Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

In one of my earliest posts in here, I state that I am all for free preventative care for all --- that is a FANTASTIC thing that I think, while not a "right", is a service that the government should make sure is available in a timely manner to all of its citizens.

The "right not to die", however, is the impossible pipe dream --- there are only so many specialists (with maintained standards), only so many cancer meds & facilities, only so many livers, hearts etc. to go around.

And how does offering free treatment to all sick citizens encourage healthy living? People in here have already said things like "no, the drunk shouldn't be penalized --- you can't nitpick whether smoking or heavy constant drinking is costing everyone more when they go for cancer treatments, liver transplants etc.".

Why should anyone have the motivation to live healthily if they will just get bailed out by their neighbor when they need a triple bypass? Sure, some rational-thinking people will stay healthy to avoid hospital stays and live-threatening circumstances, but for those countless people out there that don't think that far ahead, there will be no motivation to actually take care of themselves. If anything happens to them, the state-run medical system has got their back, free of charge.

I think you are really missing the point. The issue is that when you get in for cancer treatment, even if resources are limited, you should not be put on the back of the list because you are poor. It should go by how much you need the care right away.

For transplants, there is a serious supply problem, so until we can grow new organs and put them in, there will be choices made. But those should be based on the medical need, not financial ones. You shouldn't get a new liver because you are rich, while the other guy doesn't get one because he is poor.

I don't see why you make this distinction between preventative care and other treatments.

 

[Soapbox Killer]

People who don't believe healthcare is a basic human right scare me.

I dont think its a basic human right since I would think "healthcare " in this discussion is the modern version over the last 50 years or so. I'm not even sure. I think in todays world the government should provide something but I don't know how far that goes.

I have government healthcare (from the VA) and it took a whole lot of bad things to happen before that system was up to snuff, I can't imagine adding in 160million more histories to the equation.

 

[MrChom]

“Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community” Aneurin Bevan-founder of the NHS

The US has the highest per capita spend on healthcare of any nation (as of 2015 figures). It also has a famously disastrous healthcare system, and (allegedly) something along the lines of 0.5m bankruptcies every year tied to medical bills.

It is morally reprehensible that any civilised nation could look at someone and say that due to their salary they're just going to have to either grin and bear a long-term chronic illness, or slowly die due to a curable illness that's also fatal.

I'm not going to pretend the UK system is a haven of all things good. We have some budget shortfalls, and some overcrowding but overall I think we have it pretty good. Let me just relate my last few years.

First I had an infected leg. I was seen, admitted, and on IV antibiotics/fluids inside a couple of hours. I then had two months of help getting it back to being able to walk properly after almost a week in hospital.

Second I had a bleeding head wound. I was bandaged inside a few minutes, within a couple of hours I'd been seen, anaesthetised, and stapled up.

Next a recurrence on the leg. Seen inside an hour, admitted to hospital, and given a weeklong course of antibiotics as an outpatient.

All of this paid for by my taxes, probably some others too...and you know what, because we ALL pay we get Economies of Scale in play where drugs, equipment, and just about everything else massively fall in price the way that many countries just can't. We do still have a private healthcare system but very few use it because there's no real point unless you want cosmetic surgery.

Also to those who've said it I'd gladly tell a doctor I see them on the same level as roads, street lights, bin collections, police service, and the fire brigade. Something so intrinsically necessary in society that without their presence we could not be deemed to be functional. That's how essential medical services are, their provision by society is a basic benchmark of civilisation. Failure to do so is dereliction of duty by government.

 

[Vanillalite]

I think you are really missing the point. The issue is that when you get in for cancer treatment, even if resources are limited, you should not be put on the back of the list because you are poor. It should go by how much you need the care right away.

For transplants, there is a serious supply problem, so until we can grow new organs and put them in, there will be choices made. But those should be based on the medical need, not financial ones. You shouldn't get a new liver because you are rich, while the other guy doesn't get one because he is poor.

I don't see why you make this distinction between preventative care and other treatments.

The whole point was some were arguing in this thread that it's unlimited.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

What's ultimately gross about the extrapolation of the argument is that wealthy people deserve to survive and poor people don't.

If healthcare is finite rich people should get it. That's the argument. Not only gross at face value but made more problematic that the biggest predictor of wealth is not effort, but wealth of parents.

It's classist, elitist, effectively asking for a caste system where some people are worth more than others just because

Basic health care for everyone.

