32 replies to this topic

[SharkSpider]

Well, I guess I'm going to need to take the less popular side of the argument here, because there's something rather ridiculous about some of the arguments in favor of universal healthcare.

Sure, if there was enough doctors and transplant organs and other things to go around, and to give everyone super good treatment, then sure, give it to everyone. But when we apply realism to the scenario, we realize that when there isn't enough to go around, you can't continue to say something is free for everyone. Say, for example, that I have two middle aged men who need a heart, one's on wellfare and the other's say, a successful carpentry contractor. If I have two hearts or no hearts, there's no question. That being said, if I have one heart, I don't see why it shouldn't go to the conctractor, because he can affort to pay his own way, and because he actually does something for the society he lives in.

Sure, you can go by what we have now in Canada, where healthcare is limited and applied on a lottery system where everyone has to wait, or you can  give priority to the people who are actually supporting the society in which the system resides. Not all doctors have to be altruistic lifesavers, and I find it rather disturbing that people here would criticize someone for working privately, when without them, there'd be even less to go around.

As much as I hate to say it, healthcare is not a right, despite how many countries try to make it that. Healthcare is only available in a society that can handle the expense, and as such, people need to help front the bill in order to get the privilege of healthcare. If resources are scarce, then those who contribute very little should get very little, and those who help the system survive should benefit from it. That's not to say doctors in the ER should let someone die of blood loss from a cut they don't have the money to stich, but those people should always be on the bottom of the barrel, and when society's able to provide enough to go around, there won't be a problem anymore.

[Aboo]

SharkSpider, on Jun 25, 2009 - 19:30, said:

Well, I guess I'm going to need to take the less popular side of the argument here, because there's something rather ridiculous about some of the arguments in favor of universal healthcare.

Sure, if there was enough doctors and transplant organs and other things to go around, and to give everyone super good treatment, then sure, give it to everyone. But when we apply realism to the scenario, we realize that when there isn't enough to go around, you can't continue to say something is free for everyone. Say, for example, that I have two middle aged men who need a heart, one's on wellfare and the other's say, a successful carpentry contractor. If I have two hearts or no hearts, there's no question. That being said, if I have one heart, I don't see why it shouldn't go to the conctractor, because he can affort to pay his own way, and because he actually does something for the society he lives in.

Sure, you can go by what we have now in Canada, where healthcare is limited and applied on a lottery system where everyone has to wait, or you can  give priority to the people who are actually supporting the society in which the system resides. Not all doctors have to be altruistic lifesavers, and I find it rather disturbing that people here would criticize someone for working privately, when without them, there'd be even less to go around.

As much as I hate to say it, healthcare is not a right, despite how many countries try to make it that. Healthcare is only available in a society that can handle the expense, and as such, people need to help front the bill in order to get the privilege of healthcare. If resources are scarce, then those who contribute very little should get very little, and those who help the system survive should benefit from it. That's not to say doctors in the ER should let someone die of blood loss from a cut they don't have the money to stich, but those people should always be on the bottom of the barrel, and when society's able to provide enough to go around, there won't be a problem anymore.

Luxury is not a right. Money is not a right. Friendship is not a right. But healthcare to people is a right. By your theory, a person, who is on welfare, should be allowed to die because they can't pay for their treatment? You can't apply the economic theory of scarcity to every thing in life. It's not black and white like that.

So extrapolating on your theory, we should all adopt China's one child policy so that, there would be fewer people on the dole, more resources to go around?

I don't criticise people who work privately, it's their choice. However the state should provide for the people who are actually paying in taxes. Since we are discussing the US system, the US chooses to tax their citizens even if they are working outside the country, hence enforcing double taxation. Even after all that tax, their citizens do not see a free healthcare system.

People who can afford healthcare, by no means, pay for it. However no one should be denied healthcare or a new heart because they can't afford it. It's morally and ethically wrong.  

And for people to understand where I'm coming from, I've always paid for healthcare (and schooling too). I've seen people die because they don't have access to good healthcare. Citizens should access to basic good services.

[Bishup]

There is no need to argue it's simply the best Only kidding.
One thing they can be proud of. Don't try and steal the moment. I'm sure there are plenty of things the USofA are good at

[SharkSpider]

Aboo, on Jun 25, 2009 - 20:20, said:

Luxury is not a right. Money is not a right. Friendship is not a right. But healthcare to people is a right. By your theory, a person, who is on welfare, should be allowed to die because they can't pay for their treatment? You can't apply the economic theory of scarcity to every thing in life. It's not black and white like that.

