"Can't afford to work"

[gam-e]

Its free if you know how to work the system rather then being a productive member of society.

I'll say it again: Get paid what you are worth and pay what it is worth for the goods and services you receive and things work. Try to get more for less and you screw everything up.

Don't agree with that man. That is the nature of the market. It is just as much the seller's responsibility to know how much his/her goods or services are worth. If they fall short on that front, then so be it.

I don't think people understand that you have to have money to pay for things. Debt financing does have an end point, both individually and as a country.

You hit the nail on the head in regards to that unfortunate truth. That is the main reason why a reasonable portion of my investments are towards items of intrinsic value, like bulk silver and so on. If it doesn't happen in my generation, then at least we haven't enacted a 100% estate tax yet, and I'll pass it on to the next generation.

[Lohman446]

Don't agree with that man. That is the nature of the market. It is just as much the seller's responsibility to know how much his/her goods or services are worth. If they fall short on that front, then so be it.

Fair enough to some degree. What I mean by it is more that people are expecting something for nothing. Health insurance somehow we think is free, government hand-outs in other areas, walking into stores and explaining how hard you have it and expecting cheaper prices (different then bargaining) because you don't make as much as the next person etc. Buying things at bargain is different then what I really meant.

[drg]

"Government health care Which is free"

If you're going to quote me, quote me right. Then you might actually understand what I said.

[blake20]

If you're going to quote me, quote me right. Then you might actually understand what I said.

I apologize for my mis-reading of your quote, but I feel everyone should know the perils of socialized med!! I have in-laws that moved to this country just because of healthcare. (They could not get Health care due to their age 62, They are now both in their 70's) I have a daughter who was diagnosed with Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, She was in remission by day 7, Yes 7 days and she no longer had leukemia!! (still had 2 years of treatment) With Socialized Meds do you think she would be cured and here today?? I highly doubt it. So I'm sorry if I get all bent out of shape when it comes to socialized med!!!

[drg]

With Socialized Meds do you think she would be cured and here today??

Honestly? Yes she would, and would have no medical bills. Childhood leukemia survival rates are higher in Canada than the US and comparable in the UK, for example (1).

Seriously, look into first-world single-payer healthcare, the US is actually quite a ways down the list in terms of world healthcare systems (2). It is the most expensive hands down, but does not provide the best care for its people by a long shot. This is the corporate effect.

[Lohman446]

There is a distinct truth to the idea that we have socialized medicine to some degree. We do in fact provide health care to the poorest of the population and leave the rest to subsidize it. Many people who have no means of paying for services are provided service every day by the health care industry. The bills are written off in the end and the rest of us end up making up the difference through higher costs to us.

That being said do we really want a system that turns people away from medical care just because we don't beleive they can / will pay for it? What if its just because they are not a citizen?

[blake20]

Honestly? Yes she would, and would have no medical bills. Childhood leukemia survival rates are higher in Canada than the US and comparable in the UK, for example (1).

Seriously, look into first-world single-payer healthcare, the US is actually quite a ways down the list in terms of world healthcare systems (2). It is the most expensive hands down, but does not provide the best care for its people by a long shot. This is the corporate effect.

[Lohman446]

One of the major problems in American medicine today is lack of personal responsibility. Your examples are to the extreme and heart wrenching - but illustrate some of the choices parents make every day. Many of our problems can be traced back to our diet / exercise / and other personal choices.

I saw an interesting comment on why the 380 is considered plenty of round in Europe but anemic by American standards - it had to do with the average weight of Americans vs Europeans.

That being said, and back to your example, what are the viable solutions for children that are not given proper health care by the parents. Who makes the decisions about what is appropriate and what happens if they are not?

[drg]

Not true, adult leukemia survival rates are comparable in for example western Europe to the US (1). People just don't get "sent home to die" ... that's crazytalk you're likely to hear on right-wing talk radio.

Your opinion on the "pacemaker" issue is being twisted by misleadingly edited videos produced by groups whose only agenda is to kill healthcare reform so insurance companies can continue making the profits they do -- often these groups are funded by the companies themselves. Here is what he actually did say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvM5uOasqCc -- if the pacemaker was indicated by the doctors as a cost-effective, sensible measure then by all means, reformed healthcare will cover it and maybe even allow it to get done earlier.

If it wasn't sensible (e.g. if the grandmother had terminal Alzheimer's and had no quality of life), the patient or family is STILL free to get the surgery themselves and/or utilize any private insurance they may have, both of which are perfectly viable options under the proposed reforms. And with lowered healthcare costs over the course of a lifetime, the chances of a person being able to afford such a surgery are higher.

Maybe people don't realize, but exactly what position would a 100-year-old be in under the current system? Think about it. How much do you think it is costing to privately insure her, if she is insured at all? And for anyone who doesn't think rationing isn't already happening ... think again. HMOs become more and more common as healthcare becomes more and more expensive; moving employees to an HMO is one way to cut costs for employers. In the HMO paradigm, a beancounter is rationing your care based on costs. In the government healthcare paradigm, there is some thought to the wellbeing of the people.

