Support NeoGAF

[Elfotografoalocado]

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!

Come to Spain and watch how we enjoy not becoming bankruot with our cancer treatment and heart surgery thanks to our left wing nutjobness. It's a good thing we have actual economists and doctors to figure out medical treatment for us.
(They even get paid great salaries)

 

[ElNino]

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.

Or Canada for that matter.

 

[avaya]

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.

This is not a more efficient system. It is a pure fantasy that the government system with monopsony power is less efficient. It is singularly the most efficient system for healthcare provision. Period.

 

[CloudWolf]

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

But this is simply not true, tons of countries provide unlimited care for free and almost all of these countries are as good if not better than the United States when it comes to healthcare.

 

[jungomitis]

Yes /thread

 

[Rockandrollclown]

This is not a more efficient system. It is a pure fantasy that the government system with monopsony power is less efficient. It is singularly the most efficient system for healthcare provision. Period.

yup, there's a reason that a surgery and hospital stay doesn't actually cost $70,000 in other countries. Government would never pay such outlandish costs. Like completely remove insurance from the equation, in America we pay like 100x more than anyone else in the world for similar treatment. I think a lot of people who say we can't afford it don't get that prices would have to come down. American healthcare prices are untenable under any system.

 

[Fenderputty]

This is not a more efficient system. It is a pure fantasy that the government system with monopsony power is less efficient. It is singularly the most efficient system for healthcare provision. Period.

There are highly efficient multipayer systems int he world. Most of the graphs I've seen place Germany and Japan near the top for reference.

 

[avaya]

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!

You make assertions not supported in fact which can be easily refuted by simple observation of the developed worlds healthcare infrastructure.

 

[hoserx]

Yes /thread

You can't do that 8 pages into an argument where other people have already made actual arguments on both sides. /post

 

[Fenderputty]

You can't do that 8 pages into an argument where other people have already made actual arguments on both sides. /post

Who's made an actual argument for the "no" side that doesn't involve some nebulous definition of what a "right" is?

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

Debatable.

Public school's education levels are not equal.

And poorer people have no where near the same opportunities in education.

That's not debatable at all. Everybody has a right to "free" public education. It is a right in the US. Debating the quality of schools is a different topic.

We can say healthcare is a right in some other countries, because everyone is covered for "free", we can then debate the quality of it, which is also a different matter.

 

[shiyrley]

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.

It's funny because our point is that we live in a real, tangible country that is doing what he calls impossible right now, one of them (Canada) being almost the exact same size as the US, while his point is "yeah, I know a doctor". And he expects to convince one single person that he's right?

- Free healthcare isn't viable!
- It works in Spain, they even pay for any required trips, etc etc
- But the canary islands are a small place! Imagine if it was big!
- ...Spain isn't just the Canary Islands
- The USA is bigger! Also free healthcare = no motivation to study medicine!
- Canada exists and it's pretty big. Free healthcare countries have great doctors, thus invalidating that dumb point.
- *Proceeds to ignore me*

That's our interactions in a nutshell.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This is not a more efficient system. It is a pure fantasy that the government system with monopsony power is less efficient. It is singularly the most efficient system for healthcare provision. Period.

Over here in the Netherlands, and I think also in Germany and some others, we use this system. Basic package is required for everyone, government sets rules for it and insurance companies have to follow it. It's working pretty OK with that.

As long as everyone gets the treatment they need in a reasonable and affordable way, it is fine by me really. Personally I find this option the best, but other countries can do their thing of course. As long as they actually give their people the healthcare they need.

 

[smuf]

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.




very irrational person right? shouldn't have gotten appendicitis

To put this in perspective, I paid about 100 euro for the same procedure when I was 24.

 

[Fledz]

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

So do I, as a pharmaceutical rep that has worked in both the UK and Australia. So I can tell you that you're flat out wrong.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

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)

Evil --- wow. I would hope most others reading through this thread would find your posts as hyperbolic, wrong, and your name-calling out-of-line. You have a pretty disdainful way of talking to those whom you disagree with ---- but hey, you have a screen to hide behind while you throw out assertions like that, so it's all good, right?

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.

No, that's not at all what I've done. I use the word "statistically" and all of a sudden, I need to provide some sort of statistic that you request or else nothing that I've posted has meaning & value? Please.