Cosmetic health care for the elite

That way the elite can still feel like they get something if that’s what this all is about

There's something really twisted about this mindset that if you have the means to pay for an expensive treatment, then you are part of "the elite", and that the system should be restructured to not be set up this way.

It's a sort of "throw the world upside down and don't reward savings, prudency and hard work". Sure, some people come to the point of being able to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments by easily means such as inheritance and devious means such as swindling in its many ways/shapes/forms (e.g. many examples in the banking sector).

However, many other people come to the point of being able to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments by working/studying/training extremely hard over long periods of time, making extremely lucky/savvy business decisions, inventing amazing things, having extremely good, specialized talents that many people want to pay for etc. All of those things make the world a better place and the motivation to actually do those things, particularly the "working/studying/training extremely hard over long periods of time" comes from the knowledge that by doing so, they will be in a better position to acquire the resources (MONEY) to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments.

Just because someone has resources doesn't make them "elitist" or "part of the elite". This is an incredibly poisoned mindset to have that leads humanity to a very dark place.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The whole point was some were arguing in this thread that it's unlimited.

For the most part, it is unlimited as in, the government can step in and invest more in training doctors and making equipment available. Of course there are some limits. If suddenly half the country gets cancer at the same time, that will be a problem. But for most needs, a society can carry the burden of its healthcare, making the use of it "unlimited". Of course there are waiting times and such, but that is a whole other topic.

If you live in a first world country, there is little reason 99% of treatments should not be accessible for you.

There's something really twisted about this mindset that if you have the means to pay for an expensive treatment, then you are part of "the elite", and that the system should be restructured to not be set up this way.

It's a sort of "throw the world upside down and don't reward savings, prudency and hard work". Sure, some people come to the point of being able to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments by easily means such as inheritance and devious means such as swindling in its many ways/shapes/forms (e.g. many examples in the banking sector).

However, many other people come to the point of being able to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments by working/studying/training extremely hard over long periods of time, making extremely lucky/savvy business decisions, inventing amazing things, having extremely good, specialized talents that many people want to pay for etc. All of those things make the world a better place and the motivation to actually do those things, particularly the "working/studying/training extremely hard over long periods of time" comes from the knowledge that by doing so, they will be in a better position to acquire the resources (MONEY) to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments.

Just because someone has resources doesn't make them "elitist" or "part of the elite". This is an incredibly poisoned mindset to have that leads humanity to a very dark place.

Dude, are you really arguing that someone has worked hard to gain access to expensive medical treatment? Nobody works hard because they think they are going to get cancer and need an expensive treatment.

Nobody is saying doctors don't deserve rewards or a good salary. The point is how to give the most people access to their skills, so they can help the most people.

 

[Hierophant]

Sourced from reddit: https://imgur.com/a/WIfeN
I never truly understood how much healthcare in the US costs until I got Appendicitis in October. I'm a 20 year old guy. Thought other people should see this to get a real idea of how much an unpreventable illness costs in the US.

First page (front)
The cover page of sorts. You can see the original total up at the top. Thankfully I was still on my dad's insurance for another month or so. $55,029,.31 would have been way too much for me to pay on my own.
Then again $11,119.53 is still a ton at this time in my life.

First page (back)
The services I received.
I think you can see how outrageous some of these costs are. Such as the Recovery Room that I was in for maybe two hours. Or the Room and Board that I had for one night. Or maybe the $4,500 worth of anesthesia they supposedly used on me.

Second page
The rest of the services.
$16,000 for the actual surgery.

very irrational person right? shouldn't have gotten appendicitis

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Is there actually any good reason to not have universal healthcare, aside from rich men wanting to make money from its absence?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Is there actually any good reason to not have universal healthcare, aside from rich men wanting to make money from its absence?

Costs are an actual problem. And having everything go through government might contribute to more waste. This is why well regulated insurance companies, with specific laws on what they should cover, that they can't deny anyone service and that everyone should get it is my preferred system. Also no profit taking for shareholders. Basically a mix between public and private to get the best of both.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

Dude, are you really arguing that someone has worked hard to gain access to expensive medical treatment? Nobody works hard because they think they are going to get cancer and need an expensive treatment.

I think you are really missing the point. The issue is that when you get in for cancer treatment, even if resources are limited, you should not be put on the back of the list because you are poor. It should go by how much you need the care right away.

