Socialised Medicine ...... Arrrrgh

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

because I feel that insurance should be a complete choice.

It's nowhere near a free choice. Realistically, you have to have insurance if you want to live a long and healthy life. Some people do choose not to get insurance because of poor personal decision making (particularly when they're younger), but for anyone who thinks about it rationally, the only reason not to have insurance is if you literally can't get it.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It's nowhere near a free choice. Realistically, you have to have insurance if you want to live a long and healthy life. Some people do choose not to get insurance because of poor personal decision making (particularly when they're younger), but for anyone who thinks about it rationally, the only reason not to have insurance is if you literally can't get it.

Sure it is a choice and one that if you make the "wrong" one you should expect to pay for.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Sure it is a choice and one that if you make the "wrong" one you should expect to pay for.

The question here is whether it's a free choice. My assertion is that, for many people, it's not. If you have to pay higher premiums because of someone's mistake, that doesn't become different from having to pay higher taxes for the same reason, because most people with insurance don't have the choice of not having it. My mother could make the decision not to have insurance, and she would die an early death. That's not any more of a choice than deciding whether to give someone your money when they're brandishing a weapon.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The question here is whether it's a free choice. My assertion is that, for many people, it's not. If you have to pay higher premiums because of someone's mistake, that doesn't become different from having to pay higher taxes for the same reason, because most people with insurance don't have the choice of not having it. My mother could make the decision not to have insurance, and she would die an early death. That's not any more of a choice than deciding whether to give someone your money when they're brandishing a weapon.

Yes it is; remember we will ALL die. Meaning that insurance or no insurance only goes so far. Let me asks you this. Should LIFE insurance be mandatory?

 

[faroukfarouk]

I was glad of the Canadian system of government insurance when I was seriously ill.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Yes it is; remember we will ALL die. Meaning that insurance or no insurance only goes so far. Let me asks you this. Should LIFE insurance be mandatory?

I'm going to be honest in saying that I think your using the fact that everyone dies whenever this debate comes up doesn't get the discussion anywhere. Sure, everyone, at the end of the day, is going to end up dead. That's understood and taken as a given by everyone who discusses whether anything is a right.

Pretty much the main goal of life for most people is to not be dead. If there's any right that the government needs to protect, it's the right to avoid death for as long as is reasonable and consistent with human dignity. The fact that everyone is going to die also doesn't mean that "do this or die" is a free choice. That's pretty much the clearest possible example of a coercive situation.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm going to be honest in saying that I think your using the fact that everyone dies whenever this debate comes up doesn't get the discussion anywhere. Sure, everyone, at the end of the day, is going to end up dead. That doesn't mean that most people consider "do this or die" to be a free choice. Pretty much the main goal of life for most people is to not be dead. If there's any right that the government needs to protect, it's the right to avoid death for as long as is reasonable and consistent with human dignity.

See some people do not understand the REASONABLE part, though.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

See some people do not understand the REASONABLE part, though.

What is your definition of reasonable? From past debates with you on this subject, I suspect that it may be a much more extreme bar than the one that most people apply. The definition that I am applying here is any life-preserving method with a good chance of success in leading to the highest possible quality of life for the longest possible time. Unreasonable measures would be forcing a person to remain alive despite their having an extremely low quality of life, or keeping an individual physically alive after brain death.

 

[Nithavela]

I think that everyone should be killed. After all, they will all die, anyway.

Also, dead people need no health insurance and don't need to pay taxes.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I think that everyone should be killed. After all, they will all die, anyway.

Also, dead people need no health insurance and don't need to pay taxes.

As I always say, there's no social problem that can't be solved by a sufficiently large and close gamma ray burst.

 

[SteveNZ]

Sure it is a choice and one that if you make the "wrong" one you should expect to pay for.

What do you suggest for those who need to '..pay for it..'.

Consider this scenario. A person with no health insurance, who has managed to fund all basic requirements, is diagnosed with a nasty life threatening cancer. He/She cannot fund the costs to treat this...

Society (via some government state/federal/city or county)then either....
1-Finds a methodology to treat them anyway purely out of a moral caring commitment (the money has to then come from taxes) , or
2- Can have a lower moral commitment and say help fund a safe place to die in dignity, but no health treatment (less call on taxes), or
3- Can advise '..no help shall be granted..', die at home or if the landlord kicks you out on the streets, as to quote dogs4thewin, '..you must pay for it..'. (ie Having no health insurance.)

