I can't wait until the government gets to decide how much a human life is worth! Historically speaking, that has always gone well...hasn't it? :bugeye:
Health Care Bill Debate
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
I can't wait until the government gets to decide how much a human life is worth! Historically speaking, that has always gone well...hasn't it? :bugeye:
The idea of my expensive treatment not being in the best interests of a for profit insurance company sure makes me sleep well at night!
"You have cancer? Too bad you didn't tell us about the bunions you had, those are a pre existing condition, you are no longer insured with us, good bye."
Rescission happens, and not infrequently.
Managing resources is an integral part of practicing medicine.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
These threads are getting boring real fast.
American Indians have one of the highest rates of suicide and personality disorders in the country. Should we blame poor national healthcare for that too..? Nay. The reason that American Indians are afflicted with all sorts of conditions is due to living in a remote, isolated culture, distant from hospitals and whose way of life lacks faith in (and is ignorant of) modern medical science.
Let's talk about REAL issues, not fake ones.
For example, compared to white people, black people have a significantly higher rate of:
Type 2 Diabetes
Obesity
Hypertension
Infant mortality
Stroke
AIDS
Tons of other diseases
Truth be told, blacks (and hispanics) are unhealthier and at risk for more diseases than whites and asians, in almost every single way. This correlation is directly related to their ability to pay for healthcare.
Oopsie, that sort of blew the theory of this thread out of the water.
American Indians have one of the highest rates of suicide and personality disorders in the country. Should we blame poor national healthcare for that too..? Nay. The reason that American Indians are afflicted with all sorts of conditions is due to living in a remote, isolated culture, distant from hospitals and whose way of life lacks faith in (and is ignorant of) modern medical science.
Let's talk about REAL issues, not fake ones.
For example, compared to white people, black people have a significantly higher rate of:
Type 2 Diabetes
Obesity
Hypertension
Infant mortality
Stroke
AIDS
Tons of other diseases
Truth be told, blacks (and hispanics) are unhealthier and at risk for more diseases than whites and asians, in almost every single way. This correlation is directly related to their ability to pay for healthcare.
Oopsie, that sort of blew the theory of this thread out of the water.
So the government wants to spend a shitload of money to "reform" the health care system into one that still tells people they have to die because it's cheaper that way?
Now THAT is change you can believe in!
Show me where one reputable proponent of healthcare reform has made that statement...they have not. It is another strawman intent on scaring people.
I was asking spidergoat a question about "managing resources" (that spidergoat himself seems to agree with). Whether or not you consider him reputable is up to you.
And what was the strawman? Are you claiming that this "reform" won't be expensive? Are you claiming that BHMO (Barack's Health Maintenance Organization) won't ever "manage resources" in this manner? If so, got proof?
No one on the reform side is saying people have to die...that is the strawman.
People are dying today because they cannot get insurance.
People are dying today because they cannot get insurance.
The government of Oregon seems to think it would be more fiscally responsible to let Mrs. Wagner die.
Is there some provision in the "reform" bill specifically stating that people will be given every possible treatment to extend their lives, regardless of the cost or probability of success?
Of course not, and you would be complaining if there was. Where do you draw the line? As it stands now, people get cut off from care for all sorts of arbitrary reasons by the insurance companies. How do they react when you ask them to pay for experimental drugs?
:roflmao:
Where do you draw the line?
The line as I understand it in the bill is between the patient and the physcian which is reasonable in my book. Individuals should be able to always choose the course of treatment they desire. Let us not forget, surgery and chemo are not fun, not something I would voluntarily choose to do without good reason.
The line in Oregon is the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.
Last edited:
Government programs tend to be funded by taxpayer dollars. Plus, I've spent most of my adult life listening to people bitch about how evil HMOs are and that everything will be daisies and rainbows once the government runs the show.
I don't like the idea of socialist healthcare no matter what. The "line" is something to be negotiated between an insurance provider and potential customers.
Even if it works? What if the insurance company just laughs in your face? I guarantee Barbara Wagner could not afford the premiums such a plan would require, otherwise SHE WOULDN'T BE ON THE OREGON HEALTH PLAN. The plan was intended from the beginning to both provide care for low income people and to ration benefits.
The US has many socialist institutions that work, there is nothing wrong with Democratic Socialism.
...one executive suffering from a rare and potentially fatal form of liver cancer is fighting his insurance company for coverage. Oncologists from a major teaching hospital in New York City have prescribed Sutent -- a medication that costs about $4,000 a month and could extend his life expectancy.
"Most of my objections are that some second rate guy on the staff of the insurance company is second-guessing one of the foremost authorities and trumping his judgment," said the 57-year-old executive, who didn't want his name used to protect his privacy.
"I am fortunate to have the financial resources and the ability to fight these people who would rather these you die," he told ABCNews.com.
"Most of my objections are that some second rate guy on the staff of the insurance company is second-guessing one of the foremost authorities and trumping his judgment," said the 57-year-old executive, who didn't want his name used to protect his privacy.
"I am fortunate to have the financial resources and the ability to fight these people who would rather these you die," he told ABCNews.com.
The US has many socialist institutions that work, there is nothing wrong with Democratic Socialism.
Last edited:
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Name them.
The military, post office, public highway system, national parks, firefighters, public schools...
Startraveler
Registered Senior Member
Since the funding mechanisms of the proposed public option work very differently from the way Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid do the comparison isn't very apt. Moreover, the target populations of those programs are the reason they're projected to have budgetary problems in the future: we have a graying population (i.e. a growing proportion of the population is made up of seniors as the Baby Boomers enter SS age) which poses difficulties for Social Security and Medicare is designed specifically to treat the single most expensive demographic to treat (the 65 and over crowd).
The public option faces a very different situation and is funded entirely through premiums paid by enrollees.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
And just how is the funding going to be different? Please enlighten us?
It will still be a government runs system, no different than SS, Medicaid or Medicare, the problem is that the Federals always are 4 to 7 time low in their estimated start up cost of any program, and then often the actual cost of running the programs are 400 to 800% higher than the budget estimates.
Again just look at Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare, (Medicaid, and Medicare started in excellent economic times), and they are now just as broke as Social Security.