For transplants, there is a serious supply problem, so until we can grow new organs and put them in, there will be choices made. But those should be based on the medical need, not financial ones. You shouldn't get a new liver because you are rich, while the other guy doesn't get one because he is poor.

I don't see why you make this distinction between preventative care and other treatments.

This is not how the system works. The only thing that wealth gets for you is the ability to get on multiple donor lists for organs and have the personal means to travel to see multiple specialists.

Why should someone who has acquired wealth, potentially by working extremely hard, not have the right to travel all around the world on their own dime to seek treatment?

Just because the wealthy can do so, why does that mean governments should make that available, somehow, magically, to all of its citizens?

 

[boiled goose]

There's something really twisted about this mindset that if you have the means to pay for an expensive treatment, then you are part of "the elite", and that the system should be restructured to not be set up this way.

It's a sort of "throw the world upside down and don't reward savings, prudency and hard work". Sure, some people come to the point of being able to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments by easily means such as inheritance and devious means such as swindling in its many ways/shapes/forms (e.g. many examples in the banking sector).

However, many other people come to the point of being able to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments by working/studying/training extremely hard over long periods of time, making extremely lucky/savvy business decisions, inventing amazing things, having extremely good, specialized talents that many people want to pay for etc. All of those things make the world a better place and the motivation to actually do those things, particularly the "working/studying/training extremely hard over long periods of time" comes from the knowledge that by doing so, they will be in a better position to acquire the resources (MONEY) to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments.

Just because someone has resources doesn't make them "elitist" or "part of the elite". This is an incredibly poisoned mindset to have that leads humanity to a very dark place.

I included in my post that statistically, being wealthy correlates with wealthy upbringing, not hard work.

Of course you failed to address that point.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This is not how the system works. The only thing that wealth gets for you is the ability to get on multiple donor lists for organs and have the personal means to travel to see multiple specialists.

Why should someone who has acquired wealth, potentially by working extremely hard, not have the right to travel all around the world on their own dime to seek treatment?

Just because the wealthy can do so, why does that mean governments should make that available, somehow, magically, to all of its citizens?

It's all fine the wealthy can do that. Nobody wants to take that away.

People just want to give the ones that are not wealthy the same opportunity, or at least something in that direction. Why should someone who worked hard their whole lives, but didn't get rich from it - which is most people - not deserve good treatment if they get the same disease someone rich gets?

There is no problem with that wealthy person being able to shop around, go to different hospitals or even countries to get treatment. The problem is, that regular people can't afford treatment at all or are then forever in debt or bankrupt trying to pay off something they could absolutely do nothing about.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

There's something really twisted about this mindset that if you have the means to pay for an expensive treatment, then you are part of "the elite", and that the system should be restructured to not be set up this way.

It's a sort of "throw the world upside down and don't reward savings, prudency and hard work". Sure, some people come to the point of being able to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments by easily means such as inheritance and devious means such as swindling in its many ways/shapes/forms (e.g. many examples in the banking sector).

However, many other people come to the point of being able to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments by working/studying/training extremely hard over long periods of time, making extremely lucky/savvy business decisions, inventing amazing things, having extremely good, specialized talents that many people want to pay for etc. All of those things make the world a better place and the motivation to actually do those things, particularly the "working/studying/training extremely hard over long periods of time" comes from the knowledge that by doing so, they will be in a better position to acquire the resources (MONEY) to afford expensive things such as extremely specialized medical treatments.

Just because someone has resources doesn't make them "elitist" or "part of the elite". This is an incredibly poisoned mindset to have that leads humanity to a very dark place.

Dark (humor) is dying from a preventable illness that many other countries would have covered the cost of treatment and yours would if you had voted for it, but you didn't because you were too busy sucking the dick of your corporate overlords.

The US is one of the countries with less social mobility and enterpreneurship, maybe it has to do with any investment in education being a huge fucking risk, all while getting sick will make you bankrupt.

Edit: My country is the world leader in organ donation, we pay for it with our taxes and have a list irrespective of wealth. I'm pretty sure a person in the streets here has it better for transplants than Bill Gates in your Corporateland™

Who is punishing anyone? Extreme example, but an example: a person throws themselves off of a building & survives & is treated. He then does this again, and again, 10 times in a row. Is it punishing them to make them pay for the treatment? Why should the populace at large pay for their treatment? How is it disgusting to disagree and say "no, I don't want to pay for that person's treatment --- he should pay for it himself, at least after the 3rd jump"?

