Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
I don't support the fat acceptance/plus size movement.
Replies
-
peckchris3267 wrote: »
That doesn't happen in the USPoisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
anecdotal evidence does not make it the norm or make me completely ignorant. How many cancer patients die each year waiting for treatment. I'll tell you what the norm is. Someone with stage 3 cancer waiting so long for an appointment that by the time they see the doctor they have advanced to stage 4 cancer and then has to make another appointment and start the waiting all over again.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Socialized medicine is a bad thing. Look at the countries that have it, it doesn't work. I am on two medical forums that are based out of the U.K. and people from all over the world are on it. One is a hip replacement forum and the other is a hemochromatosis forum. I have talked to many people from countries about the issues they have had with socialized medicine and it is not good at all.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »To the people who think socialized medicine or group pays are a bad thing, you have a rude awakening coming when you get older. you are going to beg for someone younger to help you stay alive.
My dad is alive because of it. So you are completely ignorant.
Average wait time in USA from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 35+ days
Average wait time in Canada from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 28 days.
You can believe the spin all you want, its still better than the crap healthcare you have.
"Waiting for treatment has become a defining characteristic of Canadian health care. In order to document the lengthy queues for visits to specialists and for diagnostic and surgical procedures in the country, the Fraser Insti-tute has—for over two decades—surveyed specialist physicians across 12 specialties and 10 provinces.
This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that, overall, waiting times for medically necessary treatment have not improved since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 18.3 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment—slightly longer than the 18.2 week wait reported in 2014. This year’s wait time is 97% longer than in 1993 when it was just 9.3 weeks.
There is a great deal of variation in the total waiting time faced by patients across the provinces. Saskatchewan re-ports the shortest total wait (13.6 weeks), while Prince Edward Island reports the longest (43.1 weeks). Results for the latter province should be interpreted with caution since data is not available for certain specialties because of either a lack of response or an absence of doctors practising some specialties.
There is also a great deal of variation among specialties. Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopae-dic surgery (35.7 weeks).
The total wait time that patients face can be examined in two consecutive segments.
The first segment occurs from referral by a general practitioner to consultation with a specialist. The waiting time in this segment is 8.5 weeks this year, roughly the same as in 2014. This wait time is 130% longer than in 1993, when it was 3.7 weeks. The shortest waits for specialist consultations are in Saskatchewan (6.7 weeks) while the longest occur in Prince Edward Island (28.3 weeks).
The second segment occurs from the consultation with a specialist to the point at which the patient receives treatment. The waiting time in this segment is roughly the same as last year, 9.8 weeks. This wait time is 76% longer than in 1993 when it was 5.6 weeks, and almost three weeks longer than what physicians consider to be clinically “reasonable”. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits are found in Saskatchewan (6.9 weeks), while the longest are in Newfoundland & Labrador (20.5 weeks)."
Medically necessary and life threatening are two COMPLETELY different things. Anyways im done with you, i dont need to win the internet argument.
Enjoy dying early when you run out of money.
Yes. It does. I live in the UK and suffer from a potentially life threatening autoimmune condition. The American online support groups I'm part of are full of heartbreaking stories about being denied crucial medical care. This does not happen in the uk.The nhs is not perfect and is severely underfunded but no one is denied treatment. I never - never - have to worry about whether or not I can afford my essential medication. Health care should never be subject to market forces;it's essentially unjust.14 -
We don't have socialized medicine so I'm not using socialized medicine. As soon as I make above a certain amount those benefits will get smaller and smaller then gone.rheddmobile wrote: »
This is not true in my state, or in many states which refused to expand Medicaid.peckchris3267 wrote: »
You may lose your house and go into debt but even after you have exhausted all your resources, the state comes in with Medicaid and takes things from there. It seems you are equating losing your possessions and racking up debt with being left on the street to die. We have a system in place that prevents that, that picks up the tab after you have liquidated your assets to pay your bill.JeepHair77 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Yeah, those pesky little facts got in your way again.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
anecdotal evidence does not make it the norm or make me completely ignorant. How many cancer patients die each year waiting for treatment. I'll tell you what the norm is. Someone with stage 3 cancer waiting so long for an appointment that by the time they see the doctor they have advanced to stage 4 cancer and then has to make another appointment and start the waiting all over again.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Socialized medicine is a bad thing. Look at the countries that have it, it doesn't work. I am on two medical forums that are based out of the U.K. and people from all over the world are on it. One is a hip replacement forum and the other is a hemochromatosis forum. I have talked to many people from countries about the issues they have had with socialized medicine and it is not good at all.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »To the people who think socialized medicine or group pays are a bad thing, you have a rude awakening coming when you get older. you are going to beg for someone younger to help you stay alive.
