult conservatives by lumping-in Billo. The guy is nothing more than a demagogue.
Click to expand...

By no means would that be my intent. Conservative =/= conservative. Sorry that can't be articulated very clearly.
 
Nevertheless, the girl died due to a reaction from a vaccine she had to have.
 
Famine
Nevertheless, the girl died due to a reaction from a vaccine she had to have.
Click to expand...
She died soon after recieving the vaccine. From what I've read the full circumstances aren't clear yet.

Yes, 3 others reported issues, but no more than dizziness, not unusual with youngsters recieving injections of any kind.
 
ExigeEvan
She died soon after recieving the vaccine. From what I've read the full circumstances aren't clear yet.

Yes, 3 others reported issues, but no more than dizziness, not unusual with youngsters recieving injections of any kind.
Click to expand...

And neither is dying.

It's effectively an extreme allergic reaction - pretty much an anaphylaxis - to a component of the vaccination. It happens.
 
No, it's part of the usual cohort of school vaccination programs - like TB and polio.

Incidentally, I recall these vaccinations being opt-out rather than opt-in when I was at school.
 
Don't go screwing everything that walks and stop worrying about HPV.
 
Danoff
There has been talk of making them compulsory here. The issue is not whether she paid for it, but whether it was/will be a choice.
Click to expand...
All the more reason why I can't understand why you cite this example as if it were a cautionary tale, when the vaccine wasn't even compulsory...

There is always a risk associated with any medicine or vaccine, and the economics of the healthcare system responsible for their administration will never change that.
 
Touring Mars
All the more reason why I can't understand why you cite this example as if it were a cautionary tale, when the vaccine wasn't even compulsory...

There is always a risk associated with any medicine or vaccine, and the economics of the healthcare system responsible for their administration will never change that.
Click to expand...
Informed consent is better than uninformed or informed enforcement.

This example shows why forcing it would be wrong. Why force a vaccination for a disease that cannot be spread through passive interaction? Why was that ever debated? Better yet, why bill it as a mandatory cancer vaccine, when cancer can't be passed in through any form of interaction?

As for the economics of the health care system involved, we were able to stop those stupid bills from passing as it had to go through legislation. The health care plans proposed now would have just had it go through a committee. By the time it happened no citizens would have been able to say no.
 
Touring Mars
All the more reason why I can't understand why you cite this example as if it were a cautionary tale, when the vaccine wasn't even compulsory...
Click to expand...

..because we're talking about making it mandatory here. I cite it as a cautionary tale for forcing healthcare on everyone - because if it were forced, this girl would have died due to a regulation by the state.

It's not so much a criticism of any existing system as it is a criticism of proposed systems.
 
The fact that it hasn't even been established that the vaccine was responsible for the death at all is presumably a moot point? I still fail to understand how it is the fault of compulsory healthcare that a vaccine that could just as easily have been administered under a non-compulsory regime (as was the case you are using as an example) demonstrates that compulsory healthcare is bad. Granted, if this specific vaccine is determined to be the cause of death (which it actually hasn't, at the time of writing), then that is only a good reason to stop using this particular vaccine, compulsory or not. It also doesn't mean that all future HPV vaccines should be labelled unsuitable for compulsory use. All vaccines carry a risk, but that risk must be balanced against the requirement for widespread uptake. Mandatory vaccinations are one way to ensure a higher rate of uptake.

FoolKiller
Informed consent is better than uninformed or informed enforcement.
Click to expand...
Informed consent as in the case of the example cited?

FoolKiller
This example shows why forcing it would be wrong.
Click to expand...
How?

FoolKiller
Why force a vaccination for a disease that cannot be spread through passive interaction? Why was that ever debated?
Click to expand...
The fact that HPV cannot be spread through passive interaction is irrelevant, given that HPV is still being spread - by sexual activity. Despite Omnis's suggestion, the facts hardly support advocating chastity and abstinence as a good way of stopping the spread of STD's, compared to proper sex education and advocacy of practicing safe sex.

FoolKiller
why bill it as a mandatory cancer vaccine, when cancer can't be passed in through any form of interaction?
Click to expand...
Because HPV is a known cause of cervical cancer.

FoolKiller
As for the economics of the health care system involved, we were able to stop those stupid bills from passing as it had to go through legislation. The health care plans proposed now would have just had it go through a committee. By the time it happened no citizens would have been able to say no.
Click to expand...
That is more about the politics than the economics. My point is, how is a vaccine any safer when it is elective rather than compulsory?
 
Last edited:
Touring Mars
The fact that it hasn't even been established that the vaccine was responsible for the death at all is presumably a moot point? I still fail to understand how it is the fault of compulsory healthcare that a vaccine that could just as easily have been administered under a non-compulsory regime (as was the case you are using as an example) demonstrates that compulsory healthcare is bad. Granted, if this specific vaccine is determined to be the cause of death (which it actually hasn't, at the time of writing), then that is only a good reason to stop using this particular vaccine, compulsory or not. It also doesn't mean that all future HPV vaccines should be labelled unsuitable for compulsory use. All vaccines carry a risk, but that risk must be balanced against the requirement for widespread uptake. Mandatory vaccinations are one way to ensure a higher rate of uptake.
Click to expand...

