No Healthcare for Smokers,Drinkers,Fat,Old..

[sandy]

...I consider spellcheck to be the sign of a civilized society...

Priceless.

Actually, I agree with some of the sentiments in that article.....

I agree with most of them. What I don't agree with is the government telling people how to live their lives or they get no coverage/operations. I will never need or use it but I feel for the guy who has genetic obesity, starves to even be "overweight", and will be told no. Or the life-long healthy 74 year-old who is told no because they are too old.

Socialized medicine would be bad for America.

I hope Romney is elected.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I agree with most of them. What I don't agree with is the government telling people how to live their lives or they get no coverage/operations. I will never need or use it but I feel for the guy who has genetic obesity, starves to even be "overweight", and will be told no. Or the life-long healthy 74 year-old who is told no because they are too old.

Much as it tears at my very vitals to agree with Sandy, I agree with her.

It's NOT the government's business to wag their fingers at people.

 

[joepistole]

We are paying more than 1% right now just to pay for medicare (our national insurance for people over 65)! And medicare is already projected to go broke in a few years. Not to mention the fact that the federal government is trillions of dollars in debt. The US can not afford nationalized healthcare.

We need to cut back on expenses, not pile them on!
QUOTE]

Why is it those Republicans you support in Congress added over 400 billion dolllars in debt to the Medicare Program with the Prescription Drug Benefit Law which prevents the government from paying market cost for prescription drugs...instead they have to pay whatever price the drug company wants to charge.

It seems to me that we would do a lot better, if you got those you elected and continue to support, to act in a fiscally responsible manner. Second, in the United States you are paying 2 percent of income for Medicare. That is because medical expenses in the United States are twice the cost of the next most expensive industrial country in the world.

The problem is the system in the United States is too expensive. And it is not too expensive because some patients abuse the system. And it's not too expensive because it does not cover the entire population base. It is too expensive because of government regulation creating healthcare monopolies.

We need to focus on controlling costs and improving quality, and not on restricting access and throwing more money at the industry be in tax credits or federal spending. I am in favor of using free markets to control costs. Since all of us are consumers of healthcare, all of us should be paying a portion of the healthcare expense in this country.

 

[sandy]

Much as it tears at my very vitals to agree with Sandy, I agree with her.

 

[joepistole]

Priceless.
What I don't agree with is the government telling people how to live their lives or they get no coverage/operations. I will never need or use it but I feel for the guy who has genetic obesity, starves to even be "overweight", and will be told no. Or the life-long healthy 74 year-old who is told no because they are too old.

I hope Romney is elected.

I too have to agree with Sandy on this statement. But far from bringing me visceral pain, it brings me visceral joy to be able to agree with such a vibrant and intellectually astute lady.

PS I think Romney is going to win Florida.

 

[sandy]

I too have to agree with Sandy on this statement. But far from bringing me visceral pain, it brings me visceral joy to be able to agree with such a vibrant and intellectually astute lady.
PS I think Romney is going to win Florida.

 

[sandy]

p.s. Was that a joke because it was your 666th post?

 

[joepistole]

Verily I say to you every word was truth. I never noticed it was my post number 666...sorry. I was not paying attention...story of my life.

 

[Bells]

Priceless.

What is priceless is that he failed to take his own advice.

Nationalizing healthcare right now would be like a family on the verge of bankrupsy deciding nows the time to buy that new Jaguar.

I agree with most of them. What I don't agree with is the government telling people how to live their lives or they get no coverage/operations. I will never need or use it but I feel for the guy who has genetic obesity, starves to even be "overweight", and will be told no. Or the life-long healthy 74 year-old who is told no because they are too old.

Socialized medicine would be bad for America.

You are in no position to criticize them. You take the stance that if someone is unable to afford to pay medical insurance, they should be made to suffer. You have, in the past, taken to calling such people "losers". You don't think the Government should pay any money towards ensuring the poorer fellows of a country have access to medical care. So frankly, your comments above are hypocritical in the extreme. You don't think the State should set limits on those who access the health system, but then state you don't think the State should pay anything at all in regards to healthcare. So please, don't say you feel for "the guy who has genetic obesity", because in your perfect world, he'd be allowed to die and be called a "loser" because he is not able to afford private health insurance.