You are beyond redeeming. This is such a ridiculous insult to our intelligence. If I get run over by a car tomorrow, I won't go bankrupt. Simple as that. If I jump from a building I'll get mental care, but that's something an American wouldn't know.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

jesus christ read what you're saying back to yourself and realise you are entirely without empathy

guess what, everyone makes mistakes but to punish them for the rest of their life for doing so is disgusting. is this the road to means testing healthcare? your argument here is so bad considering the US already has a vast swathe of people who are obese and sick, what motivation to live healthily do they get from the current system? if a person is "irrational", they should just die? or be in crippling debt for the rest of their life?

Who is punishing anyone? Extreme example, but an example: a person throws themselves off of a building & survives & is treated. He then does this again, and again, 10 times in a row. Is it punishing them to make them pay for the treatment? Why should the populace at large pay for their treatment? How is it disgusting to disagree and say "no, I don't want to pay for that person's treatment --- he should pay for it himself, at least after the 3rd jump"?

I included in my post that statistically, being wealthy correlates with wealthy upbringing, not hard work.

Of course you failed to address that point.

So because you claim some nebulous statistic that we should blindly believe, that just means we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and marginalize those countless people that have accumulated wealth in ways that don't involve starting with much wealth?

 

[Crispy75]

Who is punishing anyone? Extreme example, but an example: a person throws themselves off of a building & survives & is treated. He then does this again, and again, 10 times in a row. Is it punishing them to make them pay for the treatment?

Yes.
Does a suicidal person deserve punishment?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Who is punishing anyone? Extreme example, but an example: a person throws themselves off of a building & survives & is treated. He then does this again, and again, 10 times in a row. Is it punishing them to make them pay for the treatment? Why should the populace at large pay for their treatment? How is it disgusting to disagree and say "no, I don't want to pay for that person's treatment --- he should pay for it himself, at least after the 3rd jump"?

I would say if a person tries to commit suicide and their attempt fails, they should then get mental help. Actually they should have gotten it sooner. Which is also something most first world countries would cover under your basic insurance package or through the government plan.

Are you saying you rather have a family member die from their suicide attempt, then to have them get the help they need? Because that is what your description reads like.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

I would say if a person tries to commit suicide and their attempt fails, they should then get mental help. Actually they should have gotten it sooner. Which is also something most first world countries would cover under your basic insurance package or through the government plan.

Are you saying you rather have a family member die from their suicide attempt, then to have them get the help they need? Because that is what your description reads like.

Yes.
Does a suicidal person deserve punishment?

Did anyone say "Don't treat them"? I said let them (or their loved ones) pay for the treatment. Society at large doesn't need to shoulder the load. That might motivate them to not jump for the 11th time, or for their family members to watch over them and take care of them more closely etc. etc.

The person eating Big Macs super-sized everyday. Society doesn't owe that person their 3rd triple bypass. They should pay for it themselves and be motivated to eat less Big Macs (or at least not super-size them)

 

[travisbickle]

Who is punishing anyone? Extreme example, but an example: a person throws themselves off of a building & survives & is treated. He then does this again, and again, 10 times in a row. Is it punishing them to make them pay for the treatment? Why should the populace at large pay for their treatment? How is it disgusting to disagree and say "no, I don't want to pay for that person's treatment --- he should pay for it himself, at least after the 3rd jump"?




So because you claim some nebulous statistic that we should blindly believe, that just means we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and marginalize those countless people that have accumulated wealth in ways that don't involve starting with much wealth?

This is just knee-jerk reactionary right-wing propaganda. There's no argument here except the one in your head where people are deliberately working their way to a triple bypass.

 

[Crispy75]

some nebulous statistic that we should blindly believe

Tons of cited sources here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States

Economic mobility in the USA is low, and inequality is high (the two are correlated)

 

[Hierophant]

Who is punishing anyone? Extreme example, but an example: a person throws themselves off of a building & survives & is treated. He then does this again, and again, 10 times in a row. Is it punishing them to make them pay for the treatment? Why should the populace at large pay for their treatment? How is it disgusting to disagree and say "no, I don't want to pay for that person's treatment --- he should pay for it himself, at least after the 3rd jump"?