First off, you have no basis on which to declare healthcare a right. Consider that humans lived without healthcare as we have it for millenia, and that new technology and industrialization is what allows us the privilege of new ways to extend the lengths of our lives. People get sick and die, it's been like that and it always will be like that. We simply don't have enough resources to give the best healthcare to everyone on the planet, but if we spread those resources equally (Ie. Too thin) they won't be of much use at all. So you may say my argument is being "black and white" but what you're not considering is that it takes industrial power to even start a healthcare system, and that in order to function properly, any given system can only treat so many people. If we need to deny some people proper treatment, should it not be those who have done nothing to support the system itself?

Aboo, on Jun 25, 2009 - 20:20, said:

So extrapolating on your theory, we should all adopt China's one child policy so that, there would be fewer people on the dole, more resources to go around?

Bit of a straw man there, but I'm not going to make a claim one way or another. I'm simply going to say that if you want to see a world that can give everyone a high standard of living, it would be much more possible with alot less people. What you make of it is your choice.

Aboo, on Jun 25, 2009 - 20:20, said:

People who can afford healthcare, by no means, pay for it. However no one should be denied healthcare or a new heart because they can't afford it. It's morally and ethically wrong.

While I agree that nobody should be denied a heart transplant, you still have yet to tackle the issue of where there are simply not enough for everyone who wants one, and where some people can pay and others can't.

[davidns]

I agree with sharkspider. While it would be great to give everybody perfect healthcare, but due to the fact of life that there are not enough doctors, nurses, medicines, facilites etc etc we have to find some form of distribution be it based on the American, Canadian, French or whatever. The fact is that in any of these systems some people will die without getting care. (They don't call economics the dismal science for nothing )

I personally favor a mixed system where things like emergency room care, and the very serious things like cancer are paid for by the state, while one would either get insurance or pay cash for things like check-ups or x-rays.

Thoughts?

[Sandwich]

I'd actually agree with whoever said that healthcare is a fundamental right, because what it translates to is more or less the right to life.

Making things like xrays, check-ups etc. into things you have to pay for yourself is, in my opinion, grossly unfair. Everybody ought to be able to enjoy good health and not be limited by their money or position in society, and check-ups are actually essential. If you don't go in for the little things, as they say, you'll get taken down by the big things in the end. Plenty of people enjoy considerably higher quality of life because they had whatever their problem was caught early and either slowed down or prevented. Arthritis, alzheimers, cancers, cardiovascular diseases... etc etc. Check-ups are where problems come from. That they're free also increases the chance that people won't slip through the net. People who are depressed, for instance, or psychologically ill and at risk of suicide or self-harm aren't going to come in like they should-- and the people who suffer from depression and mental illness are often those worst off in society who haven't the money to pay to come in.
All in all, drawing the line between big things and small things would be difficult and ultimately probably arbitrary. A check-up for somebody's headache is something small, but when that same person dies of acute meningitis the next day, the perspective flips. Or somebody going in with a painful stomach and finding out they have bowel cancer. If caught early enough, it might be redeemable, but if they are forced to wait due to financial difficulties, it's effectively the difference between twenty more years or one. That kind of thing is why I don't think it'd be plausible.

Spreading resources equally isn't the same as too thin if we'd only invest in it more heavily. Personally I think there are deep flaws within society if the sort of life you lead and the quality of life you have it based on who and where you're born to. It's very easy to say resources should be kept only for the rich if you're actually one of the rich. Poverty isn't exactly a choice. Inequality in society has been statistically shown over and over again in scenarios of every different size to be at the cause of nearly all our problems on society. More inequality means less happiness, more crime, a shorter lifespan, worse physical health, worse mental health, less trust and a whole host of other things -- and none of them to do with wealth within that unequal society, surprisingly. Wealthy people in an equal society will lead better lives in nearly every important respect than equally wealthy people in societies with high degrees of inequality. There's absolutely no advantage to any member of any system to continue promoting rather than attempting to resolve inequalities.

[genius wannabe]

To be honest, there are advantages to both sides, I'm not even being a fence sitter here, but really its true. I honestly find universal healthcare is a lot like communism: great on paper, crap in practice. Moving from a country where you were treated according to what you can afford, to Canada and its universal healthcare, I feel its better when you're paying for your own treatment. Take for example specialty doctors - oncologists. While here in Canada there may be a long line for the 'best' oncologist or whatever, you know you're stuck in line behind how-many-ever people in your city have cancer, right? But when you go to a system like the US has, there's a sense of relief that you'll get the treatment you need immediately, even if you paid for it. You know what I mean? I'm by no means saying that people who have money deserve treatment, but the fact is that's how things work out. I'm not entirely sure if my point here makes sense, but it did in my mind.