Even private hospitals and doctors have been known to tell private overweight patients to lose some weight prior to some surgeries, due to the inherent risks involved. If someone has a genetic disposition to obesity, that is a different situation altogether. A chronic alcoholic who refuses to stop drinking will not get priority for a liver transplant unless he stops drinking. It is like this for private and public hospitals. In health care, be it public or private, no matter how well you can afford it, you do not get priority if you refuse to adhere to the advice of your doctors. You don't get to buy a liver for a transplant. You need to be placed on the list (even as a private patient), and if you are doing everything detrimental to that failing organ, disregarding the advice of the doctors, then in all likelihood, you can be removed from the list by the private hospital treating you. That is how it is for private and public patients.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

PS I consider spellcheck to be the sign of a civilized society.

I would ask you to consider your two examples:

(1) "Anwyay": Given that everybody commits a typographical error from time to time (e.g., "Under Hilary's plan from the 1990's ...."), I think you're picking nits.

(2) "Civilised": He's writing in the English language. How about you?​

Oh ... whoops. I forgot to add ...

More relevantly, though, I would suggest that you not exaggerate so much:

Suppose we had a one world government with government provided healthcare. Do you think the government would pay for an eighty year old person to have a hip replacement for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or to immunize thousands of kids in Africa?

I mean, come on. That's ridiculous. Zimmer, Inc., "a worldwide leader in joint replacement solutions for knee and hip pain", states on its Hip Replacement Surgery FAQ page that the total cost of the four components of a hip implant "ranges from $4000 to $6000". CNN medical correspondent Rhonda Rowland reported in 2000 that,

The average cost of hip replacement surgery is $25,000. A major study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1996 found the operation was cost effective. It found the average lifetime savings of a hip replacement is $117,000. The difference is largely due to savings in nursing care.

(Rowland)

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, a program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality noted in a July, 2007 statistical brief (HTML, PDF), that the mean cost of hip replacements, total and partial, from 1997-2005, was $14,500.

In the first place, your assertion of "hundreds of thousands of dollars" is grotesquely inflated. The reality is that hip replacement surgery reduces healthcare expenditures over time. Additionally, we might consider Joepistole's point regarding congressional Republicans and their intent to exploit the idea of socialized medicine to further pad the bank accounts of their rich supporters. If anything under your imaginary one-world government so inflates the cost of hip replacement surgery, it will be exploitative cronyism, and not the concept of socialized medicine itself.

Furthermore, the dilemma you present should never be an absolute decision. Bear in mind that our first-world luxury depends at present on the existence and growth of a massive poverty class. If we cannot immunize the African children without crusaders like Bill Clinton to motivate governments, or Bill Gates and Bono to spur private funding for relief, it is not because the task at hand is inherently overwhelming, but that it would degrade the profit margins demanded of corporate executives by their stockholders. As I reminded Sandy, black ink isn't enough. The number must represent a certain proportion, else the investors will grab their balls and go home.
______________________

Notes:

Zimmer, Inc. "Hip Replacement Surgery FAQs". March 3, 2006. See http://www.zimmer.com/z/ctl/op/global/action/1/id/8140/template/PC/navid/68

Rowland, Rhonda. "Former President Bush doing well after hip replacement surgery". CNN.com. December 5, 2000. See http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/05/hip.replacement/index.html

Merrill, Chaya and Ann Elixhauser. "Statistical Brief #34: Hospital Stays Involving Musculoskeletal Procedures, 1997–2005". Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. July, 2007. See http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb34.pdf

 

[Challenger78]

You do realize that's an oxymoron, don't you?

So people who have worked hard/smart should be punished for those who didn't/wouldn't?

No, I'm saying that the better off should help those less off. We're not asking for the rich to give their hearts to a poor patient.

 

[iceaura]

We need to cut back on expenses, not pile them on! Nationalizing healthcare right now would be like a family on the verge of bankrupsy deciding nows the time to buy that new Jaguar.

Our current system is the Jaguar. Broken, useless in bad weather, incredibly expensive, and high interest on the loan. As we approach bankruptcy, we have to make some decisions about that car. We used to be able to throw money away like that, even when we couldn't make it to work, but our War Gambling habit has had a run of bad luck.

