Health Care for Everyone

[PocketZeven]

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

Someone in europe does not need to make that choice.

edit: to explain further. I mean that some have to choose between enormous debt that could devistate their lives or saving ones life. And in some cases they cant get treatment, simply because they cant afford it.

 

[Danoff]

Someone in europe does not need to make that choice.

The choice is still made, just not by the person affected.

edit: to explain further. I mean that some have to choose between enormous debt that could devistate their lives or saving ones life. And in some cases they cant get treatment, simply because they cant afford it.

No one is forcing that choice on them, it simply is happening to them. How is it immoral for something to happen? There is no actor to call immoral here. It's like you're saying "it is immoral that the rain fell from the sky".

 

[PocketZeven]

No one is forcing that choice on them, it simply is happening to them. How is it immoral for something to happen? There is no actor to call immoral here. It's like you're saying "it is immoral that the rain fell from the sky".

The US healthcare system is making that choice for them though. I am not going into the libertarian side of things, but the USA is an outlier in the whole of the western world when it comes to healthcare.

Simply put, in my opinion, its moral for a country to prevent people having to make that choice. (healthcare is a right argument).

 

[Danoff]

The US does actually have free "universal" healthcare for seniors.

Simply put, in my opinion, its moral for a country to prevent people having to make that choice. (healthcare is a right argument).

You're trying to reverse the statement from "it's immoral for the rain to fall" to "it's moral to shield people from the rain". These are very different statements. But you're still wrong. It's not moral for countries to make personal decisions for people about their well being. That is up to the individual alone.

 

[PocketZeven]

The US does actually have free "universal" healthcare for seniors.



You're trying to reverse the statement from "it's immoral for the rain to fall" to "it's moral to shield people from the rain". These are very different statements. But you're still wrong. It's not moral for countries to make personal decisions for people about their well being. That is up to the individual alone.

Seniors are only a percentage of the population.

The morality is in the choice in life and death. (there isnt a lot of morality in becoming wet or not wet) The rain falling is not farily comparable to having to obtain debt or not choose treatment. If you use the same thought is it moral to not shield someone from deadly acid rain? Before we land back at the train problem again, dont you think it is strange how the vast majority western world does have a universal healthcare system. You have the choice to keep the status quo or vote for reform in healthcare.

 

[Danoff]

Seniors are only a percentage of the population.

The morality is in the choice in life and death. (there isnt a lot of morality in becoming wet or not wet) The rain falling is not farily comparable to having to obtain debt or not choose treatment. If you use the same thought is it moral to not shield someone from deadly acid rain? Before we land back at the train problem again, dont you think it is strange how the vast majority western world does have a universal healthcare system. You have the choice to keep the status quo or vote for reform in healthcare.

You appear to be attempting a false dichotomy (albeit carefully). You're strongly insinuating that the choice is between status quo or socialized healthcare, and that is not correct.

I don't know why you keep harping on debt, as though it is somehow different from not debt but bankruptcy, or just a decrease in resources, or even not being able to obtain the debt and having to forgo treatment. You seem to have a special place in your heart for debt, and I'm not sure why.

We all make personal decisions about our lives, our quality of life, our finances, and our level of care. And these decisions are necessarily made by someone, it's not moral to remove that decision from the individual, and make it at a political level. Here's a concrete example.

No universal healthcare or insurance:
Bob earns (or doesn't earn) money.
Bob needs knee surgery.
Bob's knee surgery will cost $20,000.
Bob must choose between getting knee surgery or keeping his $20,000 (regardless of whether he has the money).

Universal healthcare:
Bob votes for the government to seize money from others for healthcare.
Bob needs knee surgery.
Bob's knee surgery will cost $20,000.
The government must choose whether Bob gets his knee surgery, or the seized $20,000 is spent on another patient.

You can see how the decision is still made, and how it is Bob's decision to make. You can also see the immoral choice to seize assets from some people and give it to another. You're framing the moral scenario as immoral (despite a lack of immoral actor), and framing the immoral scenario as moral (despite at least two immoral actors).

Edit:

BTW, I recall donating to someone in the UK (where presumably socialized healthcare is a thing) who needed a wheelchair and was having trouble raising the money. And no it was not fraud.

