A different angle on the nationalized health care bit

[HaloGuardian]

Those of you who at least somewhat support nationalized health care, what are your thoughts on restrictions on what you can and can not do when you are on the governments health care plan?

Should we all have to pay for someone who smoked 8 packs a day's lung cancer treatment?

Should we all have to pay for 80,000 calorie a day sit on my ass all day steve's quadruple bipass?

Should we all have to pay for treatment for someone who refuses to take a vaccine for religious or personal reasons and they get sick even though it may or may not be related to the disease or sickness the vaccine was for?

Should abortions be payed for by all of us, as well as the follow up treatments, counseling, etc.?

If a government doctor says someone must take a certain medication and they refuse and want something they believe is better should we have to pay for it?

[cursed74]

no
no
no
no
no

[outsider]

We already do all of those things through the emergency room at a far greater cost to taxpayers than universal health care should cost.

[Kewl]

i don't see how you'd exclude those medical expenses, paying for unnecessary medical treatments and slow ER, MRI's, CAT Scans, etc come with the territory.

one thing they started here was a wealthness program where they reimburse you a certain amount a year for healthy choices (gym memberships, fitness equipment, etc.) and recently a no smoking tolerance in all places of employment. So before you could smoke in a company car (really hurts truckers), now you can't and you have to be 5 meters from any door aswell.

[djangojazz]

Those of you who at least somewhat support nationalized health care, what are your thoughts on restrictions on what you can and can not do when you are on the governments health care plan?

You should be able to do everything you just have to goose step while doing it because anything for the people must be for communists so we need to keep up appearances.


Should we all have to pay for someone who smoked 8 packs a day's lung cancer treatment?

No we should let them die in the street while packing more smokes in their mouth and forcing them to shoot 4 liters of Southern Comfort and point at them and laugh like good Americans.


Should we all have to pay for 80,000 calorie a day sit on my ass all day steve's quadruple bipass?

Of course but only if he drives at least a super duty F350, rarely reads, and get's all his facts from television. Those people are the lifeblood of America.


Should we all have to pay for treatment for someone who refuses to take a vaccine for religious or personal reasons and they get sick even though it may or may not be related to the disease or sickness the vaccine was for?

I say under an established health care system we must first let the person write on numerous blogs of what they think of the system and make a novel on their religion. Debate on a true to life miniseries what their blog meant, then tell them we honor their faith with our humble medicine.


Should abortions be payed for by all of us, as well as the follow up treatments, counseling, etc.?

I think abortions should be handled only by ministers of the most devout baptist churches using their bare hands alone.


If a government doctor says someone must take a certain medication and they refuse and want something they believe is better should we have to pay for it?

Of course not who believes doctors anyway, commercials and People magazine ads know best. If something looks wrong because you spent 5 seconds reading an ad or blog of course that is more substantial evidence than a doctor's opinion.


Eww eww I have more:

1. If a patient happens to slip on water in a hospital under a united system who can he sue under the new system? If he cannot sue, who could he sue if he thought he was still under a paying system? If he thought he could sue someone still is he entitled to still sue them?

2. If everything is paid for equally how do corporations still make money off their commercials for ED? I want to know how many groups should be formed to explore the benefits of ED commercials running lunch, dinner and weekends and how someone's problematic ED commercial is better for my eating than not seeing it.

3. If a train is going west from Chicago heading 80 miles an hour and another train going 70 miles an hour out of San Fransisco leaves at the same time. If they are 800 miles apart, but one is caring nationalized doctors and one is caring private practice doctors how does that effect the trains speed when they arrive? Will the doctors fight since we know through history doctors from other countries fight each other and don't share info.

[Team Brian GB]

What you do or don't do with your healthcare provision is your prerogative, but what I don't understand is how having free healthcare is communist.

[fibula]

Australia has a universal national health care system. As far as I know the restrictions is that you can't use it for chiropractic, dental, optical and ambulance costs

It's funded by an income tax surcharge of 1.5%, with an exemption for low income earners.

I think there's both pluses and minuses to it

[HaloGuardian]

You should be able to do everything you just have to goose step while doing it because anything for the people must be for communists so we need to keep up appearances.



No we should let them die in the street while packing more smokes in their mouth and forcing them to shoot 4 liters of Southern Comfort and point at them and laugh like good Americans.



Of course but only if he drives at least a super duty F350, rarely reads, and get's all his facts from television. Those people are the lifeblood of America.



I say under an established health care system we must first let the person write on numerous blogs of what they think of the system and make a novel on their religion. Debate on a true to life miniseries what their blog meant, then tell them we honor their faith with our humble medicine.



I think abortions should be handled only by ministers of the most devout baptist churches using their bare hands alone.



Of course not who believes doctors anyway, commercials and People magazine ads know best. If something looks wrong because you spent 5 seconds reading an ad or blog of course that is more substantial evidence than a doctor's opinion.