If you're putting people at a risk that they can't control (ie: smallpox), I'm on board (though I'd implement it in philosophically different way - the practical result would be the same). But for a sexually transmitted disease, I think it's wrong to require people to take any risk (perceived or real). And I was using this as an illustration of that point. If it turns out she had an allergic reaction to something completely unrelated it doesn't really change my point. I'm using this primarily as an illustration against proposed legislation.
 
Touring Mars
The fact that it hasn't even been established that the vaccine was responsible at all is presumably a moot point?
Click to expand...
No, and I agree in this case that until we know what she died from it may be an issue. But it does seem curious that the possibility was serious enough to pull the whole batch.

Perhaps that is because the vaccine doesn't exactly have a clean record. One of those possible effects (GBS) was why the Swine flu vaccine was stopped in '76. Granted these are all cases of voluntary innoculations, but GBS, possibly fatal, was not on the list of possible side effects when they were originally trying to pass a law to make it mandatory in my state.

I also fail to understand how it is the fault of compulsory healthcare that a vaccine that could just as easily have been administered under a non-compulsory regime (as was the case you are using as an example) demonstrates that compulsory healthcare is bad.
Click to expand...
Because it has a track record of serious effects and under the proposed plans in the US now it would have been compulsory. If X% of recipients get seizures, GBS, or even death then a compulsory vaccination would have increased the total number of cases, and they would have had no choice in the matter.

All vaccines carry a risk, but that risk must be balanced against the requirement for widespread uptake. Mandatory vaccinations are one way to ensure a higher rate of uptake.
Click to expand...
And a higher total number of issues. Then of course, there is the eliminated rights issue too.

How?
Click to expand...
Because when they attempted it we were all being told how wonderful it would be, cervical cancer would be eliminated, and there was minimal risk of only minor side effects. Obviously, if this case proves out it is a bigger issue than advertised. Of course, even if this case does wind up being some weird random death there is still the list of very non-minor issues linked to the vaccine.

The fact that HPV cannot be spread through passive interaction is irrelevant, given that HPV is still being spread - by sexual activity. Despite Omnis's suggestion, the facts hardly support advocating chastity and abstinence as a good way of stopping the spread of STD's, compared to proper sex education and advocacy of practicing safe sex.
Click to expand...
You explained why it would be a good idea to voluntarily take it, not why it should be compulsory.

Because HPV is a known cause of cervical cancer.
Click to expand...
Again, good idea. Why make it mandatory?


That is more about the politics than the economics.
Click to expand...
Odd, those two always seem to go together somehow, huh? I also manage to work in that rights word too. Here's some personal economics for you: I don't want my country forcing more debt on my children and grandchildren in order to violate their rights by forcing them to take a vaccine that they may feel is not worth the risk. If the US takes on this nearly $1 trillion expense for the current health care proposals being debated we will have more debt and a group of politicians will get to chose to force this on my daughter without asking me first.

My point is, what makes elective medicine any safer than compulsory medicine?
Click to expand...
And my point is: What makes violating rights justified to stop something that can only be achieved through personal choices? Where do you stop the slippery slope? Can we legislate condom use? What about this new HIV vaccine? Or, while cancer is deadly and kills a lot lets go after the biggest killer in the US: heart disease. There are so many bad lifestyle choices that a little legislation will stop.

Or do I need to bring up the very real tobacco -> trans-fats -> sodas example of where this road leads?
 
FoolKiller
No, and I agree in this case that until we know what she died from it may be an issue. But it does seem curious that the possibility was serious enough to pull the whole batch.
Click to expand...

That's an automatic precautionary response anyway.

It has all the signs of a classic anaphylaxis. It might even be just a reaction to the needle itself rather than the contents.


Incidentally, has there been a causative link between HPV and cervical cancer yet? There was talk of one maybe perhaps back in 1998 when I was still an undergraduate - and much fuss was made because there had, as yet, never been any direct link between a virus and a cancer. Or is it still purely an associative thing?
 

Similar threads

Danoff
Ballot Propositions and Amendments
Replies
4
Views
684
Danoff
Danoff
NASATTRACER
GT7 89 BMW M3 Sport Evo Spec E30 races
Replies
1
Views
362
05XR8
05XR8
NASATTRACER
GT7 89 BMW M3 Sport Evo Spec E30 races Tonight start practice 8:00pm
Replies
0
Views
288
NASATTRACER
NASATTRACER
Dotini
Phil Spector, Famed Music Producer and Convicted Murderer, Dies at 81.
Replies
21
Views
2K
Dotini
Dotini
Ratherbracing
ABS activating at any brake pressure
Replies
5
Views
1K
Pigems
Pigems

Latest Posts

Back