Health Care for Everyone

[Duke]

Ahhhh. But no one said anything about providing life. Do you then expect to be provided with food and shelter? Denying those things is robbing you of the 'right to life', as well.

I have a right not to be shot by a thug. I don't have a right not to get cancer.

You have the life as property you are born with - making it work is up to you.

 

[Swift]

Whoa, so someone that needs to get a kidney transplant or heart surgery to save there life but can't afford should die? Man, that's seriously weak. I'm not going to let someone just die cause I want to lower my taxes.

 

[dbartucci]

I'm a proponent of group insurance, where the healthy subsidize the ill. You say you don't have a right not to get cancer, but the fact is that anyone could get cancer and the costs could be catastrophic. By having group insurance you can reduce the marginal cost to everyone, and at the same time make sure that if you are unlucky enough to fall ill you are provided for. Making this insurance mandatory eliminates the moral hazard, adverse selection and cream skimming that typify insurance issues.

 

[Arwin]

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Medical expenses contributed to half of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2001, even though most of those debtors had health insurance when their medical problems began, according to a report published Wednesday.

http://www.somersetmedicalcenter.com/114380.cfm

 

[Ev0]

I value his life, but not above principles. You do not seem to value the lives of the people who would be stolen from to pay for this guy's medical treatment - medical treatment that he refuses to work for. I value life, I value his right to control his life and others' rights to control theirs. You on the otherhand refuse to let him take responsibility for his decisions and refuse to let others enjoy the fruits of theirs.

Ok, let's get a scenario going here. So there is a guy who was born into a poor family in a large city. His father and mother struggled to make ends meet, but our guy was determined to make it in the world. So he studied hard in high school, and managed to get into a good University. He got some scholarships, and with a part time job, he would just be able to pay his way through. But then, bam, he discovers he has cancer. He can't afford the costs for treatment for reasons already stated, and he dies a horrible, slow death over the next year.

So, you're telling me this guy deserves to die? Just because he's poor, he tried to make it work, and bad luck just kicks his ass?

I value life and the liberty of life. You do not seem to.

Now you're just dealing a low blow. What am I, a murderer, a slavedriver? All just because I feel that for healthcare to work for everyone, everyone has to pitch in their fair share?

I don't expect treatment I can't afford, whether it's critical or not. Right now I'm suffering with a hernia until I can afford the time and money to get it corrected.

Fair enough. It's not a life threatening complication.

My father died 8 years ago from cardiopulmonary cancer. There were additional treatments available that may have saved or prolonged his life. We couldn't afford them. Or, more accurately, we could have afforded them but it would have left my mother without provision for her future. He chose not to do that.

Don't tell me I'll change my tune when it's someone I care about.

I guess you've grown used to your system of healthcare, and have learned to accept it's shortcomings. Adapting to your environment.

Here's the issue with your system: define "contributing". Define "basics". A ditch digger contributes to society. Does he contribute enough to offset the value of a brain surgeon who can cure the laborer's wife? Who decides?

And once you start that, where do you stop? Food and shelter are much more important and immediate needs than health care. And if health care is a necessity, isn't transportation?

A contributing member of society is anyone who is providing a service that is beneficial to our society. Now, we all know there are only a handful of people who can be brain surgeons, or hold any other occupation that requires abnormal levels of intelligence. Is this supposed to make a person working 9 to 5, trying to support their family less deserving of good healthcare?

And yes, food and shelter are much more important. But if people don't have adequate food or shelter, healthcare is going to become a priority very quickly. There are always homeless people who freeze to death on the streets of Toronto during the winter months because of a lack of affordable housing. And of course, being exposed to freezing temperatures for months at a time without proper nourishment can't be good for one's health. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out.

As soon as you shift from emergency-aid to chronic charity, you open up this entire problem. And you immediately make every human being a potential slave to every other human being with a 'need'.

So, like Danoff, an increase in taxes to pay for subsidized healthcare instantly makes everyone a slave? Well, I guess you're right. I mean, us Canadians, we're constantly being whipped and yelled at to produce our taxes to support our healthcare system.