Any first world system would be cheaper and provide better care - throw darts at a map of the Western Industrialized countries, and pick whatever you hit, it would work better than the current US system, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars less over the next few years.

Canada's system, for example, would knock close to 3 grand off the price of an American made car and reduce the demand for illegal immigrant labor at the same time. And it would end the current practice of accumulating a backlog of delayed medical care, a debt that will blow up in our faces in a few years (either money or hardship) and that no one seems to be tracking.

It's possible that we could provide Canadian system care to everyone in the US simply by rerouting the current Medicare, Drug Plan, VA, AFDC and other welfare, and medical Social Security taxes we already pay . It's a long shot, but it's possible. That is how badly our current system is blowing money.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Much as it tears at my very vitals to agree with Sandy, I agree with her.

It's NOT the government's business to wag their fingers at people.

They shouldn't tell them they can't have the operation, just that they have to pay for it. I think most people would support that.
I thought sandy believed in people accepting responsibility for their own actions? :shrug:

 

[Asguard]

Shit, i wish i had taken the time to respond to this when it was still small rather than now.

Firstly i would like to state to anyone who doesnt already know i am studying health science (paramedics) at flinders uni in SA

I would also like to point out that as part of this degree we study Health policy and compare it to the US and the UK esspecially

I would also like to say that pt refers to Patient, BP is blood pressure, IC and ICP refers to intensive care paramedics, A&E refers to Acident and Emergency

the last thing i would like to post in my introduction is the Generational Health Review. For anyone intersted it is there for your refference but it is 283 pages long so you need to very dedicated to this subject to read the whole thing


Now onto what will probably be a mega post (sorry about that but this IS the area of my achademic studys after all)

You do realize that some countries have both private and federal healthcare right ?
So, If you're worried about not being first in line, go buy yourself private insurance, and get red carpet treatment at the private hospital.
If you're just an average joe, well, then the federal system should be fine for you.
there are flaws, with management and equipment issues, but any capable government should be able to handle it.

I'd rather have everyone suffer equally than have healthcare for the rich, and none for the poor.

The first thing i would like to say to you is when was the last time you were in one of our private hospitals? While doing my placements i had some experiance with the private system and i have to tell you i would NEVER go into the private system. We had one pt we were transfering from the RAH (public trauma center) to a private hospital post heart surgury. He was booked in at this private hospital for TOE surgury. They cant even get there bookings right. It DID have lovely gold sheets though so if thats what you look for in a hospital rather than COPIDENCE go private. Next pt we had a transfer from wakefield private to a nursing home. On our crew we had a ICP moonlighting as a transfer. I did a BP on the pt to build up on my skills and found a BP of 200/150. I turned around to the IC who happened to be ridding in the back and told him and he double checked my test and got a similar reading. We arived out our destination and the BP was checked again by the other ambo with different equiptment and got the same result. We spoke to the nursing home staff and we all recomended a transfer straight back to A&E. The family requested that we return the pt to A&E so we turned around and drove back on a cat 3 (just below a lights and siren case). When we arived at the hospital the A&E doctor asked us why we returned the pt, that we should have convinced the family that she just have high BP (for reference anything above about 160 is concidered at imidate risk of heart atack or stroke).

This is the care you recive from a private hospital. If i ever need to go into hospital for something serious it will be a public hospital, no way i would trust the private system


Sandy and ashura

You both claim that a public system is unstistanable. This isnt bourn out when you concider that the NHS has been running since the end of WW2 and Ever other industrial nation has universal health care. Some take it further than others, but we all live under the knowlage that if we need a hospital stay we will be treated by some of the best doctors in the world free of charge. Further more the medical students are getting the experiance THEY need to become the next cashe of best doctors. With no public system where do YOUR doctors get there experiance?

Further more the REASON that this push is being made is in part because some surgury is USLESS on those groups. Why give an 80 year old a CABG? The chances that they will die on the table is well above the increase in quality of life they will experiance. If you force obease pts to get there weight down that not only lessens the risk of the anisetic it also BENIFITS there long term health.


pjdude1219

Your right, it IS the cheepest system. The only problem is political interferance like what happened in the last federal election. It was descraseful that Howard wanted to take the mersy out of the state system. Duplication of services avialable down the road is a waste of resorces. That is the ONLY problem i have with our system. Well that and the kickbacks for the private system that just dont work (people PREFER the public system)

I also agree compleatly that i would rather put my health in the hand on the goverment, rather than a company who wont pay for dialisis because it would cut down on there profits

joepistole

Im sure you realise that the higher the percentage of funding put in by the goverment the lower the cost overall?

