State Health Service versus Private Health Service

[stan1980]

State run health care is a violation of inherent rights. Period. First, it is stealing from one person and giving to another for their individual needs. That cannot be debated. It is stealing, which is a violation of basic property rights. You cannot be a Christian and be for stealing. All this pure crap about 'being equal' is just that. All the slaves were equally denied their humanity.
Second, the state should not know about my health concerns unless I choose it. It is a violation of my God given rights of privacy for the government to have that kind of power.
People who think they can steal my property and violating my God given rights are evil. State dictated health programs are asinine. End of story.

I agree with you; however, they are already doing just that with regards to service men and government officals. Why should they expect and get better treatment than JOE average citizen, or do you embrace a class system? The entire healthcare situation is entirely out of control. The are freeloaders and those that pay through the nose. Actually, I feel it would be better if all healthcare "plans" ended and people simply paid for what they needed when they needed it; however, prices would have to drop down to reality.

I'll tell you how this all translates to me. It tells me "I'm a selfish individual, who believes only those who can afford it should get top quality health care". You may as well be saying that a rich man's life is worth more than a poor man's life.

It's funny Inigo, in another thread you were saying conservative values (I assume you are a conservative) are compassion and generosity. Where is your compassion and generosity now? I'm not seeing too much evidence of it. I note it's not the first time you say one thing then completely contradict yourself in another post.

Incidentally Inigo, as another poster so often likes to ask, where do inherent rights come from? Uranus?

 

[stan1980]

I'll give what I feel is a good example. I have a relative who recently found out her husband has been cheating on her for a number of years, she found out shortly before he sued her for divorce. She has lived modestly because she has wanted to save money for their retirement, only to find that her husband had taken two thirds of the money they had saved -- spending it on his women or possibly hiding some of it so that she can't get it in the divorce. Perhaps she should have seen signs but he was extremely successful, as the truth has come out it has been a shock not only to her but to close friends -- even those from church. And, at the time of his cheating being revealed, he was serving in a leadership position in his church.

Shortly after receiving the divorce papers, she was diagnosed with cancer, and she has previously fought off Leukemia. Once the divorce is final, she no longer will be covered by her husbands medical plan. Because of her current cancer and past Leukemia, she finds she cannot get a new insurance policy. Since she looks to be getting some money from the divorce, she will not be eligible for help with her cancer costs (not that you can get the same cancer treatments for "free" than you can pay for). But the fight against this cancer appears that it will take a long time and be very costly. It is estimated she may need more money than she can get from the divorce, just for treatments. In the meantime, because of her cancer and the treatments she is unable to work, and not only will need treatment for cancer but also for housing and living expenses.

This is but one of thousands, or even millions, of examples why universal health care is the right thing to do. If we had universal health coverage, she would not need to spend all her savings and go on government assistance just to live but would be able to live off her savings and still have her medical treatments paid for -- not have them stolen by a cheating husband.

Nice illustration. Of course, this would be a good illustration of why private health care is a bad thing.

Edit: Maren, can't she put the divorce off till all the treatment is finished (even if that is years)? Surely if her husband had a decent bone in his body he wouldn't mind?

 

[David Brider]

State run health care is a violation of inherent rights. Period. First, it is stealing from one person and giving to another for their individual needs. That cannot be debated. It is stealing, which is a violation of basic property rights. You cannot be a Christian and be for stealing.

You're going to be taxed by the state anyway. Do you regard all taxation as stealing, or is it just that universal healthcare is something you'd rather not have your tax money spent on?

All this pure crap about 'being equal' is just that. All the slaves were equally denied their humanity.

On the contrary - we're all equally made in the image of God, and He died for us all equally on the cross. We're all equally loved in His eyes.

Second, the state should not know about my health concerns unless I choose it. It is a violation of my God given rights of privacy for the government to have that kind of power.

Well, I don't know how things work where you are, but here in the UK we have things like patient confidentiality, where the people who take care of your healthcare needs would be honour bound not to go blabbing about what you were treated for, not even to the government. Just because the state funds the healthcare and establishes the infrastructure within it operates, doesn't mean they intrude into every aspect of it.

People who think they can steal my property and violating my God given rights are evil.

Don't other people have a God-give right to good, effective medical treatment when they need it without having to pay an extortionate cost (or indeed any) for it?

State dictated health programs are asinine. End of story.

That's your opinion. There are millions of people who disagree with you. So no, not really end of story at all.

David.

 

[Lynden1000]

Don't other people have a God-give right to good, effective medical treatment when they need it without having to pay an extortionate cost (or indeed any) for it?


David.

That's not an easy question to answer. One could just as easily ask the following:

Don't I have a God-given right to modern indoor plumbing? Then why do I have to pay an exhorbitant amount of money to a plumber when I have a catastrophic problem with my plumbing?