Eww eww I have more:

1. If a patient happens to slip on water in a hospital under a united system who can he sue under the new system? If he cannot sue, who could he sue if he thought he was still under a paying system? If he thought he could sue someone still is he entitled to still sue them?

2. If everything is paid for equally how do corporations still make money off their commercials for ED? I want to know how many groups should be formed to explore the benefits of ED commercials running lunch, dinner and weekends and how someone's problematic ED commercial is better for my eating than not seeing it.

3. If a train is going west from Chicago heading 80 miles an hour and another train going 70 miles an hour out of San Fransisco leaves at the same time. If they are 800 miles apart, but one is caring nationalized doctors and one is caring private practice doctors how does that effect the trains speed when they arrive? Will the doctors fight since we know through history doctors from other countries fight each other and don't share info.


You mock my post but you know damn well that nanny-staters like yourself will use the "well you shouldn't live like that anyways" excuse when health care is refused to smokers, obese, and the in-active. It's bound to happen with a fully government controlled health care system. Just like the anti-smoker fiasco going on with forced smoke free bars and restaurants. People think they have a right to tell a business owner how to run their business, just like the government will pit people against each other with health care "Why should you have to pay for someone who smokes, doesn't work, eats way too much, and has never exercised?"

[djangojazz]

You mock my post but you know damn well that nanny-staters like yourself will use the "well you shouldn't live like that anyways" excuse when health care is refused to smokers, obese, and the in-active. It's bound to happen with a fully government controlled health care system. Just like the anti-smoker fiasco going on with forced smoke free bars and restaurants. People think they have a right to tell a business owner how to run their business, just like the government will pit people against each other with health care "Why should you have to pay for someone who smokes, doesn't work, eats way too much, and has never exercised?"

What's a nanny stater? Someone that supports care for all?

Healthcare is already refused to you under the current system under those things. If you have asthma you have a hard time getting insurance to pay for your insurance UNDER ANY PROVIDER, if you smoke your doctor will try to get you to quit and coverage on certain things may be more expensive, if you are sick and try to get coverage you will definitely get denied if you openly disclose that when filling out a medical form for submission to an insurance carrier. Under the new system you are afraid that people eating bad, or engaging vices will be covered and you think that's a sham? Well that's why you vote on measures on the state level. Oregon voted on a measure to tax cigarettes even more last November and it was rejected. You vote on things you take issue with in a representative nation and I know of no plans to change that.

What if, what if, what if. I know the current system fails and has failed me personally and I'm sick of it and I have direct experience filing claims with Aetna, Providence, and paying out of pocket with 3rd party carrier providers as well as working in an office across from the bookkeeper that administers plans. I don't think a system where you have to pay someone and they can deny you limbs, care, or possibly your life because they can argue in their policy they don't have to and are each year asking to be paid more and cover less. I really am not afraid of the boogey man nationalized care system like everyone else is, because I don't see it failing in many industrialized countries.

[outsider]

I think what he means by "nanny-stater" is someone who thinks the government "knows what's best" as a nanny for a child would act. A nanny-state will tell you when to take your medicine, to eat healthy foods at the risk of losing sleep or dessert, punish you for doing things that are bad for you and so on.


If we had universal health care the question is posed as should those who partake in vices be covered at out expense. Should we perform gastric bypasses 4 times because someone loves them some McDonalds? It's the same line I believe as should we allow families to buy junk food on food stamps? It's a cited and predicted abuse.

If private healthcare wasn't such a failure I wouldn't be in favor of universal healthcare. For some however Universal Health Care may be the only way to get care whether they can afford it or not.

[Kewl]

Can a guy who supports his family on minimum wage afford to take 1-6 hours off work to goto the er in universal?

[outsider]

You wouldn't have to go to the ER to be guaranteed health care with Universal Health Care.

[Kewl]

....:eyeroll:

Anywhere you go with universal you're going to have to wait longer then a private system, both systems are flawed equally.

[outsider]

Not really. With Universal Health Care you can go to a doctor without incuring huge debts since the only way some can get health care is through the very expensive ERs. The only reason you would have to wait longer is more people being able to make use of servcies and access to preventative health care as opposed to emergency health care.

Only having acces to an ER creates an undue burden on the ER and pushes it beyond it's intent as a service for emergencies.

No Universal Health Care means more people tie up the ER for non-emergency visits which means those with emergencies are displaced. It means that a person supporting a family on minimum wage can't afford to go to the hospital at all because if he does he will be in debt for the next 10 years. It means that if that person had had access to regular checkups that he is more likely to need emergency care for something that would have likely been caught in a normal checkup.

[Kewl]

Do you know how many people in universal systems don't have a doctor? Millions.

Regular checks ups are great all, but there's things like colds, viruses, injuries that aren't reduced by check ups. Say for example you have a bad cough, you need to get it checked out pretty quick...where do you go? Book an appointment with your physician? Well now with this public healthcare you're doctor now has double, triple the patients...good luck. So you'll have to goto the ER or a walk in clinic, where you will wait for a fairly long time.

