Shameless plug for a good cause

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Our situation may not have been the worst out there. But it sucked. We made it. There is always something worse out there than what anyone is experiencing at any given time, certainly. I honestly do not understand, however, why anyone thinkfs that their misfortune or genetic impariments or whatever is the responsibility of anyone else. It's just a concept completely foreign to me, and I've been through it.

You have my admiration for sticking it out and making the best of a terrible situation. Still, I wouldn't wish the accompanying financial hardships on anyone.

While I understand that nobody's specific hardships should be your or anyone else's individual responsibility, am I wrong to think that it is good for society as a whole to voluntarily (important emphasis) try to alleviate suffering?

There are other angles to consider, too. Can we bring the cost of healthcare down? Can we institute reforms to the system so that doctors aren't burdened with legal costs, but patients have suficient redress for malpractice? I don't have much, or really any, confidence in government or the private sector to solve these problems. Still, "tough it out and remember that there are others worse off than you" is small comfort. (Though, admittedly, it's the system I'm currently on.) I don't want handouts, but I would like to be able to afford to take care of myself, and that isn't a realistic expectation right now. Seems like it should be.

[Kevy Baby]

The link above is broken, but I was able to figure it out. It is a site dedicated to all of the arguments in favor of UHC (not blasting that, just putting it into perspective).

I am surprised that no one has brought up Canada, as our neighbor to the north is often mentioned as a sucess of UHC. However, as people are discovering, the downside of UHC is POOR QUALITY OF CARE.

Off and on, I have looked into UHC. There are gazillions of links both pro and con. Each will provide the horror stories of what is wrong with the opposing idealogy - to the point of people that have died that would not have had they had their own type of health coverage. And that is BS.

People are not dying unnecessarily under our current health system. Yes, our current health care system has flaws. But UHC is not an answer - it is simply a whole new set of problems. A change that I am not willing to make as it is not progress!

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

The individual contributing to the common good goes on all the time. It's a scheme of society that's been quite successful over the course of human history.

By your logic, why should I pay for eduction when I have no school-age children?

You may disagree that health care should be treated like flood damage or road construction ... but don't pretend that individual contributions to common good (which may or may not benefit any given contributing individual) goes on all the time in modern society.

If people are not left to their own devices for basic education and basic infrastructure, I see no reason why they should be for the far more important role of basic health care.

We currently DO pay into a community pool (via taxes) for a health care system for those in need (Medicare, Medicade, etc.).

And if our education system is working so well, why are there so many people putting their children into PRIVATE schools? Doing so even though they are paying their taxes for the public education system as well? Because our Education system is so f-ed up by bureaucracy and government involvement. No, I don't think government should get out of the education business, I am just using this as an example of how government is not the savior it is being protrayed as via the creation of a UHC system.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

People are not dying unnecessarily under our current health system.

I'm not so sure about this, people certainly are forgoing prescribed prescriptions, which can't have a positive effect. Likewise I think people are putting off care, which also increases the chances of death. Granted these are choices people are making.

I think the real problem is the cost of health care has become so high, there are a gazillion tests and procedures one can undergo to rule out a certain diagnosis, and in the fear of mortality we certainly will want to try everything, including the high cost and experimental. As a result Insurance Companies are now gate keepers of care, no different than the government gate keepers in those horror stories. In any scenario, you have to set a base level, and there will be a population that disagrees with where that is set and people will die unnecessarily.

[Kevy Baby]

Okay, so we are getting rid of some of the surplus population.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Okay, so we are getting rid of some of the surplus population.

(ghostly wailing voice) Scrooooooooooge!

[scaeagles]

Whenever the issue of the poor quality of education is brought up, what is the solution? Throw more money at it. Raise taxes to pay for it. This happens in spite of the fact that it is not hard to figure out that more money does not equal better education (most money spent per pupil is Washington DC, where they rank at the bottom of the spectrun in terms of results).

With medicare and medicaid, the cry is that not enough money goes to it. I have no doubt that the solution to any problem will be, as with every other government run bureaucracy heavy aspect of the government, will be to throw more money at it.

There will be taxes placed on fatty and sugary foods because they increase the cost of government health care for everyone. Just as now with tobacco. Let's start a government required exercise program as well to ensure good heart health. The scenarios are endless and not too hard to believe when you look at what is being done with legal tobacco products (and I hate being around smoking), which I despise.

I understand insurance very ISM. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[€uroMeinke]

I understand the point that dollars don't equal better care/education, but all things have a cost and I wonder sometimes if we're really paying enough for what we want. For example what I've seen of teachers salaries, there's no way you'll incent someone away from the private sector on cash alone to compete for those jobs. If we think the job so important, why aren't we willing to pay for it to make it truly completive and attract the best people in to it?

In the health care/insurance world I'm not sure about the economics but I really would like to see a system that removes health care as a benefit of full time employment.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

In the health care/insurance world I'm not sure about the economics but I really would like to see a system that removes health care as a benefit of full time employment.

I agree. I also think that if a lot more people did not have insurance the cost of health care(not health care insurance, but actual health care) would go down dramatically.......conversely, if everyone has health insurance the cost is going to skyrocket!

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

My mom died of lupus. She had a brain tumor taken out in 1970 when I was 2 and never really recovered. Medications galore, therapy, doctor appointments, specialists.....a lot of which with my dad unemployed.

Without going into the day to day hardships, there was 6 figures of medical debt incurred over those 14 years after the surgery until she died in 1984.

Somehow, I managed to go to school. Yes, I had scholarship money, but I worked two jobs as well as going to school.

How is any of this the responsibility of anyone? How is it that any of that should be paid for by anyone else?

Our situation may not have been the worst out there. But it sucked. We made it. There is always something worse out there than what anyone is experiencing at any given time, certainly. I honestly do not understand, however, why anyone thinkfs that their misfortune or genetic impariments or whatever is the responsibility of anyone else. It's just a concept completely foreign to me, and I've been through it.

The notion of "the family" as a holistic unit in potential conflict with the rest of society is something of a conservative fiction, no? Like society, your family is just a collection of individuals. Under your logic, your dad could have told your mom that her illness was her problem and that she should have worked, worked more, saved more, etc. to prepare for such an occurrence. (Basically the old-fashioned marital property approach.) But he didn't. Your family made the fiscally irresponsible but compassionate decision to spend hundreds of thousands on medical care for one woman in a deteriorating condition so that one boy (and whatever siblings you have) could have a mother for as long as possible. Your opponents on this thread would simply expand the compassionate unit beyond the family to society as a whole.