 

[Duke]

So, you're telling me this guy deserves to die? Just because he's poor, he tried to make it work, and bad luck just kicks his ass?

Yup. Sometimes bad luck just kicks your ass. Through no fault of my own I had to replace two cars in two years, both of which had several more years of life in them. Because their residual value was low, I didn't get anything like their value to me from insurance. So now I'm carrying two car payments when I expected to have no payment for another couple of years. Sometimes bad luck does just kick your ass. I fully realize that getting cancer and getting rear ended are not the same thing - but it's an analogy.

Now you're just dealing a low blow. What am I, a murderer, a slavedriver? All just because I feel that for healthcare to work for everyone, everyone has to pitch in their fair share?

Define "fair". Fair to whom? The person who gets much more than he pays for, or the person who gets much less?

Fair enough. It's not a life threatening complication.

But it could be.

I guess you've grown used to your system of healthcare, and have learned to accept it's shortcomings. Adapting to your environment.

Nope. It's because I determined my principles more than 25 years ago, and I've been refining my understanding of them ever since. It's got nothing to do with growing used to anything's shortcomings.

A contributing member of society is anyone who is providing a service that is beneficial to our society. Now, we all know there are only a handful of people who can be brain surgeons, or hold any other occupation that requires abnormal levels of intelligence. Is this supposed to make a person working 9 to 5, trying to support their family less deserving of good healthcare?

You're the one who stated "contributes to society". So now it's up to you to measure "contribution" and evaluate who deserves what. Enjoy the job.

And yes, food and shelter are much more important. But if people don't have adequate food or shelter, healthcare is going to become a priority very quickly. There are always homeless people who freeze to death on the streets of Toronto during the winter months because of a lack of affordable housing. And of course, being exposed to freezing temperatures for months at a time without proper nourishment can't be good for one's health. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out.

So, you advocate 'free' health care but not food and shelter? That makes no sense. Food and shelter are much more immediate needs. If you feel it is society's duty to provide any one of those three thrings, by logic you should feel that it is society's duty to provide all of them. Is it?

So, like Danoff, an increase in taxes to pay for subsidized healthcare instantly makes everyone a slave? Well, I guess you're right. I mean, us Canadians, we're constantly being whipped and yelled at to produce our taxes to support our healthcare system.

Try not paying your taxes for a few years and let me know how that works out for you.

Making "society" responsible for the support of its members makes everybody both slave and master to everybody else. Your obligation becomes unlimited and unending and unsatisfiable. How do you judge what is 'enough'? There is always more need in the world. Satisfying that need creates more need. If you make it so that NEED is the primary factor in determining RIGHT, then the person with the most rights in the world is the person who needs the most and is least able to support themselves. Congratulations. You've just elevated the least intelligent, weakest individual in the world to be the most valued and deserving.

 

[Danoff]

So, you're telling me this guy deserves to die? Just because he's poor, he tried to make it work, and bad luck just kicks his ass?

Yup. That could be me tomorrow. I dreampt last night that I had to have a growth removed from my brain - maybe it will come true.

Now you're just dealing a low blow. What am I, a murderer, a slavedriver? All just because I feel that for healthcare to work for everyone, everyone has to pitch in their fair share?

Let's get something straight here. Fair is what I'm describing, not what you're describing. What you're describing is UNFAIR . Read Duke's post, he got it right.

I'm not talking about what can be done or what the public will bear here - that's a different discussion. I'm talking about what is right.

By YOUR definition of right? What gives you the right to tell me what is right and what it wrong?

Ironically it is you who have to answer that question, not me. I don't have to justify letting everyone control their own lives. How can no interference require justification? It's only when you start stealing from people and giving it to other people that you have to start justifying why you think it is "right" by your definition to do so.

The one of us who advocates force is the one who must find a way to justify it.

Edit:

Whoa, so someone that needs to get a kidney transplant or heart surgery to save there life but can't afford should die? Man, that's seriously weak. I'm not going to let someone just die cause I want to lower my taxes.

That's fine and dandy for you, but nobody's stopping you from donating to charity. I don't give a rat's ass what you're willing to pay - you're talking about spending OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY!!!

