Healthcare

[MissScripture]

Is healthcare an entitlement?

[Mercy me]

No. But it can't be denied someone in need.

[Ziggamafu]

Is local policing an entitlement? If someone is breaking into my house, should I have to worry about whether or not I can afford the bill that comes from calling 911? Obviously local law enforcement should not be denied to someone in need but why not franchise the system into privatized businesses? Wouldn't that ensure better policing in the long run? Why should it be nationalized?

Or perhaps a better question: Why should we entrust our national protection to a government that does not care for its citizens health in the first place?

[princessgianna]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1864712' date='May 11 2009, 10:51 PM']Is local policing an entitlement? If someone is breaking into my house, should I have to worry about whether or not I can afford the bill that comes from calling 911? Obviously local law enforcement should not be denied to someone in need but why not franchise the system into privatized businesses? Wouldn't that ensure better policing in the long run? Why should it be nationalized?

Or perhaps a better question: Why should we entrust our national protection to a government that does not care for its citizens health in the first place?[/quote]
Thank you!

If they are willing to kill babies-why would I trust them with my health!
[i]
[b]If they are going to kill them what is going to keep them from killing me? [/b][/i]

EDIT: My dad has passed his wisdom on this saying. (below)

They first went after the Jews-I wasn't Jewish so I didn't care
After the Jews were all gone they went after the Catholics-I wasn't Catholic-I didn't care! After all the Catholics were gone they went after me-I suddenly cared but there was nobody to help me.

Edited May 12, 2009 by princessgianna

[CatherineM]

I think it is sad that it is debatable. Instead of comparing it to 911 or police/fire type calls, how about recreation centers or public art? I'm not sure we should buy either as long as people live on the street, or die there of treatable illnesses.

I will now duck, because I'm sure the shotgun blasts will commence forthwith.

[RezaMikhaeil]

The fire department shouldn't put out a fire if the home owner can't pay.

The problem with that is that if my neighbors house is on fire, it will spread to my house, and then from my house to the next, the same is said for diseases. If my neighbor has diseases, some would say that it isn't my problem, that's his problem, yet if he gets it and it isn't cures, it could spread to me, and then it is my problem, so why should I not be compelled to help him to be healed from such a disease?

Reza

[havok579257]

The government should not be in charge of healthcare. Although the current system is no better and insurance companies should not be in charge of healthcare either. The system needs an overhaul, a major one at that.

[CatherineM]

We were just having a discussion about pandemics and the poor/homeless. If a really bad pandemic does hit, isn't it likely that it will run most rampant in the poor uninsured who literally wait until they are seriously ill to go to the ER? If Obama does want either Canadian or British universal health care, a pandemic might be his best bet.

[Paddington]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1864735' date='May 12 2009, 01:14 AM']I think it is sad that it is debatable. Instead of comparing it to 911 or police/fire type calls, how about recreation centers or public art? I'm not sure we should buy either as long as people live on the street, or die there of treatable illnesses.

I will now duck, because I'm sure the shotgun blasts will commence forthwith.[/quote]

The Social Darwinists come to blast you and discredit the anti-abortion movement at once!

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1864859' date='May 11 2009, 10:42 PM']We were just having a discussion about pandemics and the poor/homeless. If a really bad pandemic does hit, isn't it likely that it will run most rampant in the poor uninsured who literally wait until they are seriously ill to go to the ER? If Obama does want either Canadian or British universal health care, a pandemic might be his best bet.[/quote]

Obama doesn't want a single payer system. He reciently held a round table discussion in which everyone, including healthcare lobbiests, were invited but nobody that represented the single payer system was invited or allowed to attend, even doctors that were in favor of it.

I'm not for a single payer system, or universal healthcare of Obama's vision, because the single payer system is designed to help those with immediate health problems that are a matter of life and death, Obama and the others would fight [and are fighting] for all universal healthcare plans to cover abortions, which is not the purpose of them. Their putting late term abortions side by side with people that need heart transplants.

