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

[Audacious]

So there would be a separate tax to fund healthcare, like Medicare? I'm good with that. The problem is that the program would still need more money, which would of course be borrowed from general revenues: the income taxes, and also from SS taxes.

The UK's National Health Service spends 1/3 of what we do on health care per person, with better health outcomes. If we switched to a UK style system and funded it decently (theirs needs a bit more funding than it has), we might even manage to pay as much as half what we do now.

The increase in taxes plus decrease in actual health expenses means that it likely wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Audacious]

What is a need about healthcare that is debatable. Do people need all the healthcare they claim to in other words.

Doctors usually decide these things, man. You can't just get a cast on your leg because you walked up to a hospital and insisted you had a leg fracture.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What is a need about healthcare that is debatable. Do people need all the healthcare they claim to in other words.

There are people who will make themselves sick so they can get free healthcare. Every hypochondriac in the country will come out of the woodwork. In the words of Rush Limbaugh, "Don't doubt me".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Doctors usually decide these things, man. You can't just get a cast on your leg because you walked up to a hospital and insisted you had a leg fracture.

I believe that many people waste the doctors time with ailments easily treated at home.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Doctors usually decide these things, man. You can't just get a cast on your leg because you walked up to a hospital and insisted you had a leg fracture.

I know, but some people may claim they need something that is optional. For example, and this is none of you all's business, but I am willing to share. I am considering should I get married while still of child bearing age getting my tubes tied ( I do not want children). Considering that the only way to ensure that is to not be sexually active I could say I NEED to have my tubes tied, but do I really NEED it or do I just not want to risk having children for whom I could choose adoption?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The UK's National Health Service spends 1/3 of what we do on health care per person, with better health outcomes. If we switched to a UK style system and funded it decently (theirs needs a bit more funding than it has), we might even manage to pay as much as half what we do now.

The increase in taxes plus decrease in actual health expenses means that it likely wouldn't be a problem.

As I stated before to change our healthcare system as you suggest would require changing our whole economic system.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I know, but some people may claim they need something that is optional. For example, and this is none of you all's business, but I am willing to share. I am considering should I get married while still of child bearing age getting my tubes tied ( I do not want children). Considering that the only way to ensure that is to not be sexually active I could say I NEED to have my tubes tied, but do I really NEED it or do I just not want to risk having children for whom I could choose adoption?

Get your tubes tied, then you're sure.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Get your tubes tied, then you're sure.

Well, right now I do not need to worry because barring rape I have NO intention of doing what it takes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, right now I do not need to worry because barring rape I have NO intention of doing what it takes.

Ok, but watch out for those 'silver tongued devils'. They're out there.

 

[Audacious]

I know, but some people may claim they need something that is optional. For example, and this is none of you all's business, but I am willing to share. I am considering should I get married while still of child bearing age getting my tubes tied ( I do not want children). Considering that the only way to ensure that is to not be sexually active I could say I NEED to have my tubes tied, but do I really NEED it or do I just not want to risk having children for whom I could choose adoption?

I would say that getting your tubes tied should always be an option for a woman, but that with procedures like that, 2-3 month times (to keep costs down) are perfectly acceptable.

Edit: Also, it's better for men to get vasectomies, because they are (1) reversible and (2) much less dangerous and painful.

 

[Audacious]

I believe that many people waste the doctors time with ailments easily treated at home.

The fun thing is that self-diagnosing isn't always a good idea, and "bothering" doctors is sometimes necessary. For example: it can be smart to make sure what you think is a mole isn't really skin cancer.

As I stated before to change our healthcare system as you suggest would require changing our whole economic system.

How so? It wouldn't change everything about our economic system; it would merely eliminate the need for health insurance companies and private hospitals.

I don't see how changing our economic system is a bad thing, anyway, since -- as far as health services are concerned -- it is garbage. (Highest cost with worst health outcomes.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The fun thing is that self-diagnosing isn't always a good idea, and "bothering" doctors is sometimes necessary. For example: it can be smart to make sure what you think is a mole isn't really skin cancer.


How so? It wouldn't change everything about our economic system; it would merely eliminate the need for health insurance companies and private hospitals.

I don't see how changing our economic system is a bad thing, anyway, since -- as far as health services are concerned -- it is garbage. (Highest cost with worst health outcomes.)

Until things get straightened out I suggest that people do their best to take care of their own health ("Don't Drink The Water!").

 

[szechuan]

Universal, single-payer health care is only possible if everyone in the healthcare business takes a huge pay cut, or everyone in the country pays much more in taxes. In either case it would require a drastic restructuring of the entire economy.

which is already needed since Healthcare Prices are not dropping.