So because you claim some nebulous statistic that we should blindly believe, that just means we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and marginalize those countless people that have accumulated wealth in ways that don't involve starting with much wealth?

yeah man, everyday tons of people throw themselves off buildings for fun, this is definitely a scenario that actually happens and not some wild bullshit you've just made up to justify your increasingly inane and horrible position

also why are you caping so hard for the rich people? the extremely unfortunate rich people who are much more likely not to go bankrupt from treatment of a preventable illness, save your sympathy for the people who actually do need it

 

[ClosingADoor]

Did anyone say "Don't treat them"? I said let them (or their loved ones) pay for the treatment. Society at large doesn't need to shoulder the load. That might motivate them to not jump for the 11th time, or for their family members to watch over them and take care of them more closely etc. etc.

The person eating Big Macs super-sized everyday. Society doesn't owe that person their 3rd triple bypass. They should pay for it themselves and be motivated to eat less Big Macs (or at least not super-size them)

And what if they and their loved ones don't have the money to pay for it?

Yes, society at large should shoulder the load up to a point. Just like it shoulders the load for you with a ton of shit.

If you think the possibility of not being able to pay for medical care after your 11th suicide attempt is going to prevent someone from trying to commit suicide, I don't even know what to say.

You are making up all kind of strange cases here. Let's say your grandfather ate healthy all his life and still needs that bypass, but we don't have the funds. Does he deserve to die?

 

[Ferr986]

It is,no excuses needed. One of the few thigns that Im proud of my country (Spain).

Seriously, the lack of empathy in some post here is terryfing, but I guess it shows how America is going nowadays...

 

[Planx]

Gotta love the eternal struggle of people who don't care that 100 people would be saved if 1 "undeserving" person is also saved vs people who don't care that 1 undeserving person is saved as long as it saves 100 people

 

[Hierophant]

Did anyone say "Don't treat them"? I said let them (or their loved ones) pay for the treatment. Society at large doesn't need to shoulder the load. That might motivate them to not jump for the 11th time, or for their family members to watch over them and take care of them more closely etc. etc.

The person eating Big Macs super-sized everyday. Society doesn't owe that person their 3rd triple bypass. They should pay for it themselves and be motivated to eat less Big Macs (or at least not super-size them)

hint hint, if someone jumps off a building ten times like you say, they're probably not right in the head and society should bear the burden for their mental health, at least, most of society in other western countries seem to believe so

do you seriously think someone who eats big macs everyday won't cut it down after the first triple bypass? you really expect me to believe that someone would continue on a path to self destruction that way? most people aren't automatons programmed to continue on, many people change and better themselves after major events in their life such as maybe a medical procedure, to follow your strained example, you are using cases (bullshit ones at that), that would never ever happen in real life, and if it did, it would be the single outlier in a country of millions

 

[Snkfanatic]

Fluffer going hard on "what if" isms.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Did anyone say "Don't treat them"? I said let them (or their loved ones) pay for the treatment. Society at large doesn't need to shoulder the load. That might motivate them to not jump for the 11th time, or for their family members to watch over them and take care of them more closely etc. etc.

The person eating Big Macs super-sized everyday. Society doesn't owe that person their 3rd triple bypass. They should pay for it themselves and be motivated to eat less Big Macs (or at least not super-size them)

Those people need mental health treatment. Since poverty is correlated with mental health issues, they probably can't afford it. Which means they will die a painful death and before they'll be living miserable lives of unfulfilled potential. In a civilized country they would have received treatment early and maybe they'd have become doctors, enterpreneurs, engineers, or maybe taxi drivers, and they would also have made their loved ones happier.
Is it that hard to grasp that society at large benefits from this? Where are your overlords going to get good workers from if they are all sick and uneducated because they can't aford education and healthcare?

 

[Hierophant]

Fluffer going hard on "what if" isms.

"sure millions of people survive treatable diseases but my tax dollars might go to one guy who continuously tries to attempt suicide, this is a sham"

 

[ElNino]

very irrational person right? shouldn't have gotten appendicitis

$11k after insurance for appendicitis... ridiculous.

A friend of mine recently had his appendix removed in an emergency surgery, and paid exactly $0 out of pocket here (Canada). I've discussed here previously as well the medical services I have received (numerous x-rays, ultrasounds, blood tests, MRI, bone scans, etc) as well as regular visits to a rheumatologist and respirologist, all of which are covered under OHIP. I can afford private health care, but for 99.9% of our cases it makes no sense to do so.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

100 people need a new kidney, 1 kidney is available. Whose unalienable right is it to get that kidney?
If you eat shit and don't exercise whose responsibility is it to treat that diabetes and failing heart?