My dad is alive because of it. So you are completely ignorant.
Average wait time in USA from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 35+ days
Average wait time in Canada from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 28 days.
You can believe the spin all you want, its still better than the crap healthcare you have.
"Waiting for treatment has become a defining characteristic of Canadian health care. In order to document the lengthy queues for visits to specialists and for diagnostic and surgical procedures in the country, the Fraser Insti-tute has—for over two decades—surveyed specialist physicians across 12 specialties and 10 provinces.
This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that, overall, waiting times for medically necessary treatment have not improved since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 18.3 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment—slightly longer than the 18.2 week wait reported in 2014. This year’s wait time is 97% longer than in 1993 when it was just 9.3 weeks.
There is a great deal of variation in the total waiting time faced by patients across the provinces. Saskatchewan re-ports the shortest total wait (13.6 weeks), while Prince Edward Island reports the longest (43.1 weeks). Results for the latter province should be interpreted with caution since data is not available for certain specialties because of either a lack of response or an absence of doctors practising some specialties.
There is also a great deal of variation among specialties. Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopae-dic surgery (35.7 weeks).
The total wait time that patients face can be examined in two consecutive segments.
The first segment occurs from referral by a general practitioner to consultation with a specialist. The waiting time in this segment is 8.5 weeks this year, roughly the same as in 2014. This wait time is 130% longer than in 1993, when it was 3.7 weeks. The shortest waits for specialist consultations are in Saskatchewan (6.7 weeks) while the longest occur in Prince Edward Island (28.3 weeks).
The second segment occurs from the consultation with a specialist to the point at which the patient receives treatment. The waiting time in this segment is roughly the same as last year, 9.8 weeks. This wait time is 76% longer than in 1993 when it was 5.6 weeks, and almost three weeks longer than what physicians consider to be clinically “reasonable”. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits are found in Saskatchewan (6.9 weeks), while the longest are in Newfoundland & Labrador (20.5 weeks)."
Medically necessary and life threatening are two COMPLETELY different things. Anyways im done with you, i dont need to win the internet argument.
Enjoy dying early when you run out of money.
You clearly have excellent insurance coverage, and it almost sounds like you think everyone else here does, too. I had to wait 11 weeks just to get an initial primary care appointment...in the U.S. Not specialty care, not surgery. Just getting in to see a GP. My brother-in-law went bankrupt after an emergency appendectomy - even with his crappy insurance coverage. It's not all roses and rainbows here in the USA. In case you didn't know...
Yeah, my cousin lost his house over injuries from a car accident and an Aunt passed away from a completely foreseeable aneyrism because her insurance wouldn't pay for the scan that would have detected it.
A close friend of mine, who had "good" health insurance through her employer at the time, lost her house and nearly went bankrupt over medical bills following the birth of a child with moderate brain malformities, requiring extended care and multiple surgeries. They lived with her parents for years to get back on their feet (and not everyone has that option), and will likely be paying those medical bills for many more years. The child in question is 13, now, and doing quite well.
I'll repeat - they had "good" health insurance through her employer at the time.
And I'll add - that child will forever have a "pre-existing health condition."