 

[Arwin]

Making "society" responsible for the support of its members makes everybody both slave and master to everybody else. Your obligation becomes unlimited and unending and unsatisfiable. How do you judge what is 'enough'? There is always more need in the world. Satisfying that need creates more need. If you make it so that NEED is the primary factor in determining RIGHT, then the person with the most rights in the world is the person who needs the most and is least able to support themselves. Congratulations. You've just elevated the least intelligent, weakest individual in the world to be the most valued and deserving.

Great, another fundamentalist. There's a difference between guaranteeing a minimum standard, finding the most cost-efficient way of providing health-care in general, protecting the weaker members of society and putting the weakest members first in society. The latter isn't all that common anywhere, but the other options have been proven valid and cost efficient.

You can mix and match different principles, you know. Sometimes that actually works. I know some people don't have a brain capable of such complexities and shades of gray, but gosh, those that try to sound intelligent while desperately clinging to a simplified binary world-view are the saddest of all. 👎

I invite you to read the article I posted above and come up with an 'intelligent' answer to that.

 

[Danoff]

I know some people don't have a brain capable of such complexities and shades of gray,...

Nice...

There's a difference between guaranteeing a minimum standard, finding the most cost-efficient way of providing health-care in general, protecting the weaker members of society and putting the weakest members first in society.

Cost efficient is what I'm advocating. Protecting the weaker members of society is what I'm advocating. Guaranteeing a minimum standard (through theft) and putting the weakest members first in society (by getting the results of the theft and not being stolen from) is what you're advocating.

 

[Duke]

Great, another fundamentalist. There's a difference between guaranteeing a minimum standard, finding the most cost-efficient way of providing health-care in general, protecting the weaker members of society and putting the weakest members first in society. The latter isn't all that common anywhere, but the other options have been proven valid and cost efficient.

Actually, the only reason that the latter isn't "all that common" is that corruption usually means that those in political power guarantee themselves the best of everything. See Soviet Russia. See Red China. At least in a capitalist society there is the chance that each person can gain his own economic power.

And you need to investigate futher the philosophical concept of the slippery slope.

You can mix and match different principles, you know. Sometimes that actually works. I know some people don't have a brain capable of such complexities and shades of gray, but gosh, those that try to sound intelligent while desperately clinging to a simplified binary world-view are the saddest of all. 👎

Sure, and you can thow out principles altogether and just go with expediency, too. That works as long as there is someone rich and strong to victimize. Just like oil, there should be enough of those to last for a while.

I'll ignore the inadequately-veiled insults for now. Next time just come out and say what you think and I'll reply in kind.

I invite you to read the article I posted above and come up with an 'intelligent' answer to that.

If I get a chance, I will.

 

[Danoff]

I invite you to read the article I posted above and come up with an 'intelligent' answer to that.

Gosh I hope this lives up to your definition of intelligent… I care deeply about whether you think I’m smart.

Medical bills help spur half of U.S. bankruptcies
By Amy Norton
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Medical expenses contributed to half of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2001, even though most of those debtors had health insurance when their medical problems began, according to a report published Wednesday.
In a study of a nationally representative sample of bankruptcy filers, researchers at Harvard University found that illness and medical bills helped spur between 46 percent and 54 percent of bankruptcies. In more than three quarters of these cases, people had health insurance at the time they or a family member became sick ill or suffered an injury.
That so many of those bankrupted by illness were initially insured, usually by a private health plan, is "absolutely surprising," study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler told Reuters Health.
"I think we should be very concerned because it means that really nobody is safe," said Woolhandler, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard…

Whaaaattt??? Nobody is safe?!!!???? You’ve got to be joking right? I thought I was safe! I thought you were safe! Didn’t someone at some point guarantee our safety?
These findings don’t really bother me. If I got critically ill I would probably be willing to spend all of my money and file bankruptcy as well. That’s what people are willing to do to save their lives. That’s what they should be willing to do to save their lives. When they run out of money they have to rely on charity – if charity is insufficient, then what else is there to do? (no not resort to crime by stealing from those unwilling to give) Sometimes people get sick and die. It’s a fact of life, we’re not safe from that – probably never will be. And there’s no way to guarantee that nobody is going to die.

