|
Pick One. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
To me the right for healthcare, the right to education and right to own property etc is equally worth.
Shakka:
To motivate your right is not the easiest, it will finally come down to basic view of life. You will argue about that everyone should had the right own what he earn, meanwhile i will argue that everyone should have a right to life, and an equal opportunity to go on in life.
But if you are up for it, sure i will too :D |
Right to life does not equal the right to walk into a hospital and demand free service from a doctor who enjoys the same rights as you do. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Right to life does not equal the right to walk into a hospital and demand free service from a doctor who enjoys the same rights as you do. |
Sorry, but that made no sense to me? what does the right of the doctor have to do with the right for everyone to have free healthcare? :conf:
Hospital = save lives
Right to live = to be saved if you are about to die
to be saved if you are about to die = hosptial |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Sorry, but that made no sense to me? what does the right of the doctor have to do with the right for everyone to have free healthcare? :conf:
Hospital = save lives
Right to live = to be saved if you are about to die
to be saved if you are about to die = hosptial |
Trust me, St. Andrew--if you walk into a hospital about to die, they won't leave you there to die. They will treat you first and ask questions later. If you walk into a hospital with a cold demanding free sudafed, x-rays, CT scans, etc. then I have a serious problem with it. Demanding something for nothing is not right.
Doctors are people too. How about respecting their rights too. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Trust me, St. Andrew--if you walk into a hospital about to die, they won't leave you there to die. They will treat you first and ask questions later. If you walk into a hospital with a cold demanding free sudafed, x-rays, CT scans, etc. then I have a serious problem with it. Demanding something for nothing is not right. |
no they wouldn't get it, of course, i don't think that is what we are arguing about... at least in sweden people are not that stupid so they go to a hostpital for a cold ;) what we are arguing about is weather or not everyone should get free helthcare, and i don't count things like cold in that, but more serious things, not really necesarily life threatening, but at least something a bit more serious...
| quote: | | Doctors are people too. How about respecting their rights too. |
this is what i don't get. how can it be an insult on the doctors right if hospitals was publically financed? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
no they wouldn't get it, of course, i don't think that is what we are arguing about... at least in sweden people are not that stupid so they go to a hostpital for a cold ;) what we are arguing about is weather or not everyone should get free helthcare, and i don't count things like cold in that, but more serious things, not really necesarily life threatening, but at least something a bit more serious... |
Well, considering a major part of the problem with our(US) healthcare system is the general mentality of our moronic population, it is a cold. People abuse the system all the time getting procedures, tests, and services that they absolutely do not require, simply because they can. That is a major reason that costs get driven up for everyone else. So while I think it's fine to try to offer some basic level of service for free(or at a very low cost), there has to be a line drawn where certain procedures are not given away at the cost of higher insurance premiums to us all. And again, tort reform would be helpful because it would get after another major reason that insurance costs are higher.
The problem with the whole thing is that as you try to make more and more medical procedures "Free", you drive the incentive out of the market and pretty soon you have doctors walking out because the cost of their doing business far outweighs the benefits due to things like EXTREMELY high malpractice insurance. And then you're left with a ty healthcare system and crappy technology. I agree there must be a balance, but I cannot agree to this "Healthcare is a right" argument because somebody is the loser in that situation every time.;) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
I don't think the debate should be whether health care is a right.
It isn't.
Neither is social security, but we have that. And neither is paying taxes, but we have those too.
The debate should really be focused on how this government choses to provide a minimum net for its society.
Although healthcare is not a right, it most defintely is a positive thing for most people in society to have. Just like social security. And although I might despise that 15% of my paycheck is going to a fund I will never see, I enjoy that thought much better than the though of having to witness a great depression during my lifetime.
In this regard, it is just as important to have a health 'net' for our poor, elderly, etc, so we don't have anyone dying in the streets. The USA does has achieved this net (so we aren't even debating this point) - no one is dying in the streets of America because they can't afford healthcare.
The real question is how do we go about doing it? Right now this net has been cast so large that it has forced the government, and the private citizen (either via insurance or his own pocket) a huge amount of money. More than in history.
The issue with the healthcare system in the USA is not about the poor. The poor have excellent healthcare and it is affordable. The issue is about the American class - the middle class.
The middle class always had health care, it had superb health care. And it never payed for it out of pocket - well not directly anyhow. They would pay health insurance, and health insurance would cover almost all of the tab.
The only thing that has changed over the past 10 years is that the middle class is still paying health insurance, now though at back-breaking rates, and these insurance companies are covering less and less of your expensives. So while paying the companies 100% more than you would have ten years ago, they are covering only 50% of your expensive, instead of almost all as they used to.