You're right, the healthcare system is broken. People that pay for insurance coverage are getting denied as a matter of profits [my mother sells health insurance for a living and I'd witnessed this personally]. People that pay into the system with the idea that when their ill, it's going to be there to help them, are getting denied care for profits, in the richest nation this world has ever seen and that's the most unChristian practice ever.

I do, as a Christian, believe if my neighbor had an disease, it's my responsibility and in my best interest to help him to get the necessary treatment to be healed.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i didn't use to think it was an entitlement. so if at first ya dont either, you're still redeemable. i agree with catherine's statement, 'how is this debatabe', but then i've also had this in my mindset for a long time and taken it for granted. i do realize at one point all that i lacked so i agree with it to an extent.
see, after pondering it, i came to realize that it often is entitlement. it's essentially the same thing with education too (when that's the only way to get ahead, reasonably. i doubt it's fundamental right now, but it's close). ie, it's a fundamental right to have reasonable access if you're willing and trying to work the best you can. this is required in a society that is able to afford it all, but just doesn't due to the structure of it all.

what reasonable is is debabtable, but at least if you agree with that, we have much common ground. some dont even agree in theory to that much.

it's different than having the police come to your door per 'rights'. that's something that affects all the same,it's something that is voted on, and if we didn't have them, we'd still have our guns or self defense etc. merely a nice thing, not the same as something fundamental like healthcare can be. these are essential things that cannot be denied.

it's not fair for a 20 year old to not be able to afford a basic surgery (it doesn't ahve to be elaborate etc) when that's the norm and not the exception.
just like a regular joe back in the olden days could just go to the doctor and give them a cow for anything they needed, that access is oddly out of reach nowadays for a proportional need. it's not that there's not enough cows to go around, it's that society is structured wrong. we live in a land of cows a plenty.

Edited May 12, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

the popes say access to a basic minimum is an entitlement. they were talkin about wages mostly, but it's really applicable to all. after all, that's what wages are for etc.

i mean, they are even willing to subdue private property rights for this. which is sacred amoungst conservatives (and me too), so it must be pretty important, all this stuff.

just to name a few...
[quote]QUOTE
QUOTE
Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.

QUOTE
Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace

QUOTE
…it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation:the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.[/quote]

Edited May 12, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Ziggamafu]

Is there a difference between nationalized insurance and nationalized healthcare?

I am married and because my wife's work offers benefits (I am a student; my work is freelance) I do not qualify for any government insurance. But not only is my wife's work-insurance hideously expensive, but even after we tried to make as much of the cost available as possible, we got denied. We tried through another company and got denied there, too. There are sooooooooo many restrictions on insurance; so many catches. I had not seen a doctor in four years because of cost until I recently had to go to the ER. For two hours of waiting in a room and five minutes with a doctor we got a bill for over $3,000. We applied for their charity discounts and shaved it down to $2,000. Even with insurance, deductibles and co-pays can be enormous financial burdens if you get really sick. Cancer runs in my family; my dad passed from it and my sister almost died from it when she was my age. I have to seriously consider not getting any treatment if I end up with cancer; sure I may beat it, but even a highly treatable cancer costs a FORTUNE. I would be torn about how much duress such financial burdens would put on my family and how it would affect my kids. I shudder to think how irrevocably obliterated our families finances would be if we had not had government insurance for our premature daughter, who spent a month in the NICU.

[Archaeology cat]

It's horrible to have to think of such things, Zig. An acquaintance of mine doesn't have insurance and is pregnant. The cheapest care she can find is a hospital in another town, which will charge her $7700 provided everything is straightforward, no interventions or anything. The hospital in her town quoted a price of $20,000. Ridiculous. A pregnant woman shouldn't have to worry about whether she can afford to actually see a doctor and give birth. Yes, there are limitations with socialised medicine, but at least they don't have to worry about getting care when they need to do so. (And there is competition in the UK, since there's a private sector as well).