In fact, no one in here is providing statistics, and the most anyone is doing is throwing out there "hey look, it worked in my country!" without thinking at all about the rest of how their country compares to other such as the US and its citizens. None of us can provide statistics like that. That's why this discussion, for the most part, is pretty shallow.

It's funny because our point is that we live in a real, tangible country that is doing what he calls impossible right now, one of them (Canada) being almost the exact same size as the US, while his point is "yeah, I know a doctor". And he expects to convince one single person that he's right?

- Free healthcare isn't viable!
- It works in Spain, they even pay for any required trips, etc etc
- But the canary islands are a small place! Imagine if it was big!
- ...Spain isn't just the Canary Islands
- The USA is bigger! Also free healthcare = no motivation to study medicine!
- Canada exists and it's pretty big. Free healthcare countries have great doctors, thus invalidating that dumb point.
- *Proceeds to ignore me*

That's our interactions in a nutshell.

LOL --- OK, I have to enter back in here. You reference Canada as an example of a universal healthcare system with a size almost the same as the US.

Canada has a population of 36 million. The biggest country anyone has quoted is the UK, which has population of 65 million.

The US has a population of 325 million.

Just because a country is the same geographical size as another doesn't mean it is the same "size" when it comes to free universal healthcare.

But if I wasn't here being the one person going against the hive mindset in this thread, everyone would just read your post and agree with it.........."oh, yes.....Canada the same size as the US........of course! See? Why doesn't the US have universal healthcare? Canada and the US ar ethe same size! It would be so easy! They should just do it!" .........................

You wanted statistics ---- well, there is one for you.

 

[Fenderputty]

Over here in the Netherlands, and I think also in Germany and some others, we use this system. Basic package is required for everyone, government sets rules for it and insurance companies have to follow it. It's working pretty OK with that.

As long as everyone gets the treatment they need in a reasonable and affordable way, it is fine by me really. Personally I find this option the best, but other countries can do their thing of course. As long as they actually give their people the healthcare they need.

People in the US (on the left) have been led to believe there's only two systems in the world and only one works. Single Payer which does and the garbage we have which doesn't.

I honestly feel our inability to see anything in between may actually hurt our ability to achieve UHC.

Evil --- wow. I would hope most others reading through this thread would find your posts as hyperbolic, wrong, and your name-calling out-of-line. You have a pretty disdainful way of talking to those whom you disagree with ---- but hey, you have a screen to hide behind while you throw out assertions like that, so it's all good, right?

.

You're the one arguing treatment for cancer patients isn't sustainable (even when other countries are sustaining just fine). Maybe, you know, take a look in the fucking mirror.

In fact, no one in here is providing statistics, and the most anyone is doing is throwing out there "hey look, it worked in my country!" without thinking at all about the rest of how their country compares to other such as the US and its citizens. None of us can provide statistics like that. That's why this discussion, for the most part, is pretty shallow.

This is a terrible argument. "hey it works in my country" is something that's verifiable. That you don't like this veracity of this claim and therefore apply some stupid metric so that you can obfuscate isn't convincing.

LOL --- OK, I have to enter back in here. You reference Canada as an example of a universal healthcare system with a size almost the same as the US.

Canada has a population of 36 million. The biggest country anyone has quoted is the UK, which has population of 65 million.

The US has a population of 325 million.

Can you explain why you feel this is meaningful?

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

If you live in a society, social care, which includes healthcare, should be a right and one worth fighting for.

I love our NHS and I despise what the government is doing to it. I see their mishandling as an act of aggression against everyone.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

The US has a population of 325 million.

Germany and UK add up to 148 Million alone. The EU has 500 million citizens most of which with access to universal healthcare.

 

[shiyrley]

LOL --- OK, I have to enter back in here. You reference Canada as an example of a universal healthcare system with a size almost the same as the US.

Canada has a population of 36 million. The biggest country anyone has quoted is the UK, which has population of 65 million.

The US has a population of 325 million.

Just because a country is the same geographical size as another doesn't mean it is the same "size" when it comes to free universal healthcare.

But if I wasn't here being the one person going against the hive mindset in this thread, everyone would just read your post and agree with it.........."oh, yes.....Canada the same size as the US........of course! See? Why doesn't the US have universal healthcare? Canada and the US ar ethe same size! It would be so easy! They should just do it!" .........................

You wanted statistics ---- well, there is one for you.