 

[Duke]

Some how I doubt that will qualify as 'intelligent' in arwin's book. I'm sure you'll manage to curb your disappointment.

 

[Swift]

Duke, first. I'm really sorry to hear about your dad. and he did a pretty noble thing.

But to me, that's a great argument for healthcare for everyone. Especially in cases like that. Cancer, unless brought on by a person's ignorance, can get anyone and everyone. I feel people should have treatment for cancer when they can't afford it. It's simply cruel to let someone die because of money.

 

[Danoff]

It's simply cruel to let someone die because of money.

If you find it cruel, feel free to donate. Just because you think it's cruel doesn't give you the right to take money from others.

 

[Duke]

Duke, first. I'm really sorry to hear about your dad. and he did a pretty noble thing.

Thank you, I appreciate that. However, none of us (even him) thought of it as noble or self-sacrificial. It was just... reality. He got cancer and it killed him. It probably would have killed him later anyway, but there was no sense in exhausting the reserves delaying the inevitable.

This is not to say I don't miss him, but I don't think his death was some great injustice. It's the other end of living. If he'd been shot by someone holding up his business or (dare I say it) hit by a drunk driver, I'd be yelling for justice. But not just because we couldn't afford to try some expensive treatment.

It's simply cruel to let someone die because of money.

...which leads directly back to the assumption that everyone is owed food, shelter, and health care. Everyone is entitled not only to live, but to a living. I'm afraid I'm just never going to agree.

 

[dbartucci]

I don't consider public health insurance to be a matter of owing people health care, but just a means of providing it to every member of society. The thing about illnesses is you can do everything to protect yourself and still wind up with something. By having the healthy subsidize the ill and everyone pay you reduce the costs to those who do need it. Most of the healthy people don't mind paying because they know that if it was the other way around the care is available to them. A sort of behind the veil of ignorance test would lead many people to choose health insurance for everyone in my opinion.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I don't consider public health insurance to be a matter of owing people health care, but just a means of providing it to every member of society. The thing about illnesses is you can do everything to protect yourself and still wind up with something. By having the healthy subsidize the ill and everyone pay you reduce the costs to those who do need it. Most of the healthy people don't mind paying because they know that if it was the other way around the care is available to them. A sort of behind the veil of ignorance test would lead many people to choose health insurance for everyone in my opinion.

Exactly. 👍 👍 👍


Not to mention the fact that private insurance companies compete for the HEALTHIEST customers in order to keep most the insurance money. Older people are finding it increasingly difficult to get health insurance because they are more likely to need healthcare than someone say my age, or Dan's age. Privatization of healthcare is not the answer -- we have both private and public healthcare; leave things the way they are.

 

[Duke]

Exactly. 👍 👍 👍


Not to mention the fact that private insurance companies compete for the HEALTHIEST customers in order to keep most the insurance money. Older people are finding it increasingly difficult to get health insurance because they are more likely to need healthcare than someone say my age, or Dan's age. Privatization of healthcare is not the answer -- we have both private and public healthcare; leave things the way they are.

So car insurance for bad or unlucky drivers who crash a lot shouldn't be any more expensive than it is for good drivers who don't.
👍
Riiiiiiiiight.

 

[Swift]

Thank you, I appreciate that. However, none of us (even him) thought of it as noble or self-sacrificial. It was just... reality. He got cancer and it killed him. It probably would have killed him later anyway, but there was no sense in exhausting the reserves delaying the inevitable.

...which leads directly back to the assumption that everyone is owed food, shelter, and health care. Everyone is entitled not only to live, but to a living. I'm afraid I'm just never going to agree.

Well, I think that it was a very unselfish thing that your father did. Most people would do whatever they could to cling to life. He chose to grant your mother a more comfortable life.

See, that's the thing. I don't see how you can seperate the two. You can have life, but not the things that sustain life. That's quite strange to me.

So car insurance for bad or unlucky drivers who crash a lot shouldn't be any more expensive than it is for good drivers who don't.
👍
Riiiiiiiiight.