Good thing they live here in the U.S.A. with all of our excellent health care. /sarcasm
The poor in this country get free medical care in the form of Medicaid . I know this for a fact. I am a single father with full custody of my two daughters. My income level is low enough that all their medical and dental is 100% free with the states Medicaid. I am on VA healthcare but when I lost my job due to medical issues, the state sent me a Medicaid card and all of my medical needs would have been free had I needed it. That IS the way it works in the US. The problem is that everyone thinks they should be able to keep their BMW and vacation fund and not put those toward their medical bills.
What I find most confusing is that you object to socialized medicine, while using it yourself.
0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
And how much disposable income does the fellow man have? One sick person with inadequate funding for medical care is a tragedy, a call to action, etc. A hundred? A thousand? A million? Those are dismal and overwhelming statistics. According to https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html, In 2014, there were an estimated 14,738,719 people living with cancer of any site in the United States.
From https://www.agingcare.com/articles/why-cancer-patients-cannot-afford-treatment-139136.htm"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions. This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.
"Once diagnosed with cancer, whether insured or not, people face significant and sometimes devastating hurdles to receiving timely, affordable treatment in our health care system," he says. "Cancer patients require a lot of services - infusion therapy, medication, surgery, ongoing care from doctors and nurse practitioners. Many don't have insurance, or they aren't reimbursed by their insurance company, so they are forced to do without treatment."One in eight people with advanced cancer turned down recommended care because of the cost, according to a new analysis from Kaiser Foundation. And one in four cancer patients or their families said they used up all or most of their savings to pay for treatment.
That's cancer. There are plenty of other diseases and medical conditions that are costly to treat.
So. How many people can a charity help before it has to turn everyone else away?
I'm not even getting to people who would rather die than accept charity. Though I suppose that if they do that, they'll "decrease the surplus population," no?
I see deliberate avoidance of the question "By what rationale are you justifying theft from one party to give to another?" Moreover what gives anyone the right to demand services provided by another without fair compensation? This is the crux of the matter and the reason why all socialized structures inevitably fail.
If charity cannot support this, what makes you think government can sustain an even larger population? Either way rationing is coming in to play as you have an unlimited demand and limited supply.
If someone would reject charity then what is your rationale for them accepting charity from government?
The root causes of the high cost of medical care in the US is insurance, litigation, and government involvement. You want to lower the cost of medical care you need to decrease nonsensical regulation and implement tort reform. Increasing competition and expanding supply is the only logical response.2 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
That doesn't happen in the USPoisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
anecdotal evidence does not make it the norm or make me completely ignorant. How many cancer patients die each year waiting for treatment. I'll tell you what the norm is. Someone with stage 3 cancer waiting so long for an appointment that by the time they see the doctor they have advanced to stage 4 cancer and then has to make another appointment and start the waiting all over again.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Socialized medicine is a bad thing. Look at the countries that have it, it doesn't work. I am on two medical forums that are based out of the U.K. and people from all over the world are on it. One is a hip replacement forum and the other is a hemochromatosis forum. I have talked to many people from countries about the issues they have had with socialized medicine and it is not good at all.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »To the people who think socialized medicine or group pays are a bad thing, you have a rude awakening coming when you get older. you are going to beg for someone younger to help you stay alive.
My dad is alive because of it. So you are completely ignorant.
Average wait time in USA from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 35+ days
Average wait time in Canada from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 28 days.
You can believe the spin all you want, its still better than the crap healthcare you have.
"Waiting for treatment has become a defining characteristic of Canadian health care. In order to document the lengthy queues for visits to specialists and for diagnostic and surgical procedures in the country, the Fraser Insti-tute has—for over two decades—surveyed specialist physicians across 12 specialties and 10 provinces.
This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that, overall, waiting times for medically necessary treatment have not improved since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 18.3 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment—slightly longer than the 18.2 week wait reported in 2014. This year’s wait time is 97% longer than in 1993 when it was just 9.3 weeks.
There is a great deal of variation in the total waiting time faced by patients across the provinces. Saskatchewan re-ports the shortest total wait (13.6 weeks), while Prince Edward Island reports the longest (43.1 weeks). Results for the latter province should be interpreted with caution since data is not available for certain specialties because of either a lack of response or an absence of doctors practising some specialties.