Congratulations, after all you have written in this thread you managed to have one (1) valid point.

You have presented us with how bigger the USA is compared to other countries. Now, how much richer is it?

Also earlier you asked why the elite shouldn't have the right to seek treatment wherever they like or something like that. Little surprise: They can. In Spain there's the public healthcare which works perfectly fine as my earlier example proves, and then there's the completely optional private healthcare, which is faster, which doesn't mean the public one isn't fast enough. They can coexist, and they do.

If you believe the USA isn't capable of having universal healthcare, well, you are delusional. If you don't think it should happen, you are evil.

Look - In my financial situation, if I had gotten the same cancer in the USA, probably my only option would have been to remove my left eye, if I could even afford that. The other option would be to die. According to the fucked up society of the USA, I wouldn't be "deserving" of preserving my left eye or even of being alive.

Germany and UK add up to 148 Million alone. The EU has 500 million citizens most of which with access to universal healthcare.

Also this - The entire European union can have universal healthcare, but the USA can't, because "the Earth doesn't have infinite resources".

 

[UrbanRats]

Germany and UK add up to 148 Million alone. The EU has 500 million citizens all of which with access to universal healthcare.

Yeah, if the USE ever becomes a thing, i don't see why it would immediately transition back to a worse healthcare system, when things are already working as they are.
Besides, the USA is divided into states, so you could look at it like that, too, as a metric of comparison.
It's certainly not a perfect comparison, but i also don't think anyone is expecting an overnight change.

 

[adamsapple]

If you're required to pay taxes, healthcare should damn well be a right.

 

[hanspampel]

But this is simply not true, tons of countries provide unlimited care for free and almost all of these countries are as good if not better than the United States when it comes to healthcare.

Name me one single country in the world, that provides every kind of healtcare unlimited and for free

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

Congratulations, after all you have written in this thread you managed to have one (1) valid point.

You have presented us with how bigger the USA is compared to other countries. Now, how much richer is it?

Also earlier you asked why the elite shouldn't have the right to seek treatment wherever they like or something like that. Little surprise: They can. In Spain there's the public healthcare which works perfectly fine as my earlier example proves, and then there's the completely optional private healthcare, which is faster, which doesn't mean the public one isn't fast enough. They can coexist, and they do.

If you believe the USA isn't capable of having universal healthcare, well, you are delusional. If you don't think it should happen, you are evil.

Evil: "profoundly immoral and malevolent." "profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force."

So if someone doesn't want to pay for another's misfortune be it due to bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the two, then they are evil?

That's an extreme view if I've ever seen one. Why don't we just lock up (or execute?) everyone that disagrees with you?

 

[Audioboxer]

Healthcare should not be privatised and the Government of a country should run it as a priority service funded by taxes.

I don't know if that technically makes it a right, but consequently a national publicly funded social service that those within the country have access to.

It's one of the most disappointing things about the USA, considering the supposed wealth of the country and everyone who pays in taxes.

 

[Fledz]

So if someone doesn't want to pay for another's misfortune be it due to bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the two, then they are evil?

Dude, it costs you more! You may not want to pony up the money now but you will eventually at likely a much higher amount. Universal healthcare reduces costs for the state. You don't want to pay for it? Tough shit, you're going to one way or another.

That's what living in a community is.

 

[Fenderputty]

Evil: "profoundly immoral and malevolent." "profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force."

So if someone doesn't want to pay for another's misfortune be it due to bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the two, then they are evil?

That's an extreme view if I've ever seen one. Why don't we just lock up (or execute?) everyone that disagrees with you?

Is is that it's not sustainable or is it that you just don't want to pay for it? LMFAO

What's amazing is this post makes it easier to argue you're just an awful person.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

Dude, it costs you more! You may not want to pony up the money now but you will eventually at likely a much higher amount. Universal healthcare reduces costs for the state. You don't want to pay for it? Tough shit, you're going to one way or another.

That's what living in a community is.

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Evil: "profoundly immoral and malevolent." "profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force."

So if someone doesn't want to pay for another's misfortune be it due to bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the two, then they are evil?

That's an extreme view if I've ever seen one. Why don't we just lock up (or execute?) everyone that disagrees with you?

Gonna go out on a limb and say that you are probably an evil person.

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

Why do you feel like people should have to beg to have healthcare? Does it make you feel powerful?