 

[Exorcet]

Someone in europe does not need to make that choice.

edit: to explain further. I mean that some have to choose between enormous debt that could devistate their lives or saving ones life. And in some cases they cant get treatment, simply because they cant afford it.

Anecdotal evidence and all that, but I (and a whole bunch of other people) already payed a few hundred dollars this year to cover a complete stranger's surgery since their insurance didn't provide them a hospital that they liked. So even without universal healthcare, there are more alternative options than debt.

 

[PocketZeven]

You appear to be attempting a false dichotomy (albeit carefully). You're strongly insinuating that the choice is between status quo or socialized healthcare, and that is not correct.

I don't know why you keep harping on debt, as though it is somehow different from not debt but bankruptcy, or just a decrease in resources, or even not being able to obtain the debt and having to forgo treatment. You seem to have a special place in your heart for debt, and I'm not sure why.

We all make personal decisions about our lives, our quality of life, our finances, and our level of care. And these decisions are necessarily made by someone, it's not moral to remove that decision from the individual, and make it at a political level. Here's a concrete example.

No universal healthcare or insurance:
Bob earns (or doesn't earn) money.
Bob needs knee surgery.
Bob's knee surgery will cost $20,000.
Bob must choose between getting knee surgery or keeping his $20,000 (regardless of whether he has the money).

Universal healthcare:
Bob votes for the government to seize money from others for healthcare.
Bob needs knee surgery.
Bob's knee surgery will cost $20,000.
The government must choose whether Bob gets his knee surgery, or the seized $20,000 is spent on another patient.

You can see how the decision is still made, and how it is Bob's decision to make. You can also see the immoral choice to seize assets from some people and give it to another. You're framing the moral scenario as immoral (despite a lack of immoral actor), and framing the immoral scenario as moral (despite at least two immoral actors).

Within universal healthcare he will get the knee surgery. The government or insurance company are obliged to do so.

The whole tax=stealing is something I would like to prevent discussing on. That is an opinion, not shared by the vast majority.
The main reason I am adressing is that almost the complete western world agree on universal healthcare, but the USA does not.

Anecdotal evidence and all that, but I (and a whole bunch of other people) already payed a few hundred dollars this year to cover a complete stranger's surgery since their insurance didn't provide them a hospital that they liked. So even without universal healthcare, there are more alternative options than debt.

I dont understand the perserverance in that charity is something that is expected in society somehow. For the good dead you did, my pessimistic mind tells me that at least 9 would have ignored it. But would do it if everyone chipped in.

edit: in other words, wouldnt it be a better world for everyone to chip in. What argument besides tax=stealing are there against?

 

[Danoff]

Within universal healthcare he will get the knee surgery. The government or insurance company are obliged to do so.

No not necessarily. Universal healthcare is triage. If the money exists, people get care, if it does not, people wait.

The whole tax=stealing is something I would like to prevent discussing on.

Does kindof affect the morality of the situation though.

That is an opinion, not shared by the vast majority.

Morality is not democratically determined.

The main reason I am adressing is that almost the complete western world agree on universal healthcare, but the USA does not.

Too many voters in the US are familiar with what it means to have government service. There is a gut level response to the idea of healthcare at the DMV (department of motor vehicles, well known for long lines). Many people have some level of familiarity with local emergency rooms that smacks of DMV experiences as well. We understand what happens when something is free, and most people want more control than that, even if it costs more to them.

But the tide is turning, more and more people in the US are seeing it as their right to provide for their health with other people's wallets.

 

[Exorcet]

I dont understand the perserverance in that charity is something that is expected in society somehow. For the good dead you did, my pessimistic mind tells me that at least 9 would have ignored it.

Those 9 people may well have ignored it, my money still went to the cause.

But would do it if everyone chipped in.

Potentially at the expense of other causes more important to them.

edit: in other words, wouldnt it be a better world for everyone to chip in. What argument besides tax=stealing are there against?

Better depends on your goal. There isn't really a "better" other than everyone's personal idea of it. Charity doesn't force you to give up your money for the sake of someone else. It's clearly more fair.

 

[PocketZeven]

No not necessarily. Universal healthcare is triage. If the money exists, people get care, if it does not, people wait.

Does kindof affect the morality of the situation though.


Morality is not democratically determined.


Too many voters in the US are familiar with what it means to have government service. There is a gut level response to the idea of healthcare at the DMV (department of motor vehicles, well known for long lines). Many people have some level of familiarity with local emergency rooms that smacks of DMV experiences as well. We understand what happens when something is free, and most people want more control than that, even if it costs more to them.