If my toilet overflows, it poses a health risk to the public. So why am I expected to foot the bill for repairs?

Why should I pay for food? electricity? What if I'm flat broke? Does that mean I'm not entitled to food, lights, and air conditioning? Should the government foot the bill for these things if I can't?

There's really no end to these kinds of questions.

 

[Maren]

Nice illustration. Of course, this would be a good illustration of why private health care is a bad thing.

Edit: Maren, can't she put the divorce off till all the treatment is finished (even if that is years)? Surely if her husband had a decent bone in his body he wouldn't mind?

No, her husband isn't willing to put it off; I understand part of the pressure is coming from his current girlfriend.

 

[stan1980]

That's not an easy question to answer. One could just as easily ask the following:

Don't I have a God-given right to modern indoor plumbing? Then why do I have to pay an exhorbitant amount of money to a plumber when I have a catastrophic problem with my plumbing?

If my toilet overflows, it poses a health risk to the public. So why am I expected to foot the bill for repairs?

Why should I pay for food? electricity? What if I'm flat broke? Does that mean I'm not entitled to food, lights, and air conditioning? Should the government foot the bill for these things if I can't?

There's really no end to these kinds of questions.

I understand, I just feel it is a good idea that something as important (and expensive) as health care, which literally can be a matter of life or death, is paid for by the state, so you don't end up in a situation where people who haven't got the necessary cover or can't afford it aren't left to either die or left to suffer in pain.

 

[InigoMontoja]

I'll tell you how this all translates to me. It tells me "I'm a selfish individual, who believes only those who can afford it should get top quality health care". You may as well be saying that a rich man's life is worth more than a poor man's life.

It's funny Inigo, in another thread you were saying conservative values (I assume you are a conservative) are compassion and generosity. Where is your compassion and generosity now? I'm not seeing too much evidence of it. I note it's not the first time you say one thing then completely contradict yourself in another post.

Another PRATT. Actually studies find(as I have pointed out) that people who hold your beliefs tend to be the least compassionate and generous, and people who hold my beliefs tend to be the most generous. That is, people who espouse your views usually don't really care about helping others, they just care about pushing others around and looking good while doing it.
As a matter of fact, I do give to charities. And there are lots of people who do. The difference between you and I is that I want to have the choice in the matter, whereas you want to give the government more power and destroy my liberty.

Incidentally Inigo, as another poster so often likes to ask, where do inherent rights come from? Uranus?

From our Creator.

 

[stan1980]

Another PRATT. Actually studies find(as I have pointed out) that people who hold your beliefs tend to be the least compassionate and generous, and people who hold my beliefs tend to be the most generous. That is, people who espouse your views usually don't really care about helping others, they just care about pushing others around and looking good while doing it.

I tend to judge people on a case by case basis, not by the group they happen to maybe fit into. Only a fool wouldn't. As it happens, I haven't heard anything from you that would suggest that you are the least bit generous, compassionate, or care about helping others.

As a matter of fact, I do give to charities.

So you say.

The difference between you and I is that I want to have the choice in the matter, whereas you want to give the government more power and destroy my liberty.

Guess what, the amount of money people donate to charities doesn't come close to the money needed for governments to run their state. That's why we have taxes, and don't leave it to choice. You'd have to be simple not to understand this. Are you simple?

From our Creator.

Yep, I think that answers my above question. You say "Godidit" and you think that is an acceptable answer? I'm still waiting to see signs of logic, reasoning, compassion and generosity from you, all virtues that you claim. Not seeing a whole lot of any (except that is, you "say" you give money to charity).

 

[Archer93]

It's admittedly selfish, but I worry about the cost to me. Right now I pay $0 for health care coverage because my employer picks up the tab. So if we were to adopt a national health care system, I would want:

A) Little, if any, increased cost to me.

B) The same great service I currently receive with no long waiting times.

C) Little, if any, negative consequences on the profit growth of health care related companies. I have a lot of my retirement money in health care stocks, and I want to retire just like everyone else

D) Minimal risk of abuse. I'm thinking of my sister in law who has TennCare and takes her kids to the doctor every time one of them sneezes or farts. She is literally there every week.

E) Exclusions for conditions with a strong element of personal choice involved- things like repeated detox for drug users.

A & B) Of course, who wouldn't want fantastic high quality expensive healthcare for free? Sign me up!
In practice, though, many people receive substandard treatment because you're queue jumping and hogging everything. Yay capitalism. Really. Yay.

C) Another problem right there. In America healthcare is seen as a business and a way to make money. In the UK it's a place to spend money. Healthcare stocks- where do you think the money for the dividends comes from? The prices charged for treatment. Which pushes the price of the treatment up. Again leaving many people without the treatment they need.