This isn't effecting the middle class either. No one is dying. But medical cost are driving many into debt, and many into bankruptcy (medical costs is the 2nd highest caust of bankruptcy in the USA). To most of us it is a nusiane, we have been used to getting good health car for cheap, and now were forced to pay for it. Many of us can, we just don't want to. And its fine, I understand that.
The question than is, since everyone basically needs health care anyone (whether they will do it via insurance, via government, or via their own funds) they'll need it.
So if everyone in the nation needs it, and is paying for it one way or the other. I am tempted to start thinking it simply will be a good idea for the government instead of the insurance company to take 5-15% of your paycheck, and cover all of us. |
Ahh, welcome aboard comrade!:D
I really think you brought up some great points here, and I actually find myself agreeing with much of what you said. One thing is pretty evident here - our current healthcare system is seriously flawed, and there's simply too many people without basic healthcare insurance coverage (isn't the figure something ridiculous like 60 million or something?). What's worse, the majority of individuals who do not have insurance will run to the emergency room for both nonserious and serious ailments. Of course they cannot foot the bills, and the bill eventually gets payed out by the taxpayers of the community as a result.
I certainly don't advocate that everyone have full coverage with a million dollar cap on their insurance, but I do believe a minimum level of coverage should be given by the government to everyone. I think overall this benefits the society in a number of ways (economically, productively, etc.). |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Ahh, welcome aboard comrade!:D
I really think you brought up some great points here, and I actually find myself agreeing with much of what you said. One thing is pretty evident here - our current healthcare system is seriously flawed, and there's simply too many people without basic healthcare insurance coverage (isn't the figure something ridiculous like 60 million or something?). What's worse, the majority of individuals who do not have insurance will run to the emergency room for both nonserious and serious ailments. Of course they cannot foot the bills, and the bill eventually gets payed out by the taxpayers of the community as a result.
I certainly don't advocate that everyone have full coverage with a million dollar cap on their insurance, but I do believe a minimum level of coverage should be given by the government to everyone. I think overall this benefits the society in a number of ways (economically, productively, etc.). |
So it would seem that we all agree on a lot of things at least at a basic level. I guess the problem/question then becomes: How the hell do we keep the hypochondriacs from going to the hospital every time they get a paper-cut? And how do we limit runaway lawsuits so that doctors can maintain realistic pricing caps on services such that the best medical technologies can still be maintained, while at the same time enjoying the same incentives to provide the best service.
Forgive me for being a bit cynical, but I dare say the "go-go 90's" ed up a lot of peoples' expectations on what is realistic as far as salaries, investmetn returns, unemployment rates, technology, etc. It was a great boom period, but only a fool would think that kind of growth and prosperity is sustainable for generations. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I can tell you what the future of US medicine has in store if things continue on their present course, because steps have already been taken by many physician's groups and hospitals if these events due take place.
Costs will continue to rise on health insurance until it is no longer affordable by the majority of the population. At this time a national health insurance program will be put into effect. Upon its implementation, everyone will be required to pay into a collective pool to provide "health coverage for all." However, it is important to note that this national health insurance would be different from traditional "socialized" medicine in that the government has no more control over medicine other then distibruting from this pool. At the same time this is occuring, you would also see the introduction of many more private hospitals or so called "subscription" hospitals. Physicians and hospitals, knowing that the government tends to skimp as much as possible in paying for medical services (see medicare, medicaid) would all try to become members of these private hospitals in order to both provide the best treatment for their patients and continue to make money. And here is where we would see a stratification occur. The general public would be privelaged to "free" care, but at a level much lower then everyone recieves today. Corners would be cut, tests would be skipped, long lines and waiting lists would occur, and the "least desirable" doctors would be be found at the public hospitals, while the rich would continue to enjoy the standard of care we all have today while paying extra for private hospitals. So, in this case the "poor" would have for all intents and purposes cut both accessibility and quality out of their health care system, while the rich would continue to have both accessibility and quality in theirs.
I really do not think that this new system would be good for anyone. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Well, considering a major part of the problem with our(US) healthcare system is the general mentality of our moronic population, it is a cold. People abuse the system all the time getting procedures, tests, and services that they absolutely do not require, simply because they can. That is a major reason that costs get driven up for everyone else. |
yeah so making free only the necasarily things, and taking money for the other things. that will make sense cause then lots of people abusing the system will realize that they don't need that, and if they don't realize, they pay for themselves so then it is no problem anymore...
| quote: | | So while I think it's fine to try to offer some basic level of service for free(or at a very low cost), there has to be a line drawn where certain procedures are not given away at the cost of higher insurance premiums to us all. |
Almost agree with this (cool isnt' it? :p), just that i want a public finananced system, not a insurence financed system, but basically we think the same.
| quote: | | And again, tort reform would be helpful because it would get after another major reason that insurance costs are higher. |
that is true, a doctor in sweden earn about 1/3 of what a US doctor earn... but on the other hand that US doctor has to pay like 2/3 of his salarie for insurences just in case he would be sued. so in the end they earn the same! if you did the tort reform your health care system would save lots of money!
| quote: | | The problem with the whole thing is that as you try to make more and more medical procedures "Free", you drive the incentive out of the market and pretty soon you have doctors walking out because the cost of their doing business far outweighs the benefits due to things like EXTREMELY high malpractice insurance. And then you're left with a ty healthcare system and crappy technology. I agree there must be a balance, but I cannot agree to this "Healthcare is a right" argument because somebody is the loser in that situation every time.;) |
Solution:
*Tort reform --> would save lots of money.
