"Obamacare"

[acropolis]

Well in less than a couple years I'll be a doctor

But I'm not pretending I know or that I should decide. "Basic care" needs to be evidence-based, and it needs to be based on a medical consensus. Some screening tests are expensive, but if they prevent disease they are worth it.

Another way to make it less arbitrary is to aim for providing the maximum amount of healthcare for as many people as possible. It also helps that there are very few instances where preventative care is more expensive in the long run than letting health problems get bad enough for an emergency room visit. So many fiscal conservatives imagine they're somehow saving money by taking away cheap or free preventative care when they're actually taxing themselves and hurting people for no reason.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Another way to make it less arbitrary is to aim for providing the maximum amount of healthcare for as many people as possible. It also helps that there are very few instances where preventative care is more expensive in the long run than letting health problems get bad enough for an emergency room visit. So many fiscal conservatives imagine they're somehow saving money by taking away cheap or free preventative care when they're actually taxing themselves and hurting people for no reason.

Case in point: pap smears. Annual pap smears screening for cervical cancer have made cervical cancer one of the more rare gynecological cancers out there. It used to be far more common before this screening was put into place. Cost of treating cervical cancer >>>>>>>>> cost of scraping cells off a cervix.

 

[gemaM]

That's right!..Early detection of certain disease is much better than looking for the cure of it.

 

[John Lee Pettimore III]

Case in point: pap smears. Annual pap smears screening for cervical cancer have made cervical cancer one of the more rare gynecological cancers out there. It used to be far more common before this screening was put into place. Cost of treating cervical cancer >>>>>>>>> cost of scraping cells off a cervix.

The government should pass a law to make that test mandatory then.

 

[acropolis]

The government should pass a law to make that test mandatory then.

A more effective solution is to fund effective preventative care for anyone who needs it.

 

[Vylo]

That's right!..Early detection of certain disease is much better than looking for the cure of it.

Looking for the cure is a separate issue. Considering the cost of research vs preventive care, you would kill millions trying to go all out for cures rather then treating the disease while looking for a cure.

Cancer research from 1971 to 2000 alone cost $300 billion dollars, and some of that research actually developed the techniques for detection and treatment.

 

[Vylo]

The government should pass a law to make that test mandatory then.

Make the test free annually and most will find the time to do it.

 

[acropolis]

It's possible to provide preventative treatment and search for a cure at the same time.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

The government should pass a law to make that test mandatory then.

Well let's not jump to forcing women to have their cervixes scrapped against their will. We should rather fund the procedures and make them available. All primary care physicians know the guidelines and get their patients on the screening schedule. But if you don't have a primary care physician, it's pretty difficult to keep up with that stuff. Same goes for colon cancer screening that happens after 50.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Why should we make it free when it is OPTIONAL to begin with. You still going to have people refuse it, even if you make it free. Again, of someone does not WANT medical care why should they have it? and if they do want it why not risk AWFUL credit or provide it ALL locally. This way people are MUCH less likely to abuse it same goes with food stamps and government housing. Do not provide it at all and people will not abuse it. I am even on SSI disability and against the check. They should make it where the ONLY way you can get social secitury at the federal or state level is to be say at LEAST 65 or 70.

 

[Vylo]

Why should we make it free when it is OPTIONAL to begin with. You still going to have people refuse it, even if you make it free. Again, of someone does not WANT medical care why should they have it? and if they do want it why not risk AWFUL credit or provide it ALL locally. This way people are MUCH less likely to abuse it same goes with food stamps and government housing. Do not provide it at all and people will not abuse it. I am even on SSI disability and against the check. They should make it where the ONLY way you can get social secitury at the federal or state level is to be say at LEAST 65 or 70.

Because when made readily available, people are much more likely to use it, and live longer and healthier lives, and it tends to cost considerably less then the diseases down the road.

 

[John Lee Pettimore III]

Well let's not jump to forcing women to have their cervixes scrapped against their will. We should rather fund the procedures and make them available. All primary care physicians know the guidelines and get their patients on the screening schedule. But if you don't have a primary care physician, it's pretty difficult to keep up with that stuff. Same goes for colon cancer screening that happens after 50.

Why not? It saves lives. The government can restrict the size of soft drinks, can prevent you from using certain plants, and all sorts of other really cool things. It can even make them buy health insurance under the guise of a "tax." So why not make it mandatory for people to get preventative care? It's just another form of "insurance" isn't it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It can even make them buy health insurance under the guise of a "tax."

No sir, the government is not making people buy health insurance.