D) Now that can be an issue. Still, there's no incentive at present in America for people to stop trotting off to the Doc's for no real reason. You don't want her to stop going, do you? You want to retire....

E) Another question that's been seriously debated here in the UK. It's a very complex moral issue that I don't feel equal to address.

Still, of your 5 concerns only one of them doesn't translate as you being personally selfish.
Of course those in a priviledged position don't want to disturb the status quo if it means a smaller slice of the pie for themselves. They want a nice big piece and don't see why they should have to share.
Hey, it's not as if anyone they know is starving.

Seriously, Lyndon1000 and InigoMontoja, did you miss some basic socialisation lessons when you were little? That's socialisation as in 'How to play nicely with the other kids', not the political philosopy.
The idea isn't 'take from you and give to someone else so you get no benefit' but 'everyone pays taxes and everyone benefits from them'.
INCLUDING YOU!
Going on about minor ailments as if that were all that it covered. Pah.
Land of the free for you and wash-my-mouth everyone else, is it?

 

[Lynden1000]

I understand, I just feel it is a good idea that something as important (and expensive) as health care, which literally can be a matter of life or death, is paid for by the state, so you don't end up in a situation where people who haven't got the necessary cover or can't afford it aren't left to either die or left to suffer in pain.

This is why I have mixed feelings about it. I can agree with you on this. It bothers me when someone works dusk to dawn to put food on the table and clothes on his children's backs but can't afford medical care. Or when an otherwise hard-working, responsible person is thrown into financial ruin because of an accident or illness.

I think a lot of people would agree with you on that. But at the same time we wonder if our government will actually be able to put such a plan into action without completely mucking it up. I think the manner in which the government tends to do things is very...well, I can't say the word here but it begins with "half" and ends with a donkey. I can picture universal health care in our country turning into the Cabrini-Green of health care, where everyone has equal access to shoddy healthcare, poor service and long waits to get anything accomplished, and no personal accountability for acting responsibly.

Perhaps there's some middle road? Some way of protecting people from financial ruin when it comes to catastrophic conditions but not requiring every US taxpayer to foot the bill for Joe Schmo's earwax removal?

 

[Lynden1000]

A & B)

Seriously, Lyndon1000 and InigoMontoja, did you miss some basic socialisation lessons when you were little? That's socialisation as in 'How to play nicely with the other kids', not the political philosopy.
The idea isn't 'take from you and give to someone else so you get no benefit' but 'everyone pays taxes and everyone benefits from them'.
INCLUDING YOU!
Going on about minor ailments as if that were all that it covered. Pah.
Land of the free for you and wash-my-mouth everyone else, is it?

But, Archer, I DO give generously...to charity. So obviously I did not miss any socialization lessons. I feel very strongly about personal philanthropy.
The difference is that I give to private organizations with transparent finances and a strong sense of accountability to boards and donors. No system is perfect, but by giving to charitable organizations, I feel more confident that my philanthropic dollar is going to those who are truly in need through no fault of their own and that the minimal possible amount is being used for administative costs.

 

[Archer93]

Perhaps there's some middle road? Some way of protecting people from financial ruin when it comes to catastrophic conditions but not requiring every US taxpayer to foot the bill for Joe Schmo's earwax removal?

Joe Schmo is every tax payer. It'll fund your ear wax removal as well!
Why do you not understand this concept?

But, Archer, I DO give generously...to charity. So obviously I did not miss any socialization lessons. I feel very strongly about personal philanthropy.
The difference is that I give to private organizations with transparent finances and a strong sense of accountability to boards and donors. No system is perfect, but by giving to charitable organizations, I feel more confident that my philanthropic dollar is going to those who are truly in need through no fault of their own and that the minimal possible amount is being used for administative costs.

What do you want, a medal? Lots of people who contribute to state-funded healthcare also donate to charities. And we are all very thankful that our access to treatment does not have to depend on the kindness of strangers. Because the kindness of strangers clearly comes with strings attached.
And "by giving to charitable organizations, I feel more confident that my philanthropic dollar is going to those who are truly in need through no fault of their own" isn't socialisation, it's self indulgence. True philanthropy doesn't try to set limits.

How do you decide what constitutes 'no fault of their own'? In your world, does making one mistake mean the denial of all aid? You are heading on to very thin ice here- are you so very sure that, should you need the assistance of one of these charities yourself one day, there would be no way that someone could suggest that you were somewhat to blame yourself?

Now I do agree with you regarding the practicality of running state-funded healthcare. It would be very complicated and the infrastructure would take a fair amount of time to set up. And from my limited and filtered perspective from this side of the pond, I'm not sure that I would trust the US government to organise a drinking-party in a brewery, let alone a Federal Health Service (I'm thinking the Hurricane Katrina clear-up fiasco specifically).
But there's a difference between observing that the practicalities are awkward, and dismissing the very concept.