You couldn't be more right here. Driving isn't a right, as living is, so shouldn't be considered as such.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

So car insurance for bad or unlucky drivers who crash a lot shouldn't be any more expensive than it is for good drivers who don't.
👍
Riiiiiiiiight.

There's a difference. One has to do with the difference between life and death and the other has to do with a privilege. You can survive without a car. Millions of people in Manhattan do without it owning their own car... or they have their own car but don't use it commute to work. You don't NEED a car to survive. That's what PUBLIC (YES PUBLIC) transportation is for. Health insurance is infinitely more important than car insurance -- which is why the government doesn't have publicly-funded car insurance.

 

[Duke]

...so therefore all bets are off.

Food is infinitely more important than healthcare. You can survive for weeks without food; you may survive for decades without healthcare.

So does that mean everyone is owed enough food to stay alive?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

So does that mean everyone is owed enough food to stay alive?

Yes. That is why we have the United Nations. It's purpose is to bridge the disparities among people worldwide; to mend the chasms between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots, the elite and the needy; to strive for social development...

... and the party wants to cut all ties to the UN and subsequently any humanitarian efforts -- unless they choose to give to charity. Which obviously worked for Chile because their poverty rate doubled from 20% to 41%. Thanks to their FREE-MARKET healthcare, there were typhoid fever epidemics.

 

[Duke]

It's no wonder you hate Libertarians. You're the polar opposite of us.

Socially conservative and fiscally liberal. That's not a common combination.

 

[Swift]

...so therefore all bets are off.

Food is infinitely more important than healthcare. You can survive for weeks without food; you may survive for decades without healthcare.

So does that mean everyone is owed enough food to stay alive?

Yeah bud. I'd have to say yes. I mean, how can we just let people starve to death because they just happen to not have any cash?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It's no wonder you hate Libertarians. You're the polar opposite of us.

Socially conservative and fiscally liberal. That's not a common combination.

Wrong. You're the extreme.

I'm looking for balance between the free market and socialism. Balance between liberty and restriction.

 

[Duke]

I mean, how can we just let people starve to death because they just happen to not have any cash?

For all the reasons I've described at length above. But here it is, about as succintly as I can put it:

Making "society" responsible for the support of its members makes everybody both slave and master to everybody else. Your obligation becomes unlimited and unending and unsatisfiable. How do you judge what is 'enough'? There is always more need in the world. Satisfying that need creates more need. If you make it so that NEED is the primary factor in determining RIGHT, then the person with the most rights in the world is the person who needs the most and is least able to support themselves. Congratulations. You've just elevated the least intelligent, weakest individual in the world to be the most valued and deserving.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Congratulations. You've just elevated the least intelligent, weakest individual in the world to be the most valued and deserving.

So you think we should elevate the most intelligent, strongest individual in the world to be the most valued and deserving.

Straight from the mouth of Heinlein. I love to read.

 

[Swift]

Making "society" responsible for the support of its members makes everybody both slave and master to everybody else. Your obligation becomes unlimited and unending and unsatisfiable. How do you judge what is 'enough'? There is always more need in the world. Satisfying that need creates more need. If you make it so that NEED is the primary factor in determining RIGHT, then the person with the most rights in the world is the person who needs the most and is least able to support themselves. Congratulations. You've just elevated the least intelligent, weakest individual in the world to be the most valued and deserving.

Disregarding a persons need for life sustaining things like food and water negates the entire concept of LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Disregarding a persons need for life sustaining things like food and water negates the entire concept of LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Ironic isn't it? But I expect that kind of behavior from liberals. Save the serial killer, but stop life from happening altogether.

 

[Ev0]

Disregarding a persons need for life sustaining things like food and water negates the entire concept of LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Thank you. Me and everyone else here in support of a social healthcare system aren't trying to incorporate some sort of communist system where the poor are just as highly valued as the rich (which would make the poor the most important members of society), all we want is to simply guarantee everyone the basics of life. Food, shelter, and healthcare. And don't tell me that we can live without healthcare. We will all need it at somepoint in our lives. Although it's not needed as much on a day to day basis as food or shelter, it's still crucial to our well being.

And yes, people did live before without a good healthcare system. But the average lifespan was under 60 for a reason.