Should you get free healthcare if you can't work? What about those who made themselves sick?

[NothingIsImpossible]

So unlike the other topic I wanted to create a different version. Instead of asking who should who basically should pay for the healthcare and why, I'm asking should anyone pay for someone elses healthcare if they cannot afford it or its to expensive? Or should we let them essentially die because they cannot afford to get healthcare? These questions also refer to the fact you cannot be turned down at an ER (at least in America) even if you have no insurance.

For me this hits close to home and yet is complex. In my case I am on medicaid. So as some call it, its a hand out since it costs me nothing and cost others their money. Now without medicaid I would have been dead long ago. Thats 100% accurate. Now we will skip the lengthy debates about if someone should or should not be on medicaid since many abuse the system to get on it (lazy or lying) since theres no easy fix for that.

So I think everyone should be get it because why would we punish people in my situation who would otherwise be dead. And obviously I think those who abuse the system should be removed from it. And if they refuse to work and essentially could die because they don't want to work and get healthcare, then thats not really our problem. Again referring to LAZY people who are 100% able to work but don't because they just don't want to.

However one thing that makes this complex is those who make themselves sick. For example I find way to often those who smoke their whole lives and end up dying of lung cancer, their bills end up being left behind and we all pay the price for those bills (so to speak). So if you are a smoker (even if you can work), then I think some healthcare should be limited. This is in cases where its 100% obvious that the person get sick from their own lifestyle.

I do realize though we would have to figure out the line of what exactly do we consider making ones self sick. For example if you had bad parents who took you to MCDonalds and caused you weight issues, heart issues...etc... then maybe that is not really your fault. Unless you continue to eat McDonalds every day as an adult who lives on your own. Then your choosing your own fate. Like I said, this is a gray/blurry line of "making yourself sick".

One fix to all of this talk of people getting free care is to simply make new laws that force companies, doctors, pharmaceutical labs....etc in the healthcare industry to NOT charge 10,000% higher prices for everything from pills to ER visits and so on. For example if you go to an ER you get nicked and dimed for everything. If you go to the bathroom its like $10 per square of toilet paper. Well ok not really but you get my drift.

My meds alone without medicaid are about $8,000 a year. And mind you I have taken myself off some of my meds (with my doctors consent) to not only save people money, but because I know meds may help me, but they also can make my body worse in the long run.

Another example is my friend who has been out of a job for a few years now, he went to a dentist with no insurance and got a deep cleaning and one tooth drilled out and it was replace with a fake tooth because the tooth was rotten. It cost him about 7k. Thats crazy. As I said the real answer to all this is changing laws. Then even the poor or those who cannot work can get free healthcare and it wouldn't cost anyone else very much either.

 

[LionL]

Free healthcare is a human right - at least here in the UK. I still find American culture difficult to understand. Why is someone more deserving of treatment just because they are rich?

 

[pakicetus]

Should anyone pay for someone elses healthcare if they cannot afford it or its to expensive? Or should we let them essentially die because they cannot afford to get healthcare?

The fact that people even have to ask this question gives away the spiritual sickness in our society, and the state of what passes for Christianity in most of the Christian world. Of course we shouldn't let people die. Of course we should pay for their healthcare. Nothing is more important than a human life.

 

[pakicetus]

In the rest of the first world, healthcare costs less than half as much as in America, and they cover everyone, and get better results. So if anyone is worried about their taxes going to poor/sick people under universal healthcare—you're already giving up way too much money. Only instead of going to sick people who need it, it's going to insurance companies.

 

[Dave-W]

: In the rest of the first world, healthcare costs less than half as much as in America,

That is true. We in the US supplement the rest of the world. Big Pharma can charge much less for prescription drugs to everyone else because they make so much from US. It is the same story for medical equipment and hardware.

 

[Viren]

Japan has one of the cheapest healthcare systems and they get the best results. Profits for insurance companies are banned and people are still free to choose whether they want to be insured or not. About 10% choose not to. Here in America you're forced to get insurance or fined $915 dollars. Also, the middle class rates have more than doubled to pay for the poor. We should copy the Japanese imo.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

(double post)

 

[LionL]

We in the US supplement the rest of the world.

What rot. Are you suggesting that, as an Englishman, I only get free NHS healthcare because I'm subsidised by Americans?

Europe is quite capable of looking after itself thank you.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I should also point out during the elections it seemed the majority of christians seemed to actually be against free health care. They bring up something about the bible verse in which a lazy man shouldn't eat if hes lazy and what not (or healthcare either). Which makes zero sense since as christian we can't honestly say to somebody that they should get no help and die.