 

[ClosingADoor]

No, that's not at all what I've done. I use the word "statistically" and all of a sudden, I need to provide some sort of statistic that you request or else nothing that I've posted has meaning & value? Please.

In fact, no one in here is providing statistics, and the most anyone is doing is throwing out there "hey look, it worked in my country!" without thinking at all about the rest of how their country compares to other such as the US and its citizens. None of us can provide statistics like that. That's why this discussion, for the most part, is pretty shallow.

Yes, because you are using anecdotal evidence and expect us to believe it. If you can back up your claim with some research, please do so.

Why is the US this special country where things that work in others, suddenly don't? If your reason is: our citizens don't want it, that is fine. But it is not because it is impossible to do. There is no economic or geographical reason the US can not implement systems like Germany, Japan, the UK, Spain, Canada, etc, can.

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

How are insurance and taxes - which healthcare is paid from - charity? Those are two totally different things.

 

[CornBurrito]

In my opinion, no one has a "right" to another person's labor, so no, it shouldn't be a "right." However, I firmly believe in ensuring that healthcare is accessible and affordable for everyone within their means, and we are certainly wealthy enough as a society in the aggregate to make that happen.

Why then do I have the right to a fair trial, a right to an attorney, and a right to a jury of my peers?

All of that requires the labor of others.

 

[shiyrley]

Evil: "profoundly immoral and malevolent." "profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force."

So if someone doesn't want to pay for another's misfortune be it due to bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the two, then they are evil?

That's an extreme view if I've ever seen one. Why don't we just lock up (or execute?) everyone that disagrees with you?

Aha! It's not that it isn't viable. It's that you don't want to pay for it. You just admitted to it. Thank you very much for proving what I was suspecting. And yes, if you aren't okay with the concept of sightly higher taxes so that everyone in the country is allowed to have healthcare and therefore have the right to be alive, yeah, you are evil. Also you ignored the parts of the post you weren't able to counter, as usual.

This debate is now over and you are not the winner.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

That's not an example of how universal healthcare works anywhere.

 

[CornBurrito]

This thread is bonkers ---- we've got people

- talking about sky-is-the-limit healthcare being as easily renewable & easily supplied as basic food/water

- making equivalencies between basic infrastructure such as roads/bridges etc. with healthcare (i.e. extremely highly trained physicians, extremely fine-tuned/calibrated/manufactured specialized equipment, extremely sanitized & specialized facilities etc.)

- saying that if you don't agree with them that skies-the-limit healthcare for all is a right, a necessity and something that government must provide, then you must be a racist

etc. etc.

Anyone who has these sort of opinions needs to get to know some real people in the medical field. Talk to them. If you're able to see the amount of rigor & sacrifice that they go through during training, then that will be even better towards checking your opinion on this matter. Ask them about the actual costs of their services, how much power it takes to run certain machines, how many hours of time it takes to analyze results etc.

Think realistically here. Universal healthcare for all. "Why should anyone die from a treatable disease?" Let's just treat everyone! Cancer meds as ubiquitous as water! Highly trained specialists available round the clock at every corner! No malpractice that will ever need to be paid out! MRI machines that run on free power!

Come on, people --- I'd love to live in a world where no matter what I did during the day, I could have whatever I want to eat, drink etc. whenever I want, and to get treated for any illness in a timely manner in an amazing & thorough way whenever I want, to have a great roof over my head with no thought of maintenance or wear & tear, and with guaranteed income to spend on whatever I want. We have a finite Earth here with finite resources & ever-expanding people scrambling for resources. Until someone breaks the laws of physics and is able to create perpetual motion/limitless energy/"something-from nothing" etc., this is an impossible pipe dream.

Out of curiosity do we have infinite judges, infinite juries, and infinite public defenders?

Should legal counsel be stricken from the Constitution as a right? Or the right to a fair trial?

 

[Profanity]

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

Putting aside how utterly stupid this situation is, is that kid's cancer the only ailment anyone in the block will suffer from ever?

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Evil: "profoundly immoral and malevolent." "profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force."

So if someone doesn't want to pay for another's misfortune be it due to bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the two, then they are evil?

That's an extreme view if I've ever seen one. Why don't we just lock up (or execute?) everyone that disagrees with you?

But you do pay. Having an unhealthy population puts a strain on society. When people can't afford and just walk out on the bills the cost is passed on to you. When people have to go on welfare because of going bankrupt from medical costs, you are paying. We live in a society. It means we are all linked to an extent.