[outsider]

You seem to forget that waiting a very long time is better than not being able to at all.

Ask yourself why people with universal health care don't have doctors?

[fibula]

Do you know how many people in universal systems don't have a doctor? Millions.

Regular checks ups are great all, but there's things like colds, viruses, injuries that aren't reduced by check ups. Say for example you have a bad cough, you need to get it checked out pretty quick...where do you go? Book an appointment with your physician? Well now with this public healthcare you're doctor now has double, triple the patients...good luck. So you'll have to goto the ER or a walk in clinic, where you will wait for a fairly long time.

I can only speak from an Australian view, but it's not like that at all. Everyone has access to a doctor or a nearby medical centre.

Most people would have doctors now right? The only mass influx of patients that you mean would be people who couldn’t afford to see doctors before. Which generally would be a good thing, instead of sick people running around.

I think the main downside of universal health care is that the quality might go down, mainly due to the fact that doctors might be getting less pay for more work. That's been the problems with some of them

[HaloGuardian]

I haven't seen statistics recently but I believe that most of the expenses in the health care system just come from the basic will of people to survive.

When people get old they have heart problems. Treatment and surgery for that isn't cheap.

People of all ages get cancer. The treatments for that can be very expensive and involve long hospital visits.

As people age their vital organs will deteriorate or fail. It's not free to treat this stuff.

As new treatments come out, and the baby boomers getting older the cost of health care will only continue to go up. I'm not going to argue that "private" (I put it in quotations because it's not really private when they are joined with the government right now) has it's pitfalls. I think the biggest pitfall was when health care was linked with employment many years ago. Unless I'm buying into an urban legend I believe it was because of a mandatory nationwide wage freeze so some companies gave it out as an added benefit.

My job offers health insurance that I could opt out of for $1000/year but I don't think I could buy a plan for that just for myself, a single young male in reasonably good health. That's a huge problem. What do we do to solve it? I really don't have an answer. I'm more concernced with the loss of liberty, the war in Iraq, the weakening of the dollar, and our growing debt than that to be honest. If our economy collapses no one will have health care except the top .001% and they will have to go to another country to get it.

I do know this though, if the federal government takes it over it won't be the system you want. You know the health care industry (pharmaceuticals and insurance) will lobby and have a huge involvement in the system implemented, how wouldn't they? Of course since their goal is to make money (which business isn't?) they will take what they can get from it.

At least now their is at least some (all be it almost no) competition. I can just imagine the day a fully comprehensive health care system takes place. Every company that offers health care would eliminate it as a benefit. People's wages slightly increase so they go shop around for a plan. They realize it costs more and settle with the government plan. This happens everywhere in the country, and the small insurance companies who don't have lobbies go out of business. You know have 1 choice for health care unless you are extremely wealthy. You will take the government care and like it. Whatever rules they make you have to deal with because you have no other choice. If they put you on a long waiting list, oh well. If they refuse alternative treatments deal with it. You want something that costs more you pay for it. After this happens what stops the cost from increasing drastically? The government can say it costs whatever they say it does, and of course most if it lines the politicians pockets and pays for overhead.

We will have 1 giant one-size-fits-none corporate health care plan. Of course the marketing and media (who are big corporations with ties to the health care industry) will tell us otherwise as it's being implemented but it won't be reality.

I just can't get over the trust of people who spy on us, take our money for their own benefit, take us into war for any reason (national defense is never the reason), tell us who and how much money we can give to get someone elected, ban us from certain activities, infiltrate other governments to elect puppet governments, and make this country bankrupt.

You want these same scum of the earth telling you which doctor you can go to, what treatments you will have, what medicines you can and can not take, and what physical activities and foods you can and can not eat?

I'm not buying what they are selling.

(And it "works" in some other countries, but they don't have nearly the amount of citizens, Canada and Australia, and unless I'm completely wrong they don't develop and manufacture nearly the amount of new technologies and treatment that we do here. If you put the bill for R&D on another country it's much cheaper for you)

[Kewl]

You seem to forget that waiting a very long time is better than not being able to at all.

Ask yourself why people with universal health care don't have doctors?
In the end is it not going to have the same effect, lose time & money either way under private or public health.

People with universal don't have doctors because A) Doctors in universal leave the country to make more money B) There's more people who can get healthcare...which was exactly what I was pointing at as a flaw of universal. You seem to shoot down private and praise public as the mighty allah, when it really is nothing close. A hybrid system is what I'd really like to see, especially where I live the universal is adequate but adding a private sector would in make it so much for effiecent in theory.

FYI Canada is pretty up there in developing new medinces, the UofA is world known for it's cancer and diabetes stuff.

[outsider]

So the big travesty for you is that more peolpe can go to the doctor?