But the tide is turning, more and more people in the US are seeing it as their right to provide for their health with other people's wallets.

The waiting lists are mainly formed, because of lack of resources (facilities and doctors) and not always lack of money.

I think you dont have a well enough view on how universal healthcare is experienced in other countries. I have never met a person in europe that has ever suggested that universal healthcare is stealing. While I understand your principles, are you that hardline to even consider the concept?

Those 9 people may well have ignored it, my money still went to the cause.


Potentially at the expense of other causes more important to them.


Better depends on your goal. There isn't really a "better" other than everyone's personal idea of it. Charity doesn't force you to give up your money for the sake of someone else. It's clearly more fair.

It depends on the view on the world. If you think healthcare is not a right then you are right. Most of the civilised world thinks otherwise. You have to understand how normal it is for a lot of us and strange how people in modern times would disagree with the concept.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The waiting lists are mainly formed, because of lack of resources (facilities and doctors) and not always lack of money.

I think you dont have a well enough view on how universal healthcare is experienced in other countries. I have never met a person in europe that has ever suggested that universal healthcare is stealing. While I understand your principles, are you that hardline to even consider the concept?

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged?

 

[PocketZeven]

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged?

No I havent.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

No I havent.

Its a long read and, for me personally, not that great of a novel, but it would probably articulate where Danoff (and others) is coming from.

Slightly off topic and with tremendous trepidation: My biggest gripe with the principles laid out in Atlas Shrugged (and the fountainhead, less so) is that even within the context of a novel it was impossible to implement the ideas within greater society/civilization. They literally made a secret bubble to live in! She lost me with that book. The fountainhead seemed much more reasonable...you aspire to those principles and live your own existence. And also blow up buildings and somehow escape punishment.

 

[Exorcet]

It depends on the view on the world. If you think healthcare is not a right then you are right. Most of the civilised world thinks otherwise. You have to understand how normal it is for a lot of us and strange how people in modern times would disagree with the concept.

If many people disagree with you, that is perhaps a sign that you've made an error. It's no more than that though. The majority can and has been wrong. At one point it was accepted that the Sun went around Earth. No amount of majority support made that correct. The reasoning behind the opinions have been brought up, and that is much more valuable than consensus to me.

 

[Danoff]

While I understand your principles, are you that hardline to even consider the concept?

First, I don't understand why you seem to be elevating this particular issue over others. Food, water, clothing, education, these are all more fundamental. You're asking me if I'm "hardline" but it sounds to me quite a bit like "are you seriously so hardline as to not consider murder"? I guess the answer is yes, I don't consider universal healthcare to be moral.

Charity should not be forced.

 

[Famine]

I have never met a person in europe that has ever suggested that universal healthcare is stealing.

Hi.

It depends on the view on the world. If you think healthcare is not a right then you are right. Most of the civilised world thinks otherwise.

Rights are neither subjective not subject to a majority vote.

 

[PocketZeven]

Hi.

Rights are neither subjective not subject to a majority vote.

You are a special exception. (90% are for the NHS). Do not know if the 10% are fully against or either for a different form of it.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/what-does-public-think-about-nhs

I am speaking about healthcare rights and entitlements defined in law in countries with universal healthcare (NHS). Not your definition of "human rights". The argument of rights being objective is a theory and discussed in lenght and not the topic in this thread.

 

[ryzno]

The ones who do seek treatment abroad are more likely to have a higher income. Even the report suggested one of the factors is to avoid the long waiting lists. While do I believe american healthcare itself is great. Its cost is much higher then other countries. People in a wealthy country should not have to chose between enormous debt or life-saving/altering treatment.

We have Americans who go over seas and as close as Tijuana for plastic surgery cause it's "cheaper".
I'm not saying Americans don't have complications from plastic surgery or die here but, I'll say that the reason the surgeries are cheaper over seas is cause they are not up to the standards of American medicine.
I remember in the news a lady went to Jamaica for a "new butt". They literally injected silicon caulk used in construction to fill up her butt. Sadly she died.