BUT Society must also figure out all the other social issues such as, what to do with dependents, should children be around watching mum/dad die, who will deal with the body......

QUESTION- If the US already has Medicaid and Medicare, what is the big deal in having federal government ..........
1- Identify that health is a number one priority for US citizens,
2- Medicaid shall be turned into a compulsory, not for profit, health insurance with a certain minimum of cover,
3- Folk shall automatically be taxed to cover this federal insurance BUT those who choose may identify that they have chosen their own health insurance, which may happen to be a state/employer system, and that compulsory tax will be waived.

There is therefore free choice of health insurance provider BUT you are not free to opt out of funding health in the same way you are not free from opting out of funding the roads that you use.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What is your definition of reasonable? From past debates with you on this subject, I suspect that it may be a much more extreme bar than the one that most people apply. The definition that I am applying here is any life-preserving method with a good chance of success in leading to the highest possible quality of life for the longest possible time. Unreasonable measures would be forcing a person to remain alive despite their having an extremely low quality of life, or keeping an individual physically alive after brain death.

I too agree that we should preform services that keep them alive at a good quality of life.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I too agree that we should preform services that keep them alive at a good quality of life.

If that's your view, then you're really not very consistent about it. There are services that are necessary for many people that can't be provided adequately in an emergency room. If a person with a chronic condition is going to be kept alive with a good quality of life, then they have to be able to regularly see a physician.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If that's your view, then you're really not very consistent about it. There are services that are necessary for many people that can't be provided adequately in an emergency room. If a person with a chronic condition is going to be kept alive with a good quality of life, then they have to be able to regularly see a physician.

define regularly?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

define regularly?

At least once a year for normal check-ups. More frequently for some illnesses. There's also a requirement to be able to actually afford the medication prescribed, if you want someone to survive, along with a lot of other things that can't be solved by allowing people to go to the emergency room as their primary care provider (not to mention that the more people have to do that, the more people there are with actual emergencies not receiving timely care).

 

[dogs4thewin]

At least once a year for normal check-ups. More frequently for some illnesses. There's also a requirement to be able to actually afford the medication prescribed, if you want someone to survive, along with a lot of other things that can't be solved by allowing people to go to the emergency room as their primary care provider (not to mention that the more people have to do that, the more people there are with actual emergencies not receiving timely care).

THAT is why people should not use the ER as their primary care as it takes away from those who NEED timely care.

I will say that sometimes companties will allow people to buy their medication cheaper from them. Particularly if you NEED a particular medication like name brand.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

THAT is why people should not use the ER as their primary care as it takes away from those who NEED timely care.

You're not really proposing any alternative to help people avoid chronic illness or to treat that illness once it appears.

 

[Return to Skepticism]

When my mom's medical bills got to high our church pooled money together and paid the bills.

The fact that we cannot depend on other americans for help and must hope for some sort of socialized healthcare to afford to pay hospital bills tells me american culture is failing more than anything.

Socialized healthcare would BE depending on other Americans for help.

 

[A2SG]

If people choose to REPEATEDLY make poor choices why should we be required to pay for that through taxes when it catches up with them?

Because we live in a society and that's how societies work.

For example, if someone makes a poor choice (like, say, to commit a crime) then part of the tax money we all pay goes toward the criminal justice system, including those who investigate the crime and those who prosecute the offenders, (donk, donk!) as well as jails that hold those incarcerated.

You want the benefits of living in a society, you have to take the responsibilities that go along with it.

-- A2SG, still not sure what this has to do with the false idea that we are somehow legislating healthy choices, but perhaps you'll clear that up in a future post.....

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because we live in a society and that's how societies work.

For example, if someone makes a poor choice (like, say, to commit a crime) then part of the tax money we all pay goes toward the criminal justice system, including those who investigate the crime and those who prosecute the offenders, (donk, donk!) as well as jails that hold those incarcerated.

You want the benefits of living in a society, you have to take the responsibilities that go along with it.

-- A2SG, still not sure what this has to do with the false idea that we are somehow legislating healthy choices, but perhaps you'll clear that up in a future post.....

Well, you cannot just make bad choices and expect that others will pay for those mistakes. I oppose long sentences for non-violent inmates. Other than that, the violent ones are there to protect society.

Although, I will say that even MOST "violent" have longer sentences than needed.