Take for another example: me. In 2006 (I think), I went to the doctor's office because I found there was something wrong with my feet and I couldn't do things that other people did e.g. squat, run for a long time, etc. So, I went to the clinic by my house, literally waited for two hours, then got a meeting with the doctor. He looked at my feet for 2 seconds (because there were a zillion people in line behind me), and said that my Achilles tendon is short, and if I want my feet to be 'normal', I need a surgery. He did, however, tell me it wasn't necessary and that I wasn't in any danger health-wise if I didn't get it done. Regardless, I asked him to book me an appointment with the Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon (there's only one in my city), and to this day I haven't heard back from either the doctor, or this supposed surgeon. I get the funny feeling this wouldn't be the case if I was in the USA? I mean, yeah, it isn't life-threatening or whatever, but what if it was?

davidns, on Jun 26, 2009 - 20:04, said:

I agree with sharkspider. While it would be great to give everybody perfect healthcare, but due to the fact of life that there are not enough doctors, nurses, medicines, facilites etc etc we have to find some form of distribution be it based on the American, Canadian, French or whatever. The fact is that in any of these systems some people will die without getting care. (They don't call economics the dismal science for nothing )

I personally favor a mixed system where things like emergency room care, and the very serious things like cancer are paid for by the state, while one would either get insurance or pay cash for things like check-ups or x-rays.

Thoughts?

(emphasis is mine)
There is absolutely no merit in whining about the lack of doctors when countries such as Canada require people who have degrees as doctors from other countries to redo courses and re-sit exams that they've already done, that take a LONG time, for the sole reason that they didn't graduate from a Canadian/American university. They're simply wasting time when we need these doctors, nurses and other medical professionals. Heck, a few months ago our city was on alert because we don't have enough paramedics and staff. I'm just saying ..

biochem, on Jun 24, 2009 - 22:02, said:

[ ... ]
and no u dont have to turn away anything. If you own a private clinic then u can take all the patients you wish. Even those that don't have money can fall to your generosity and be forever grateful. It's that simple. If you work for the VA, then you can live knowing you will never turn a single person away. you can enjoy a insurance stress-free hospital, because all your patients are ensured under the law, and also enjoy the benefits of 1 hour lunch + vacation + a steady process of practicing medicine.
[ ... ]

(emphasis is mine)
If it were a question of fees only, I think this would make sense. Doctor's fees, I'm sure (in private sector healthcare), are partly decided of their own wish, so honestly this could work, in a way. However, the deal is whenever people come in for check-ups, or treatment or whatever, the doctors use equipment, right? I'm sure the use of this equipment/services (e.g. IVF, chemotherapy, isotopes in cancer screening) absolutely do not come cheap, and these are costs you can't honestly expect the doctor to pay for out of their own pocket, right? If they did, that's gotta be the most (delusional?) generous doctor ever.

P.S., I think Sicko was super supersuper biased, honestly. I'm sure everyone will agree.

[Aboo]

genius wannabe, on Jun 27, 2009 - 02:06, said:

But when you go to a system like the US has, there's a sense of relief that you'll get the treatment you need immediately, even if you paid for it. You know what I mean? I'm by no means saying that people who have money deserve treatment, but the fact is that's how things work out. I'm not entirely sure if my point here makes sense, but it did in my mind.

Take for another example: me. In 2006 (I think), I went to the doctor's office because I found there was something wrong with my feet and I couldn't do things that other people did e.g. squat, run for a long time, etc. So, I went to the clinic by my house, literally waited for two hours, then got a meeting with the doctor. He looked at my feet for 2 seconds (because there were a zillion people in line behind me), and said that my Achilles tendon is short, and if I want my feet to be 'normal', I need a surgery. He did, however, tell me it wasn't necessary and that I wasn't in any danger health-wise if I didn't get it done. Regardless, I asked him to book me an appointment with the Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon (there's only one in my city), and to this day I haven't heard back from either the doctor, or this supposed surgeon. I get the funny feeling this wouldn't be the case if I was in the USA? I mean, yeah, it isn't life-threatening or whatever, but what if it was?

Can you not actually go to a private doctor in Canada too? AFAIK, in every country that provides state health services, exists an option of private healthcare. You can always pay more to beat the queue.

[genius wannabe]

Aboo, on Jun 27, 2009 - 03:16, said:

genius wannabe, on Jun 27, 2009 - 02:06, said:

But when you go to a system like the US has, there's a sense of relief that you'll get the treatment you need immediately, even if you paid for it. You know what I mean? I'm by no means saying that people who have money deserve treatment, but the fact is that's how things work out. I'm not entirely sure if my point here makes sense, but it did in my mind.