 

[PocketZeven]

We have Americans who go over seas and as close as Tijuana for plastic surgery cause it's "cheaper".
I'm not saying Americans don't have complications from plastic surgery or die here but, I'll say that the reason the surgeries are cheaper over seas is cause they are not up to the standards of American medicine.
I remember in the news a lady went to Jamaica for a "new butt". They literally injected silicon caulk used in construction to fill up her butt. Sadly she died.

You get what you paid for. But the majority of those people going abroad I assume are because of specialisms in certain medical fields.
I recently saw a doc on netflix called "afflicted". About 7 people with extremely rare diseases. The series is not a commentary on healthcare though, but a view on how the internet has helped people with rare diseases to find answers and connections all over the world. In some instances the US lack certain specialities and knowledge, which will steer people to look for treatment abroad.

 

[FPV MIC]

We have Americans who go over seas and as close as Tijuana for plastic surgery cause it's "cheaper".
I'm not saying Americans don't have complications from plastic surgery or die here but, I'll say that the reason the surgeries are cheaper over seas is cause they are not up to the standards of American medicine.
I remember in the news a lady went to Jamaica for a "new butt". They literally injected silicon caulk used in construction to fill up her butt. Sadly she died.

We have the same situations happening here, just swap Americans for Australians, Tijuana for Asia, and butt for boob.

That type of surgery, and many others, are classed differently and aren't covered under our healthcare system, or even Private healthcare. It has to be essential reconstructive surgery to be covered so sometimes people go for the ''cheaper'' and far more dangerous options.

 

[ryzno]

Do y'all think "unnecessary" plastic surgery should be covered by insurance or universal healthcare?

 

[Famine]

You are a special exception. (90% are for the NHS). Do not know if the 10% are fully against or either for a different form of it.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/what-does-public-think-about-nhs

So it's not every European and something to do with our cultural upbringing then.

I am speaking about healthcare rights and entitlements defined in law in countries with universal healthcare (NHS). Not your definition of "human rights".

So "laws" then.

Healthcare isn't a right, it's something that you either have access to free at the point of use (or "single-payer"), or to which you have access to paid at the point of use. And the NHS has myriad exceptions from the concept of it being a "right" or even free at the point of use - dentistry being a glaring example.

 

[PocketZeven]

Do y'all think "unnecessary" plastic surgery should be covered by insurance or universal healthcare?

To be clear. Cosmetic plastic surgery is not covered in universal healthcare. An exception is reconstructive surgery.


edit:

So it's not every European and something to do with our cultural upbringing then.

So "laws" then.

Healthcare isn't a right, it's something that you either have access to free at the point of use (or "single-payer"), or to which you have access to paid at the point of use. And the NHS has myriad exceptions from the concept of it being a "right" or even free at the point of use - dentistry being a glaring example.

I did not claim that all europeans agree with me. There are always exceptions to the rule.

Yes the laws. While many documents (for example univesal declaration of human rights) use the languange of "right". To satisfy you I will make more of an effort to avoid the use of "rights". Healthcare is provided as a service to all citizens by the government. The NHS even covers emergency treatment to visitors.

 

[ryzno]

To be clear. Cosmetic plastic surgery is not covered in universal healthcare. An exception is reconstructive surgery.

Ok, but do you think it should be?

 

[FPV MIC]

Do y'all think "unnecessary" plastic surgery should be covered by insurance or universal healthcare?

Nope. ''Unnecessary'' being the key word.

In many circumstances procedures like boob reductions fall outside of the "unnecessary" category and are still be covered to allay future health problems.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok, but do you think it should be?

Ofcourse I dont. Cosmetic surgery has little to do with healthcare.

 

[NotThePrez]

Do y'all think "unnecessary" plastic surgery should be covered by insurance or universal healthcare?

If it purely cosmetic for the sake of it (Dr. 91210) then no, as that's a luxury. If it's reconstructive after say an accident, than I think it should be covered.

 

[Danoff]

If it purely cosmetic for the sake of it (Dr. 91210) then no, as that's a luxury. If it's reconstructive after say an accident, than I think it should be covered.

Still could be purely cosmetic...

I think you mean that cosmetic surgery should only be paid for with stolen money if it's to put you back to the way god intended.

 

[PocketZeven]

Still could be purely cosmetic...

I think you mean that cosmetic surgery should only be paid for with stolen money if it's to put you back to the way god intended.

Not the language I would use. But let’s agree to disagree on the subject tax=stealing.