BTW, a large centralised administrative centre is cheaper to run than a myriad smaller independent organisations.

 

[Athene]

But, Archer, I DO give generously...to charity. So obviously I did not miss any socialization lessons. I feel very strongly about personal philanthropy.
The difference is that I give to private organizations with transparent finances and a strong sense of accountability to boards and donors. No system is perfect, but by giving to charitable organizations, I feel more confident that my philanthropic dollar is going to those who are truly in need through no fault of their own and that the minimal possible amount is being used for administative costs.

Through no fault of their own....my countryman Archer has touched upon this but I would like to enlarge.

Private charities can discriminate, the government can not. Private charities can enforce certain moral standards for the recipients of their largesse, the government can not.

You and certain other people might think this is a good thing, and I'm sure private charities can do a better job then the government of weeding out the truely deserving from the feckless, but speaking for myself, I would rather have the government making an impartial decision then a group of people from a charity going through my life with a fine tooth comb to assess my worthiness to receive their largesse.

 

[David Brider]

That's not an easy question to answer. One could just as easily ask the following:

Don't I have a God-given right to modern indoor plumbing? Then why do I have to pay an exhorbitant amount of money to a plumber when I have a catastrophic problem with my plumbing?

If my toilet overflows, it poses a health risk to the public. So why am I expected to foot the bill for repairs?

Why should I pay for food? electricity? What if I'm flat broke? Does that mean I'm not entitled to food, lights, and air conditioning? Should the government foot the bill for these things if I can't?

There's really no end to these kinds of questions.

Obviously there're limits to how many things the government can be expected to provide for its citizens. Plumbing and electricity (IMO) the government should provide the infrastructure, but it's up to us to pay for it - after all, some people use limited amounts of each, particularly these days when many people are trying to be environmentally friendly, whereas others can be a tad wasteful. It's not up to the government to subsidise them.

I think we should all either a.) be able to find employment to enable us to earn money to provide food (earning at least a minimum wage to ensure that that, and other necessary expenditure, is possible), or b.) if we're either unable to find work, or unable to work because of ill health or old age, to be entitled to some form of unemployment benefit (with the caveat that if we fall into the former category, we provide adequate evidence that we're searching for employment and not simply abusing the system). So to a certain extent, the government is responsible - it's responsible to help those who are unable to provide for themselves.

Health, IMO, is slightly different to those concerns, in that although certainly some illnesses we can bear some responsibility for, most of the time when we fall ill it's through no fault of our own, and quite frankly, as someone else has pointed out - why should a family go broke trying to stump up the cash to pay for their child's treatment for cancer? It really is as basic as that.

David.

 

[Lynden1000]

Through no fault of their own....my countryman Archer has touched upon this but I would like to enlarge.

Private charities can discriminate, the government can not. Private charities can enforce certain moral standards for the recipients of their largesse, the government can not.

You and certain other people might think this is a good thing, and I'm sure private charities can do a better job then the government of weeding out the truely deserving from the feckless, but speaking for myself, I would rather have the government making an impartial decision then a group of people from a charity going through my life with a fine tooth comb to assess my worthiness to receive their largesse.

Then we simply disagree on which scenario we find preferable.

 

[Lynden1000]

why should a family go broke trying to stump up the cash to pay for their child's treatment for cancer? It really is as basic as that.

David.

That bothers me as well. Perhaps there's a middle ground whereby such individuals could receive help without having to socialize the entire system. I'm not convinced we need to take an all or none approach in order to make some headway.

 

[Maren]

It is interesting to note that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is medical debt (over 50%), and usually (75%) the people declaring bankruptcy had insurance at the time the illness started.

 

[Baggins]

It is interesting to note that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is medical debt (over 50%), and usually (75%) the people declaring bankruptcy had insurance at the time the illness started.

My grandmother remembered, vividly, the fear of falling ill in England in the 1920s. She and her whole family suffered terribly from TB and it was only through charity that some of them survived, she was taken in by a black African doctor to recover, and to wait on her fathers death as he kept reinfecting the family. Without the kind actions of that individual she would have almost certainly have died.

I'm glad I live in a country where I will be treated if I fall ill. Most Americans if they lost their job and then fell victim to a long term illness that would be the end of them financially, that seems wicked to me, why should people have to bankrupt themselves to stay alive in a country as rich as the US?

I can think of no other first world country where something like this would happen

 

[Maxwell511]

More people die each year in the US of cancer than died in the Twin Towers.

After 911 there was a government funded War on Terror. Why isn't there after so many preventable deaths a War on Cancer?

 

[mont974x4]

hmmm Consitutional spending on defence compared to un-COnsitutioinal spending in industry? nice