Take for another example: me. In 2006 (I think), I went to the doctor's office because I found there was something wrong with my feet and I couldn't do things that other people did e.g. squat, run for a long time, etc. So, I went to the clinic by my house, literally waited for two hours, then got a meeting with the doctor. He looked at my feet for 2 seconds (because there were a zillion people in line behind me), and said that my Achilles tendon is short, and if I want my feet to be 'normal', I need a surgery. He did, however, tell me it wasn't necessary and that I wasn't in any danger health-wise if I didn't get it done. Regardless, I asked him to book me an appointment with the Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon (there's only one in my city), and to this day I haven't heard back from either the doctor, or this supposed surgeon. I get the funny feeling this wouldn't be the case if I was in the USA? I mean, yeah, it isn't life-threatening or whatever, but what if it was?

Can you not actually go to a private doctor in Canada too? AFAIK, in every country that provides state health services, exists an option of private healthcare. You can always pay more to beat the queue.

I'm sure you can, but what I was trying to say is its the norm of healthcare here - the province-run system, that is, whereas in USA the norm is to go to a private facility. Especially in situations such as emergencies (of which there are several horror stories), the running around from the public clinic to private clinics and stuff is time-wasting and infuriating at the very least. So knowing that the system that is the 'norm' is not good enough or that ir is inferior is just saddening. Dunno if that makes any sense, though.

[Tilia]

In Sweden, the health care is financed with tax money, and I think that we should rather increase the taxes in order to improve the it, than lower the taxes (I don't like the current prime minister).

I don't see why someone should get better care, just because he/she is wealthier. I'm eating a medicine, have got a shot that I had to pay for, and now I've fallen ill, so that I need another medicine, and all this would have been really expensive, unless there's a law saying that you cannot pay more than 1800 sek (about 175 Euro) for medicines.
  
I know that there are problems with the Swedish health care, especially the psychiatric, it might take long time before one gets to see a doctor, doctors prescribe too much anti-biotics, and so on, but some of these problems could probably be avoided, putting more money into it.

I cannot see one single good reason for non-universal health care

[Bandev]

SharkSpider, on Jun 26, 2009 - 16:09, said:

Aboo, on Jun 25, 2009 - 20:20, said:

Luxury is not a right. Money is not a right. Friendship is not a right. But healthcare to people is a right. By your theory, a person, who is on welfare, should be allowed to die because they can't pay for their treatment? You can't apply the economic theory of scarcity to every thing in life. It's not black and white like that.

First off, you have no basis on which to declare healthcare a right. Consider that humans lived without healthcare as we have it for millenia, and that new technology and industrialization is what allows us the privilege of new ways to extend the lengths of our lives. People get sick and die, it's been like that and it always will be like that. We simply don't have enough resources to give the best healthcare to everyone on the planet, but if we spread those resources equally (Ie. Too thin) they won't be of much use at all. So you may say my argument is being "black and white" but what you're not considering is that it takes industrial power to even start a healthcare system, and that in order to function properly, any given system can only treat so many people. If we need to deny some people proper treatment, should it not be those who have done nothing to support the system itself?

Aboo, on Jun 25, 2009 - 20:20, said:

So extrapolating on your theory, we should all adopt China's one child policy so that, there would be fewer people on the dole, more resources to go around?

Bit of a straw man there, but I'm not going to make a claim one way or another. I'm simply going to say that if you want to see a world that can give everyone a high standard of living, it would be much more possible with alot less people. What you make of it is your choice.

Aboo, on Jun 25, 2009 - 20:20, said:

People who can afford healthcare, by no means, pay for it. However no one should be denied healthcare or a new heart because they can't afford it. It's morally and ethically wrong.

While I agree that nobody should be denied a heart transplant, you still have yet to tackle the issue of where there are simply not enough for everyone who wants one, and where some people can pay and others can't.

You say that Aboo has no basis on which to call healthcare a human right. Well firstly, it is actually one of the goals of the UNDP: to provide adequate health care to all. Also as someone said denying someone healthcare is tantamount to denying someone life in some situations. And you say this should be done because someone has more money. They deserve a longer life because they have more money. That is ludicrous. Also your reason that healthcare wasn't available to everyone in the past is like say women weren't allowed a vote in the past. More funding can ease infrastructural burden, because then people will be able to live a longer more productive life and be able to give more back.

[Darren]

I think universal health care would be a good idea but let certain practices subdivide and make a portion of the market private.

[Bishup]

It's the best by far. Not for the sake of providing a good argument but, in the south of France if people don't have a mutuelle or une carte de sécurité sociale a doctor will still provide the care despite it being for free because he loves what he does.
Becoming a doctor in France is so unbelievably hard, the competition is fierce. To become a surgeon for instance you have to be the best of the best. Maybe this extremely capitalist way of recruiting medical graduates provides the country with competent doctors.