The government is saying that all people must either have health insurance--with government assistance if needed--or pay a fee to the government. For that fee they are getting the guarantee that they will be able to get health insurance whenever they choose, and will be guaranteed treatment in emergency rooms. That is a very good deal for what they pay.

What do you want? 40,000 people die every year because they do not have health insurance. Obamacare will fix most of that problem.

What is your alternative? Do you just want to let those 40,000 people die each year and do nothing about it? Or if you want to do something about it, what do you want to do about it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why should we make it free when it is OPTIONAL to begin with.

Because people cannot afford it. That is why we want to help them get health coverage.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because people cannot afford it. That is why we want to help them get health coverage.

Well if we just say you either afford it or you do not get it people would be less likely to abuse the system. You ALWAYS have the option to say no and people can do so if they can or cannot afford it.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Why should we make it free when it is OPTIONAL to begin with. You still going to have people refuse it, even if you make it free. Again, of someone does not WANT medical care why should they have it? and if they do want it why not risk AWFUL credit or provide it ALL locally. This way people are MUCH less likely to abuse it same goes with food stamps and government housing. Do not provide it at all and people will not abuse it. I am even on SSI disability and against the check. They should make it where the ONLY way you can get social secitury at the federal or state level is to be say at LEAST 65 or 70.

If it's free then people will have easier access to it. Like how the government paid for influenza vaccines for the 2011 flu season, so no person had to say "I didn't get a flu shot because I couldn't afford it."

This really isn't a matter of people not wanting care, it's about whether people will have access to it. Sure, some people may still turn down cervical cancer screening even if it was free, but are we really saying that medical care is going to be forced on people? Absolutely not.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Well if we just say you either afford it or you do not get it people would be less likely to abuse the system. You ALWAYS have the option to say no and people can do so if they can or cannot afford it.

In preventive care, there is no such thing as "abusing the system". Patients come in, get screened, and everybody wins. Patients have the option to say no, and no one is arguing that patients should receive medical services they don't want.

 

[dogs4thewin]

In preventive care, there is no such thing as "abusing the system". Patients come in, get screened, and everybody wins. Patients have the option to say no, and no one is arguing that patients should receive medical services they don't want.

no, because there are people who try to get preventive care like every week and will NOT pay for it. Now they go to places that DO offer it for free and yet people who have to pay do it either once a year when they feel it NEEDED like honestly needed, like father had a colon screening early because he thought something could be wrong. He was right they caught colon cancer super early at 48. If you just tell people you either pay for it (PERSONAL insurance or out of pocket) or you do not get it then people will not try to seek care at EVERY LITTLE THING. Actually, I am in favor however of having such programs run either through DONATIONS and ONLY through donations or by LOCAL government say the country or city NOT the federal or state government. I have the same way of looking at disability, (which I am on and HATE) food, stamps, section 8 housing or any other wal-fare program. The ONLY thing federal and state government should provide( in terms of assistance income) is REGULAR social security to be received monthly starting on one's 65th or 70th birthday. Other than that the federal/state governments should provide NO assistance to those in need.

 

[acropolis]

no, because there are people who try to get preventive care like every week and will NOT pay for it.

I don't think most women would want to get a pap smear every week, nor would men want to get a prostate exam every week.

I hope you understand that you'll be helping to pay for the healthcare of others whether you like it or not. You can either pay a small fee for free preventative care which you also benefit from, or you can pay a larger tax later on when those people who couldn't afford it get very sick while covered on medicare, or by going to the emergency room without insurance driving up the cost of private care. Your choice. (The third option of just letting them suffer and die isn't on the table anymore, since despite its faults the US is becoming a more civilized nation.)

I don't understand why so many people will oppose something which is both cost efficient and improves the quality of life for millions of people simply based on ideological reasons.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I don't think most women would want to get a pap smear every week, nor would men want to get a prostate exam every week.

I hope you understand that you'll be helping to pay for the healthcare of others whether you like it or not. You can either pay a small fee for free preventative care which you also benefit from, or you can pay a larger tax later on when those people who couldn't afford it get very sick while covered on medicare, or by going to the emergency room without insurance driving up the cost of private care. Your choice. (The third option of just letting them suffer and die isn't on the table anymore, since despite its faults the US is becoming a more civilized nation.)

I don't understand why so many people will oppose something which is both cost efficient and improves the quality of life for millions of people simply based on ideological reasons.

I did NOT say I want them to suffer and die I said that I believe it should either be funded by DONATIONS OR LOCAL taxes and NOT by the federal (or state government) By the way why not just give people the OPTION to buy into it but INSTEAD of MAKING them pay a fine if they do not say look you will not get treatment if you choose not to have insurance. This way they can choose and if they choose to refuse it and suffer then that is THEIR business.