This is shown quite clearly by WHO statistics which i unforutunatly dont have to hand right now

Enmos

cudos, you have hit the nail on the head. It is paid for by the people FOR the people. In australia its the medicare levy 1.5% of taxable income, infact i think it maybe less than that because some income may well excempt. How much is it in the US?

phlogistician

I feel the same way although i would STILL be in a public hospital even if I chose to be a private pt

madanthonywayne

Its also illegal here for private issurance companies to charge for services provided under medicare. This just stops duplication, no need to fear this.

Bells

I hate to dissagree with you but i wish they would get rid of those insentives. It actually just takes money away from the public system with no benifit. The private system is only good for ingrown townails in my opinion. Anything more serious you are better off going to one of the public hospitals

Healthcare should not be a luxury item Mandanthonywayne. It is a basic necessity.

I agree 100%, infact i would go a step further and say that its a human right

visceral_instinct

They are only talking about certian procidure not everything. There comes a point where treatment is no longer benifical. For instance paramedics wont resucitate an elderly pt if they have a long history of heart atack because its futile. Most will die within a month anyway so unless there IS a reason (ie the family wants a chance to say goodbye) they just wont put the pt through the pain

Tiassa

I feel i should put this here because otherwise i will have nothing to respond to you. Have you seen sicko? I know sandy its just left wing propergander but for those who have seen it i watched it while i was studying health policy and i am yet to find ANYTHING in that show that is wrong. Its a bloody descrace for a man to have to CHOSE which fingers get reatached based on what he could aford. Its sick and unethical

sandy

I agree with most of them. What I don't agree with is the government telling people how to live their lives or they get no coverage/operations. I will never need or use it but I feel for the guy who has genetic obesity, starves to even be "overweight", and will be told no. Or the life-long healthy 74 year-old who is told no because they are too old.

The US is already doing that. Not sure if its medicare or medicaid, but whichever the state system is they had a vote in one of the states to rank different prosdures by which the system should pay for. Whichever didnt rank high enough up the system DONT get paid for now. I am yet to see many avarage people who know didly squat about medical treatment so i would MUCH rather trust my health care to public servants trained in health polic, achademics and doctors to decide which treatments give the best benifits based on EVIDENCE insted of a whim

 

[Tiassa]

Have you seen sicko?

Funny thing is that as much as I like Michael Moore, I rarely rush to read his books or see his movies when they come out. I caught Bowling for Columbine in the cinema, I think during opening week. I have yet to see Sicko.

 

[Asguard]

watch it, our lecture in health policy got sent a copy and it is WELL worth a look. Its very daming of the US system when compared to any other system but as i said i couldnt find anything factually wrong with it

 

[sandy]

No, I'm saying that the better off should help those less off. We're not asking for the rich to give their hearts to a poor patient.

We already do. We pay 97% (!!!) of all taxes (much of which go to the "poor" causes.)

 

[USS Exeter]

You do realize that's an oxymoron, don't you?

So people who have worked hard/smart should be punished for those who didn't/wouldn't?

Don't confuse yourself sandy, those rich people should not get free healthcare. They can afford it. The poor people cannot.

 

[Oniw17]

And sadly, not everyone can afford to pay for health insurance. I guess when the choice is deciding whether the kids get lunch for school everyday or paying for healthcare, some do prefer to feed their kids.


Even at the cost of poor US citizens dying because they are not able to afford basic healthcare and the public health system refuses them care and treatment because they can't afford to pay it? Healthcare should not be new spending. It should be ongoing spending to help your fellow citizens during their greatest time of need.

I live in the US, and I get free healthcare and free lunches when I was in school too. I don't pay taxes either, so it is actually free.

 

[Asguard]

Oniw17 thats nice, now move to a county that will cover you for your whole life and doesnt pick and chose your hospitals or what treatment they will cover for you based on profits