Wtf, that's what dialysis is for.

Yeah people will still die due to a lack of organ donors, which is another issue of countries being opt in instead of opt out, but that has nothing to die with universal healthcare coverage.

You can't buy a kidney legally in most countries, you get put on a list that is intended not to discriminate.

Diabetes is a sickness. Heck it's still tradititon to swear an oath to treat sick people for medical graduates, even when it's obviously not binding.

 

[shiyrley]

I see Fluffernutter Pancake is still engaging with people who live in countries with universal healthcare about how universal healthcare isn't viable.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Honestly I never get people saying we can't afford it. Premiums are fucking sky high. People do realize that your employer pays a lot of your insurance, and that the final cost that you see is only a portion right? Unless you're pretty wealthy, its probably very unlikely that your higher taxes would be more than you currently pay for insurance. Especially if you're insuring a family.

 

[boiled goose]

Tons of cited sources here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States

Economic mobility in the USA is low, and inequality is high (the two are correlated)

Thanks didn't bother because super easy to find.

The fact that fluffer is uneducated on these basic realities just highlights the ignorance behind the arguments.

It's the typical sophomoric "my first right wing argument the" that has never been tested or gone more than one layer deep.

 

[Fledz]

For those of you who don't want to pay for someone elses treatment, what you need to understand is that you will eventually pay for it in some way that will end up costing you more. A sick populace costs more in the long run than a healthy populace. It also has an obvious impact on education and pretty much anything else tax revenue can be spent on.

It's mind boggling that pretty much every other Western country has figured this out yet but the US hasn't.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

"sure millions of people survive treatable diseases but my tax dollars might go to one guy who continuously tries to attempt suicide, this is a sham"

my "jumping off a building" wasn't a suicide thing ---- let's say the guy wasn't trying to kill himself. It was an analogy for countless self-destructive tendencies & vices that people have health-wise that they should be held accounted for through their own means for treatment.

Unhealthy eating. Smoking. Excessive drinking. Drugs. Risky physical acts. Etc.

hint hint, if someone jumps off a building ten times like you say, they're probably not right in the head and society should bear the burden for their mental health, at least, most of society in other western countries seem to believe so

do you seriously think someone who eats big macs everyday won't cut it down after the first triple bypass? you really expect me to believe that someone would continue on a path to self destruction that way? most people aren't automatons programmed to continue on, many people change and better themselves after major events in their life such as maybe a medical procedure, to follow your strained example, you are using cases (bullshit ones at that), that would never ever happen in real life, and if it did, it would be the single outlier in a country of millions

I can speak firsthand that there are countless people who do not follow medical advice or healthy living styles even though they are given tons of medical counseling, treatment etc. and giving tons of education on healthy living.

They do what they want to do. Whatever is convenient or feels good or satisfies their own personal urges.

Throwing treatment & advice at them for free isn't going to change their ways. And this isn't an outlier statistic --- this is probably the majority of people, from what I hear from actual physicians. Those who pay for their treatment actually take it seriously. Many of those who get it for free take it for granted and blow off the advice & recommended treatments, and wind up back in their office, on society's dime. If they actually had a stake in the game, they might actually be motivated to do what the doctor tells them to do and actually make better decisions.

 

[Planx]

I see Fluffernutter Pancake is still engaging with people who live in countries with universal healthcare about how universal healthcare isn't viable.

Well you know there's a ravenous horde of obese 3-pack-a-day smokers just jonesing for a third donated lung that'll get it instead of John Galt

 

[ClosingADoor]

I can speak firsthand that there are countless people who do not follow medical advice or healthy living styles even though they are given tons of medical counseling, treatment etc. and giving tons of education on healthy living.

They do what they want to do. Whatever is convenient or feels good or satisfies their own personal urges.

Throwing treatment & advice at them for free isn't going to change their ways. And this isn't an outlier statistic --- this is probably the majority of people, from what I hear from actual physicians.

Those who pay for their treatment actually take it seriously. Many of those who get it for free take it for granted and blow off the advice & recommended treatments, and wind up back in their office, on society's dime. If they actually had a stake in the game, they might actually be motivated to do what the doctor tells them to do and actually make better decisions.