 

[Dave-W]

What rot. Are you suggesting that, as an Englishman, I only get free NHS healthcare because I'm subsidised by Americans?

Not entirely. The overly inflated cost of the US healthcare system lowers the cost (does not eliminate it) to your government which saves you tax ££.

Europe is quite capable of looking after itself thank you.

Unintended consequences. As Europe and other countries refuse to pay the Medical industry what they think they should get, they go along with you and cut the prices: while jacking up our price to cover it.

 

[Halbhh]

That is true. We in the US supplement the rest of the world. Big Pharma can charge much less for prescription drugs to everyone else because they make so much from US. It is the same story for medical equipment and hardware.

In the U.S. pharmacy companies have successfully lobbied Congress to outlaw competition from foreign imports (imports are against the law(!)).

So, it's against this corrupt law for you to buy medications from foreign sources.

Yes, you read that right. (Of course, many people know this law is profoundly wrong, morally wrong, and break it)

The way the pharma companies try to sell this is with the advertising slogan that the extremely high U.S. drug prices that result subsidize their research.

But, if you think they would not do any research without a U.S. monopoly, think again.

They would still continue to do research, even if you were legally able to purchase drugs from Europe, Latin American, etc.

 

[Halbhh]

So unlike the other topic I wanted to create a different version. Instead of asking who should who basically should pay for the healthcare and why, I'm asking should anyone pay for someone elses healthcare if they cannot afford it or its to expensive? Or should we let them essentially die because they cannot afford to get healthcare? These questions also refer to the fact you cannot be turned down at an ER (at least in America) even if you have no insurance.

For me this hits close to home and yet is complex. In my case I am on medicaid. So as some call it, its a hand out since it costs me nothing and cost others their money. Now without medicaid I would have been dead long ago. Thats 100% accurate. Now we will skip the lengthy debates about if someone should or should not be on medicaid since many abuse the system to get on it (lazy or lying) since theres no easy fix for that.

So I think everyone should be get it because why would we punish people in my situation who would otherwise be dead. And obviously I think those who abuse the system should be removed from it. And if they refuse to work and essentially could die because they don't want to work and get healthcare, then thats not really our problem. Again referring to LAZY people who are 100% able to work but don't because they just don't want to.

However one thing that makes this complex is those who make themselves sick. For example I find way to often those who smoke their whole lives and end up dying of lung cancer, their bills end up being left behind and we all pay the price for those bills (so to speak). So if you are a smoker (even if you can work), then I think some healthcare should be limited. This is in cases where its 100% obvious that the person get sick from their own lifestyle.

I do realize though we would have to figure out the line of what exactly do we consider making ones self sick. For example if you had bad parents who took you to MCDonalds and caused you weight issues, heart issues...etc... then maybe that is not really your fault. Unless you continue to eat McDonalds every day as an adult who lives on your own. Then your choosing your own fate. Like I said, this is a gray/blurry line of "making yourself sick".

One fix to all of this talk of people getting free care is to simply make new laws that force companies, doctors, pharmaceutical labs....etc in the healthcare industry to NOT charge 10,000% higher prices for everything from pills to ER visits and so on. For example if you go to an ER you get nicked and dimed for everything. If you go to the bathroom its like $10 per square of toilet paper. Well ok not really but you get my drift.

My meds alone without medicaid are about $8,000 a year. And mind you I have taken myself off some of my meds (with my doctors consent) to not only save people money, but because I know meds may help me, but they also can make my body worse in the long run.

Another example is my friend who has been out of a job for a few years now, he went to a dentist with no insurance and got a deep cleaning and one tooth drilled out and it was replace with a fake tooth because the tooth was rotten. It cost him about 7k. Thats crazy. As I said the real answer to all this is changing laws. Then even the poor or those who cannot work can get free healthcare and it wouldn't cost anyone else very much either.

Governments exist to "secure" people and their property against threats, and also people like for government to do things for them that few people would ever be able to do for themselves.

Examples of popular governmental programs to do for us as a society what is hard to do well for ourselves include public roads, public parks, universal free public education (so that less children will grow up to rely on crime to make a living).

Popular also is for government to help protect people from the full impact of natural disasters and health disasters, and having no income in old age, and having no health care in old age or when destitute.

One can argue these protect citizens just as much as do military and police forces.