 

[szechuan]

Until things get straightened out I suggest that people do their best to take care of their own health ("Don't Drink The Water!").

LOL, says the person who thinks that eating healthy is easy for the poor.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL, says the person who thinks that eating healthy is easy for the poor.

I'm the person who has proven that it is. No further discussion required. (I just baked my 8th loaf of bread from 10 lbs. flour, and still have enough for at least 2 more loaves. Better than store bought as well.)

Even many who aren't poor don't really want to eat healthy. Poor people generally get enough nutrition, but they overeat the fattening stuff.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="NothingIsImpossible, post: 71758354, member: 376972"]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.[/QUOTE
A good example of doing what is right is found in the country India, in clinics across the country. A year ago it was openly found online that these clinics were treating people who would otherwise get very sick and likely die,
for a very small cost (perhaps tens of dollars, or hundreds)
instead of the extremely high cost of the standard and government protocol (many thousands of dollars per patient, EVERY YEAR).
When asked why the government was not treating like these clinics were,
it was pointed out that it was because of money. (those who got the huge amounts of money continually, wanted to keep getting all the money and more ongoing; they had absolutely no concern for the health of the patients or their families, physically nor financially nor socially) ....

QUOTE="NothingIsImpossible, post: 71758354, member: 376972"]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.[/QUOTE
yes indeed, that is 'crazy', greedy, criminal, and widely accepted all over in the so-called 'wealthy' countries.
in some less wealthy countries, the exact same and often better dental care has been provided for a couple hundred dollars, until recently. (in the last 3 years, they have been 'persuaded' to charge thousands instead of a couple hundred in many cases, apparently) ..... i.e. the G R E E D has grown and taken control of more and more places.....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

LOL, says the person who thinks that eating healthy is easy for the poor.

Most people (voters?) (rich?) in the usa have a similar stingy (dark, greedy) point of view ,
whether or not they realize the hardship there is in just finding UNharmful food and NONtoxic water or not, in many places.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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.

If someone is able to read a lot, and search libraries, and the internet, with voraciousness and God's help, (i.e. read and read and read - seek and seek and seek and keep seeking AS IT IS WRITTEN, GOD SAYS THEY WILL FIND)....
then they can find the natural simple causes and helps that were known for over one hundred years,
that as written in quote below
were made ILLEGAL in the usa(and other countries) by the
propagators of evil, the deceived and the deceivers
before 1960.
However, note that it is still legal to find out and to help yourself,
IF you are over 18 years old.
Just do not expect the average official government pawn to be of any help.
Sometimes they may be, but not usually, and not officially.....

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.

"Love of money is the root of all evil".... (thus preventing the truth being published openly and accepted and used)
Truth all of our lives, and our parents lives, and our grandparents..... all the way back through history
as JESUS SAID.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Free health Care is a fantasy. It does not exist. Your question should be " Should you get your health care paid for by others if you can' t work?" The answer is no because the question includes should. No one ought to i.e. be morally required to subsidize your health care. That being said, a generous society whether prosperous or not will do so out of kindness and empathy if not out of requirement. Civilized countries tend to have come to the decision that caring for those unable to care for themselves is worth the effort. If you had asked "Is it a good thing if others will chip in to pay for your health care if you can't work?" My answer would have been an unqualified YES.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There are a few assemblies on earth that obey God/ listen to Him, and do as He Says:

What does the Bible say about giving to the poor?
excerpts:
Question: "What does the Bible say about giving to the poor?"

Answer: In both the Old and New Testaments, we see God’s desire for His children to show compassion to the poor and needy. Jesus said that the poor would always be with us (Matthew 26:11; Mark 14:7). He also said that those who show mercy to the poor, the sick, and the needy are in effect ministering to Him personally (Matthew 25:35–40) and will be rewarded accordingly.

There is no doubt that poverty’s reach is both widespread and devastating today.
Conversely, there is another part to this verse: “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker.” Proverbs is, in fact, filled with Scripture clearly showing that God loves the poor and is offended when His children neglect them (Proverbs 11:4; 17:5; 19:17; 22:2, 9, 16, 22–23; 28:8; 29:7; 31:8–9). The consequences for ignoring the plight of the poor are also made clear in Proverbs: “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered” (Proverbs 21:13).

And note the strong language in Proverbs 28:27: “He who closes his eyes to [the poor] receives many curses.”

Among the many sins of Sodom described in Genesis 19, her people were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49).