And for everyone of those people, there are a dozen who will take the advise. Please show me the statistics you are talking about.

How can someone pay for a treatment they have no money for? And how are they now getting it for free? You make no sense.

How come the US, where medical treatment is more expensive, is less healthy then most European countries, where healthcare is affordable to most. Because I don't see people here stuffing themselves with big Macs all day because they can get a cheap bypass surgery.

You are also talking about how "they" are not going to change. But guess what, decades of expensive medical treatment didn't change this in the US also. So what exactly are the upsides here?

 

[boiled goose]

For those of you who don't want to pay for someone else treatment, what you need to understand is that you will eventually pay for it in some way that will end up costing you more. A sick populace costs more in the long run than a healthy populace. It also has an obvious impact on education and pretty much anything else tax revenue can be spent on.

It's mind boggling that pretty much every other Western country has figured this out yet that US hasn't.

It's also an absurdly simplistic argument

"I don't want to pay for it"

"My money"

"My treatment"

Who paid your salary? Who set and enforced laws that allow for a stable , productive society? Who paid for doctor's education? Equipment? Medical research? Drug development?

We all did. Wealth in itself is already part of societal contract. It's not an absolute thing.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

And for everyone of those people, there are a dozen who will take the advise. Please show me the statistics you are talking about.
.

I'll show you mine when you show me yours ---- I speak from the standpoint of discussions with physicians from many different specialities, ranging from GP to Radiology to Ob/Gyn to Neurology

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'll show you mine when you show me yours ---- I speak from the standpoint of discussions with physicians from many different specialities, ranging from GP to Radiology to Ob/Gyn to Neurology

What? I didn't come up with statistics. You said "And this isn't an outlier statistic". So show me then.

 

[Mr. Bad Example]

"I've talked to doctors" is the "My uncle totally works for Nintendo" of this kind of argument, you realize.

 

[Planx]

my "jumping off a building" wasn't a suicide thing ---- let's say the guy wasn't trying to kill himself. It was an analogy for countless self-destructive tendencies & vices that people have health-wise that they should be held accounted for through their own means for treatment.

Unhealthy eating. Smoking. Excessive drinking. Drugs. Risky physical acts. Etc.



I can speak firsthand that there are countless people who do not follow medical advice or healthy living styles even though they are given tons of medical counseling, treatment etc. and giving tons of education on healthy living.

They do what they want to do. Whatever is convenient or feels good or satisfies their own personal urges.

Throwing treatment & advice at them for free isn't going to change their ways. And this isn't an outlier statistic --- this is probably the majority of people, from what I hear from actual physicians.

Those who pay for their treatment actually take it seriously. Many of those who get it for free take it for granted and blow off the advice & recommended treatments, and wind up back in their office, on society's dime. If they actually had a stake in the game, they might actually be motivated to do what the doctor tells them to do and actually make better decisions.

Do you know why they're making those decisions? Are they spiteful to the system? Do they know the impact their decisions are having and are gleefully making them anyway just to show it to those know-it-all doctors?

Or maybe they have shit lives where they work 3 part time jobs and the only thing they can afford to do to enjoy themselves is to eat easy to make, but unhealthy food and smoke cigarettes. But maybe if you add on onerous healthcare costs to the shitheap that is their lives that'll be the straw on the camels back that gets them to pull up by the bootstraps, take an hour long bus out to the nice part of town where the organic grocery store is and pay 3x as much for food that won't slowly kill them

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

I see Fluffernutter Pancake is still engaging with people who live in countries with universal healthcare about how universal healthcare isn't viable.

Yeah it's a bit weird, like, it works. I know because I'm alive thanks to it tank you very much.
And his arguments about enterpeneurship and bootstraps and "being deserving" and "people wouldn't want to be doctors" is bullshit.
Being a doctor is very desirable here, socially and financially.
But let him be I guess.

 

[Fenderputty]

I don't necessarily like framing this is a "basic human right". There is no such thing. We make them up. We change them. We redefine them. We manipulate them. We systematically make "basic human right" feel different to different people.

I suppose it's more of a semantics issue, but I prefer to just think of it as being "decent". It's not even "Good" in the altruistic sense. It's just being decent. Especially when we're the richest and supposedly the most pious country on the planet. It also happens to be the most practical thing to do as well.

Like Fluffernutter Pancakes is making some argument about rights and shit when he should just stop to think, "Am I a terrible person for making this argument?"