 

[Hierophant]

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

Is this some twisted example of the free market deciding if this kid dies of cancer?
This is repugnant and sociopathic.

 

[Crispy75]

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

Well, what would happen under the UK's system is that the child would have their cancer treated, and the amount of money everyone on your block would be paying for health insurance would be lower than what you currently pay. Nobody would have to beg. Nobody would have to worry.

 

[Cocaloch]

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.

Just because someone holds the land in feudal law doesn't make them "aristocrats" or "part of the aristocracy." This is an incredibly poisoned mindset to have that leads humanity to a very dark place.

Which is to say of course it makes them part of the elite. That's what the elite are in our society. What a bizarre argument.

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?

What's even going on in this thread? Rich people are not marginalized in our society, and they aren't in danger of being marginalized.

 

[CornBurrito]

Kids with cancer just need to bootstrap themselves and look cute and beg for donations.

Maybe they can juggle or dance (before the cancer gets too advanced) to raise the funds?

Seems reasonable. Right, Fluffernutter?

Plus if you treat the kids cancer he might play in the Uranium fields and get it 11 more times just because he knows it will be paid for.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

Yes, expecting a kid and their family to solely cover the cost of cancer treatment is pretty close to evil I’d say.

 

[CornBurrito]

Yes, expecting a kid and their family to solely cover the cost of cancer treatment is pretty close to evil I'd say.

My children do the RESPONSIBLE thing and work in the coal mines 14 hours a day to save up for medical insurance.

Also nobody would work if they knew cancer wouldn't bankrupt them and their family.

 

[shiyrley]

Kids with cancer just need to bootstrap themselves and look cute and beg for donations.

Maybe they can juggle or dance (before the cancer gets too advanced) to raise the funds?

Seems reasonable. Right, Fluffernutter?

Plus if you treat the kids cancer he might play in the Uranium fields and get it 11 more times just because he knows it will be paid for.

I mean, if you treat the kid's cancer he might grow up thinking that he deserves to be alive just because of being a human being and not because of working hard enough to pay the ridiculous cancer bills!

And we can't have that, can we? It's better for him to... not grow up, because he dies. Nice!

 

[lush]

If you don't believe that healthcare is a right in the United States of America in the year of our Lord two thousand and seventeen then you're probably a morally bankrupt, privileged individual with presumptively zero actual life experience that should consider yourself lucky that you've not yet had to deal with any health problems. Of course you'd then be the person chanting "I got mine" and spouting anecdotal garbage about unhealthy people just choosing the unhealthy lifestyle en masse. Fuck you.

"I don't even know how much cancer treatment costs!"

 

[game-boi]

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

Your sense of "CHARITY" is repugnant and a clear demonstration of why we shouldn't leave those with complex medical conditions to beg other *PEOPLE* like you for help.

 

[CornBurrito]

Crazy idea: Maybe we'd have more doctors if higher education was subsidized? A lot of people avoid higher education and medical school because of the expense. Medical students have lots of medical debt to pay off.

Maybe if everyone were provided with free or subsidized higher education, we'd have more doctors. Instead of having someone with the misfortune being born poor working at a 7/11 trying to make ends meet on poverty wages, we could have a heart surgeon.

 

[shiyrley]

Crazy idea: Maybe we'd have more doctors if higher education was subsidized? A lot of people avoid higher education and medical school because of the expense. Medical students have lots of medical debt to pay off.

But that's impossible! Not viable!
Wait, Spain does that too?

T-the USA is too big to do that!

 

[CornBurrito]

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums.

Drugs aren't the only expense. Patients must also pay for drugs that mitigate the side effects of chemotherapy, pay provider and facility fees and often lose income when they miss work or lose their jobs."

solution = your one neighbor ponies up some cash

 

[Fenderputty]

Guys ... he said he would help via charity ...lol

Remove the tax incentive for charity and watch it go poof. It's a nice way for conservatives to alleviate any guilt they may have when championing selfish go fuck yourself policy. If charity made a damn bit of difference, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

 

[Cocaloch]

Who's made an actual argument for the "no" side that doesn't involve some nebulous definition of what a "right" is?

Aren't the people that are making an argument based on a specific definition of right using an inherently less nebulous definition of right than those who aren't defining it?

This is a weird point.