The argument against public health care subsidy is that groups of people do not want to help pay for health care of other groups of people, such as people they don't know. But for some people, it's more than that -- they sincerely don't want to help pay for health care even for other people they like and are friends with, even. Why? We can imagine why, but we should be sympathetic instead of judgmental and condemning. To be sympathetic, consider -- often people have bought too much house and too much car, and they can't really afford it, and they don't feel they have any room to help pay for health care or public roads or even public schools. Worse is when the health care being subsidized doesn't seem to have any kind of cost control. For instance, in the U.S. pharma companies have corrupted Congress and outlawed competition on drug prices from imports.

 

[Dave-W]

So, it's against this corrupt law for you to buy medications from foreign sources.

Indeed it is.

The way the pharma companies try to sell this is with the advertising slogan that the extremely high U.S. drug prices that result subsidize their research.

Yes - that is their mantra.

They fight tooth and nail against the generic manufacturers who sell for less. They also REFUSE to look at less expensive (and non-patentable) natural plant based remedies, even they can be shown to be as effective or more effective than their chemical counterparts.

And god-forbid they should ever come up with a "cure" for a chronic condition. It would mean they could not sell their product any more.

 

[szechuan]

Unintended consequences. As Europe and other countries refuse to pay the Medical industry what they think they should get, they go along with you and cut the prices: while jacking up our price to cover it.

That's not true. It's about earning as much money as possible. That's what Capitalism is, they aren't losing money from European countries, they just aren't earning as much.

They aren't charging U.S. more because of other countries they're charging us more because they can.

 

[szechuan]

That is true. We in the US supplement the rest of the world. Big Pharma can charge much less for prescription drugs to everyone else because they make so much from US. It is the same story for medical equipment and hardware.

Third world countries yes, but not first world. You do realize some of the most popular pills weren't created in the U.S. right?

 

[Dave-W]

You do realize some of the most popular pills weren't created in the U.S. right?

Of course. The other firms are just following the pattern of the US pharmaceuticals.

 

[Dave-W]

That's what Capitalism is, they aren't losing money from European countries, they just aren't earning as much.

To the capitalist, not "earning as much" is the same as a loss. I have had econ and accounting classes at university.

 

[Halbhh]

That's not true. It's about earning as much money as possible. That's what Capitalism is, they aren't losing money from European countries, they just aren't earning as much.

They aren't charging U.S. more because of other countries they're charging us more because they can.

They can charge a lot more than the free market would sustain naturally, because they lobbied Congress and got corrupt laws passed that cancel the free market -- that make it illegal for you to import drugs quite often for drugs that count a lot, and are very expensive here.

Of course, people know this law is immoral, and so many go around it.

One article here --
The Letter (and Spirit) of Drug Import Laws

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Can't quote for some reason but one person said something about cures. Its true, they will never really find a cure for anything, including cancer. Heck they may have cures already for somethings but have it locked away because at the end of the day if your company has meds out for some disease, you are beyond rich. If you release the cure you then become a company with no real money since your other meds become unneeded.

I know many who think that no company would hold back a cure, but I say to them, they are nieve. Businesses are about money pure and simple. And people love money. I'd lat forth an example for of lets pretend you were the CEO of a company that makes various drugs to help people with parkinsons. Your company makes 15 million a year. Your family (along with the workers) have everything they always wanted. Cars, home, latest tech. Life is good. Then your lab comes across a cure for parkinsons. If you release it, sure you can make money of course at first. But over time once people are cured, there won't be a need for it as often since you can cure it as new cases open up. This also means your other drugs are pointless.

So basically you and all the people under you won't be able to live the amazingly lavish lifestyles you live anymore. You and them will all have to go get regular jobs like everyone else. Sell things you own. Downgrade to a smaller home. So on and so forth. I doubt people will want to give that up just to cure people. Sure we can pretend they would want to help their fellow man from suffering, but money is a powerful "drug" itself.

This is why meds that "almost" cure diseases or do something amazing cost even more. Look at Harvoni, its for Hep C. A 30 day supply is $74,000. After 3-4 months worth you tend to be "cured" of it. They even admit the price is high because of the fact people won't need it forever. Such a sad world we live in. I worry about only having one kidney and what happens in the future and the cost of it. Laws need to be changed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not entirely. The overly inflated cost of the US healthcare system lowers the cost (does not eliminate it) to your government which saves you tax ££.

How does paying an American doctor twice as much help subsidize healthcare in the UK? That makes zero sense.

On top of that, prescription drugs make up 10% of total healthcare costs.

Unintended consequences. As Europe and other countries refuse to pay the Medical industry what they think they should get, they go along with you and cut the prices: while jacking up our price to cover it.

Prices are jacked up in the US because there is no single payer system. If we bargained as a country we could get those costs way down as they are in Europe.