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

"I've talked to doctors" is the "My uncle totally works for Nintendo" of this kind of argument, you realize.

LOL


Well, I hope you (we) all magically get what you desire someday and that somehow quality of care & medical progress is maintained.

This conversation is seeming to go around in circles, and I've thrown out about as much as I can.

My final take: preventative care for free = good & sustainable. Unlimited care for free = not possible without severely lowering standards.

I am not a right wing nutjob (or even right-wing for that matter), and I will not label anyone in here with an opinion different than mine as a left-wing nutjob.

I've found merit in many of the rebutting posts to mine, and I hope some of you have found some merit in at least some of what I've posted that has disagreed with you.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

 

[Gravy Boat]

I'm from the UK. When I visited the US a few years ago, my girlfriend go ill while we were in the airport getting ready to go home. The airport called her an ambulance and we went to the hospital, left a couple of hours later after an xray and some blood tests. A few weeks later we get a bill for $4000 through the mail, around $1000 of which was the the ambulance that we didn't even call that took us to the hospital 15 minutes away. $1000.

Meanwhile, a few years ago I had issues with my lungs requiring me to get surgery on both of them. Overall I spent about a month in hospital (2 weeks per operation) and didn't need to pay a single thing. Realistically how much would that 2 week stay have cost me in the US? It's scary to think about.

 

[Hierophant]

LOL


Well, I hope you (we) all magically get what you desire someday and that somehow quality of care & medical progress is maintained.

This conversation is seeming to go around in circles, and I've thrown out about as much as I can.

My final take: preventative care for free = good & sustainable. Unlimited care for free = not possible without severely lowering standards.

I am not a right wing nutjob, and I will not label anyone in here with an opinion different than mine as a left-wing nutjob.

I've found merit in many of the rebutting posts to mine, and I hope some of you have found some merit in at least some of what I've posted that has disagreed with you.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

not a single one of your arguments had merit, you did not convince any single person here of your points and in fact, most of us reading your posts have become dumber due to how misinformed and frankly evil your worldview is, my only hope is that the majority of people are not sharing your viewpoint (and it doesn't seem like they are)

 

[ClosingADoor]

LOL


Well, I hope you (we) all magically get what you desire someday and that somehow quality of care & medical progress is maintained.

This conversation is seeming to go around in circles, and I've thrown out about as much as I can.

My final take: preventative care for free = good & sustainable. Unlimited care for free = not possible without severely lowering standards.

I am not a right wing nutjob, and I will not label anyone in here with an opinion different than mine as a left-wing nutjob.

I've found merit in many of the rebutting posts to mine, and I hope some of you have found some merit in at least some of what I've posted that has disagreed with you.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

So the moment you are asked to back up your points with actual data, you bail.

I think your understanding of "unlimited care" is a bit off in all of this. And well, this "magic" is going on in most European countries at this very moment, so take from that what you will.

 

[mantidor]

You know, even if it was unfeasible, and it's not as proved in dozens of other countries, it is still a right in the modern sense of it. It is statistically impossible to prevent 100% of all murders, assaults, robberies, etc but life and physical integrity are still basic rights and governments still invest money in law enforcement institutions and justice systems, and (at least on paper), everyone has access to these systems equally.

The argument some of you are proposing is pretty much like: "well 100% police unlimited coverage is impossible, right? Think of the costs! The only solution is for law enforcement to be private and each neighborhood/house should subside its own local police". That's how crazy it sounds. If police as an institution bothers you then change it to firemen or something.

 

[CloudWolf]

I don't think it's a right, there's nothing inherent about healthcare that means it should be available to everyone.

Except for, you know, keeping people healthy and alive?

 

[Ferr986]

LOL


Well, I hope you (we) all magically get what you desire someday and that somehow quality of care & medical progress is maintained.

This conversation is seeming to go around in circles, and I've thrown out about as much as I can.

My final take: preventative care for free = good & sustainable. Unlimited care for free = not possible without severely lowering standards.

I am not a right wing nutjob (or even right-wing for that matter), and I will not label anyone in here with an opinion different than mine as a left-wing nutjob.

I've found merit in many of the rebutting posts to mine, and I hope some of you have found some merit in at least some of what I've posted that has disagreed with you.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

I don't know how you can't see that what you call magic is a reality in most European countries, and we're doing fine.
I mean, just say you don't want it, but don't say it's not possible or "magic" because that's false.