[Adrestia]

Health care is a commodity, a for-profit industry in the USA.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think the national government should take care of it for several reasons. first and most important is because it's so fundamental a right. that's what i see the national government doing protecting that stuff.
second, i believe it's an important consideration that gets overlooked a lot: race to the bottom. states think they can't afford to provide this stuff, so they dont, to be competitive. they see econimic short term benefits to not providing this sorta stuff, and overlook the people involved. race to the bottom means all compete to the disadvantage of all. look it up on wiki for more info. it's been proven to occur with environmental degradation and wages, and stil does occur with 'incorporation' rights etc. this isn't pie in the sky stuff.

insurance is out of control. it's not cause of the government either. they might be part of the problem in mandating it sometimes, but they are not the problem. it's tragedy of the commons sort of scenario, people abuse it cause they can. ask anyone and it's true. that runs prices up for people. regular folk can afford to pay the jacked up prices, and the poor cannot.
we don't have enough doctosr cause they stopped opening med schools in the 80s. they're way too overpaid, there's no reason for it. that's the major issue that is overlooked.

national regulation provides uniformity so states don't have to worry about all that stuff. it provides protection in conservie states who say to hell with all that stuff, for whatever convoluted reasoning they may use.
maybe a little state experimentation is okay.
a little excess by the feds is to be expected, just as long as they aren't 'using a swat team to change a light bulb' as i say. as i also say 'there's more than one way to skin a cat'. it dont have to fit one's particular desirs compeltely or else it'd be never work.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1865070' date='May 12 2009, 08:29 AM']It's horrible to have to think of such things, Zig. An acquaintance of mine doesn't have insurance and is pregnant. The cheapest care she can find is a hospital in another town, which will charge her $7700 provided everything is straightforward, no interventions or anything. The hospital in her town quoted a price of $20,000. Ridiculous. A pregnant woman shouldn't have to worry about whether she can afford to actually see a doctor and give birth. Yes, there are limitations with socialised medicine, but at least they don't have to worry about getting care when they need to do so. (And there is competition in the UK, since there's a private sector as well).[/quote]

this also shows though that we need reform other than the feds etc paying for it.
there's something fundametnally flawed. i suspect insurance premiums and doctors are the primary culprit. these can be changed.
we dont want to put a bandaid on the wound of the national health crisis. fix it at its root.

what's painfully clear though, is whatever we do, we need 'procedural' leaders. who can get people together and get into details, such that congress who doesn't do detail, is able to. bush jr sucked royall at that, that's why he sucked. obama looks promising. we will see.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the feds are also able to do it cheaper, they are the ultimate insurer. (they're able to, whether they do is another question

the smart way to do it all, is in the detail. copays and higher deductibles, loans for something or past a certain point like 50k, requirments to save in a health plan and then maybe some matching grants up to a certain point like 10k, grants while you are buildig up to yoru 10k amount.

"Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration."

more myths debunked
[url="http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm"]http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for...ited_states.htm[/url]



the feds paying insurance premiums when they could pay them self doesn't make sense. it's an unneeded middleman. i suspect anyway.

hopefully when they try reforming all this, they reform medicaid too. if ya look at obama's budget that's way too high, that's the reason. it's coming due on his watch. it's all convoluted etc.


most of those detail we wouldn't have to worry about if we just had more doctors. then it's be more affordable. insurance woudl be an issue to an extent, but i don't knw how much. insurance in and of itself im not sure is a right-- that distinction between 'insurance' and 'care'.

Edited May 12, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

from that link i posted (a conclusions that you'd have to read the link to verify):

[quote]8. Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care[/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1865070' date='May 12 2009, 05:29 AM']It's horrible to have to think of such things, Zig. An acquaintance of mine doesn't have insurance and is pregnant. The cheapest care she can find is a hospital in another town, which will charge her $7700 provided everything is straightforward, no interventions or anything. The hospital in her town quoted a price of $20,000. Ridiculous. A pregnant woman shouldn't have to worry about whether she can afford to actually see a doctor and give birth. Yes, there are limitations with socialised medicine, but at least they don't have to worry about getting care when they need to do so. (And there is competition in the UK, since there's a private sector as well).[/quote]

Tell her to look into having a midwife come to her home...to those that are uneducated on healthcare, haven't had a child for a while, etc. it may sound barbaric but it's actually on the rise. It's also less expensive. The risks are relativelly low, because there is a doctor on call if needed. My wife had our first daughter with a midwife and it was great! The Best experience to date!

Reza