Regarding your anecdotes, government-mandated regular medical checkups/care for children would improve outcome in those cases ... i.e. parents would be required to take care of their kids. Would you be in favor of that? (NOTE: This is not to my knowledge part of ANY healthcare proposal currently under consideration, but illustrates well the cognitive dissonance of your position).

I also caution against solely relying on anecdotes to argue for broad policy. For example, not to trivialize your experience, but something like 90-95% of all children treated for leukemia in first-world nations are in remission after one month of treatment. This makes your experience less of a miracle of American medicine and more of the expected outcome.

[Lohman446]

Regarding your anecdotes, government-mandated regular medical checkups/care for children would improve outcome in those cases ... i.e. parents would be required to take care of their kids. Would you be in favor of that? (NOTE: This is not to my knowledge part of ANY healthcare proposal currently under consideration, but illustrates well the cognitive dissonance of your position). .

Wait, so a politician would tell me what doctor my child could see and that doctor than would have more say then... well me, as a parent. Even in the absence of any indication of neglect or abuse? This is not fixing the problem, nor is it making people responsible for their choices.

[gam-e]

Wait, so a politician would tell me what doctor my child could see and that doctor than would have more say then... well me, as a parent. Even in the absence of any indication of neglect or abuse? This is not fixing the problem, nor is it making people responsible for their choices.

No doubt! I find that suggestion highly offensive to my freedom.

Scariest thing - this was probably a serious thought.

Don't look Thomas Paine, its only a dream.

[drg]

Okay I guess that went right over your heads, I knew you and the poster wouldn't support it. Your knee-jerk reactions are exactly the point; people making the argument would not support the solution. To them, even education is government telling people what to do. So it's more than just a little disingenuous to raise the point if one is intent on going on letting it be a problem (and it is a problem, insomuch as kids pay the price when they bear no responsibility).

I charitably labeled it cognitive dissonance, but really it is a major flaw with the lassiez-faire position and failure to recognize or understand it is all too often the result of a lack of critical mental capacity.

Anyway, try not to be sidetracked by that one small piece of that post. It's not the important part, even though it is the easiest to apply the reactionary conservative line to.

[Lohman446]

Okay I guess that went right over your heads. The point is that most people making the argument would not support the solution. To them, even education is government telling people what to do. So it's more than just a little disingenuous to raise the point if one is intent on going on letting it be a problem (and it is a problem, insomuch as kids pay the price when they bear no responsibility).

I charitably labeled it cognitive dissonance, but really it is a major flaw with the lassiez-faire position and failure to recognize or understand it is all too often the result of a lack of critical mental capacity.

So.. only the government is capabale of making those decisions? I don't recall taking the position that the government had no say in it, in fact I recall something in my reply that you apparently missed. You are spinning my argument into a different one, one that the talking points are easier to take shots at, rather than one that demands honest discussion. As to the conservative line? Really? Good to know that's it, personally I feel that the convervative party has long ago abandoned any real constitutionally based platform.

Wait, so a politician would tell me what doctor my child could see and that doctor than would have more say then... well me, as a parent. Even in the absence of any indication of neglect or abuse? This is not fixing the problem, nor is it making people responsible for their choices.

[drg]

So.. only the government is capabale of making those decisions?

As the potential supplier of healthcare insurance and having the enforcement power of the state, yes, they are one of the few that could effectively implement such a broad-based solution. The rest would simply be third-party education or advocacy, which exists now and obviously does not solve the problem. This is the state of the "market-based" solution people like yourself favor ... it obviously does not work in the areas of health and welfare of the population as a whole. Again please note that no one is proposing that solution nor do I necessarily favor it; it was to illustrate the folly of making the argument, which your knee-jerk reactions played into beautifully.

All this happens easily and all the time in the absence of abuse or neglect. Limiting solutions to cases of abuse and neglect is a major copout and will ultimately be no solution at all. Two significant issues that are far more widespread are ignorance and financial inability, both pervasive and perfectly legal, unlike abuse and neglect.

[Lohman446]

As the potential supplier of healthcare insurance and having the enforcement power of the state, yes, they are one of the few that could effectively implement such a broad-based solution. The rest would simply be third-party education or advocacy, which exists now and obviously does not solve the problem. This is the state of the "market-based" solution people like yourself favor ... it obviously does not work in the areas of health and welfare of the population as a whole. Again please note that no one is proposing that solution nor do I necessarily favor it; it was to illustrate the folly of making the argument, which your knee-jerk reactions played into beautifully.

All this happens easily and all the time in the absence of abuse or neglect. Limiting solutions to cases of abuse and neglect is a major copout and will ultimately be no solution at all. Two significant issues that are far more widespread are ignorance and financial inability, both pervasive and perfectly legal, unlike abuse and neglect.

But what are the fixes for those? Theoretically social security is supposed to guarantee one the ability to support oneself if employment is unattainable due to a physical issue, or guarantee retirement. Yet both these government programs seem to fail to provide those who rely on them adequate resources to live on. Both are backed by the authority of the federal government. Neither function well as an interest bearing savings account. How do you keep a health care system from having the very same shortcomings if handled by the federal government?