*Make all healthcare that is necesarily free to everyone (ie payed by the government), but healthcare that is not necesarily, will either cost money, or it will be very long waiting lines so none will missuse it (or if they actually want to pay for it i have no problem with it, as long as i don't have to pay for it!)
had some other ideas but i kinda forget them :p |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I can tell you what the future of US medicine has in store if things continue on their present course, because steps have already been taken by many physician's groups and hospitals if these events due take place.
Costs will continue to rise on health insurance until it is no longer affordable by the majority of the population. At this time a national health insurance program will be put into effect. Upon its implementation, everyone will be required to pay into a collective pool to provide "health coverage for all." However, it is important to note that this national health insurance would be different from traditional "socialized" medicine in that the government has no more control over medicine other then distibruting from this pool. At the same time this is occuring, you would also see the introduction of many more private hospitals or so called "subscription" hospitals. Physicians and hospitals, knowing that the government tends to skimp as much as possible in paying for medical services (see medicare, medicaid) would all try to become members of these private hospitals in order to both provide the best treatment for their patients and continue to make money. And here is where we would see a stratification occur. The general public would be privelaged to "free" care, but at a level much lower then everyone recieves today. Corners would be cut, tests would be skipped, long lines and waiting lists would occur, and the "least desirable" doctors would be be found at the public hospitals, while the rich would continue to enjoy the standard of care we all have today while paying extra for private hospitals. So, in this case the "poor" would have for all intents and purposes cut both accessibility and quality out of their health care system, while the rich would continue to have both accessibility and quality in theirs.
I really do not think that this new system would be good for anyone. |
It's a scary scenario isn't it?! And like you pointed out, the rich would pay more and receive the same level or service while those with less would likely continue to receive less, only the quality and accessibility would be degraded even more.
The other question is: What happens when the pool dries up in April and there is no more "public" healthcare funding to go around for the rest of the fiscal year? Tax the rich even more? I guess you'd have to get on a 9 month waiting list to get service in January of the following year when the medical coffers are full again.
Whatever you want to call it, it still sounds like a socialist/communalist program. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So it would seem that we all agree on a lot of things at least at a basic level. I guess the problem/question then becomes: How the hell do we keep the hypochondriacs from going to the hospital every time they get a paper-cut? And how do we limit runaway lawsuits so that doctors can maintain realistic pricing caps on services such that the best medical technologies can still be maintained, while at the same time enjoying the same incentives to provide the best service. |
Whadya askin' me for? Us damn liberals don't have any solutions! We're just supposed to bitch and moan about what's wrong, man!
Geez, whadya thinkin'?:D
Neo actually made a pretty good forecast summary of the unfortunate direction we may be heading. For the most part, it would be a very weak HMO-type of a system, and overall I would have to agree with him that it would do more harm than good. Admittedly I'm not terribly well-versed in the area of healthcare (though strangely, it is the field I wish to pursue next year).
On the surface I think a careful balance could be attained between the grim view depicted by Neo, and the healthcare system we have today. How we could attain that is another story, but don't ask us libs. for answers!:D
added in edit: somewhere in this solution I firmly believe a curb on prescription drugs must occur. I'm not willing to go as far as some ultra-libs and put an ultimate cap on drugs. That is a major hindrance on a very successful capitalist market. But I do believe that more research has revealed the rising pressures of prescription drug costs on everyone, and one way or another this issue must be addressed. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that Bush did not include this idea in his Healthcare Bill (well, actually it was stripped out by Committees). |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
yeah so making free only the necasarily things, and taking money for the other things. that will make sense cause then lots of people abusing the system will realize that they don't need that, and if they don't realize, they pay for themselves so then it is no problem anymore... |
So I guess the next step would be hiring a billion dollar beaurocracy to determine what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary" and therefore not covered. I'm not talking about "unnecessary" plastic surgery, rather a lot of discretionary services that enhance medical care, but that aren't necessarily obligatory to provide adequate service.
| quote: |
Almost agree with this (cool isnt' it? :p), |
Scariest moment of the day! |
|
|
|
|