There is also a great deal of variation among specialties. Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopae-dic surgery (35.7 weeks).
The total wait time that patients face can be examined in two consecutive segments.
The first segment occurs from referral by a general practitioner to consultation with a specialist. The waiting time in this segment is 8.5 weeks this year, roughly the same as in 2014. This wait time is 130% longer than in 1993, when it was 3.7 weeks. The shortest waits for specialist consultations are in Saskatchewan (6.7 weeks) while the longest occur in Prince Edward Island (28.3 weeks).
The second segment occurs from the consultation with a specialist to the point at which the patient receives treatment. The waiting time in this segment is roughly the same as last year, 9.8 weeks. This wait time is 76% longer than in 1993 when it was 5.6 weeks, and almost three weeks longer than what physicians consider to be clinically “reasonable”. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits are found in Saskatchewan (6.9 weeks), while the longest are in Newfoundland & Labrador (20.5 weeks)."
Medically necessary and life threatening are two COMPLETELY different things. Anyways im done with you, i dont need to win the internet argument.
Enjoy dying early when you run out of money.
Yes. It does. I live in the UK and suffer from a potentially life threatening autoimmune condition. The American online support groups I'm part of are full of heartbreaking stories about being denied crucial medical care. This does not happen in the uk.The nhs is not perfect and is severely underfunded but no one is denied treatment. I never - never - have to worry about whether or not I can afford my essential medication. Health care should never be subject to market forces;it's essentially unjust.
It is illegal in the US, so if someone is denied emergency or critical care this is a criminal offense.
If you have evidence to the contrary provide citation. "I heard it on the internet" is not sufficient evidence.2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
And how much disposable income does the fellow man have? One sick person with inadequate funding for medical care is a tragedy, a call to action, etc. A hundred? A thousand? A million? Those are dismal and overwhelming statistics. According to https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html, In 2014, there were an estimated 14,738,719 people living with cancer of any site in the United States.
From https://www.agingcare.com/articles/why-cancer-patients-cannot-afford-treatment-139136.htm"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions. This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.
"Once diagnosed with cancer, whether insured or not, people face significant and sometimes devastating hurdles to receiving timely, affordable treatment in our health care system," he says. "Cancer patients require a lot of services - infusion therapy, medication, surgery, ongoing care from doctors and nurse practitioners. Many don't have insurance, or they aren't reimbursed by their insurance company, so they are forced to do without treatment."One in eight people with advanced cancer turned down recommended care because of the cost, according to a new analysis from Kaiser Foundation. And one in four cancer patients or their families said they used up all or most of their savings to pay for treatment.
That's cancer. There are plenty of other diseases and medical conditions that are costly to treat.
So. How many people can a charity help before it has to turn everyone else away?
I'm not even getting to people who would rather die than accept charity. Though I suppose that if they do that, they'll "decrease the surplus population," no?
I see deliberate avoidance of the question "By what rationale are you justifying theft from one party to give to another?" Moreover what gives anyone the right to demand services provided by another without fair compensation? This is the crux of the matter and the reason why all socialized structures inevitably fail.
If charity cannot support this, what makes you think government can sustain an even larger population? Either way rationing is coming in to play as you have an unlimited demand and limited supply.
If someone would reject charity then what is your rationale for them accepting charity from government?
The root causes of the high cost of medical care in the US is insurance, litigation, and government involvement. You want to lower the cost of medical care you need to decrease nonsensical regulation and implement tort reform. Increasing competition and expanding supply is the only logical response.
Socialized medicine is not "theft from one party to give to another,neither is it - or it shouldn't be - based on the concept of individual rights and compensation. Socialised medicine in the UK is founded on the concept of cradle to grave provision of health care,which is free at the point of delivery. It takes into account that we are not all born equal and that those who are able to work ,and pay taxes,support those who cannot. And everyone benefits. So,even millionaires are entitled to free health care (if they want it) If your personal politics and ideology runs counter to that then fair enough. But like it or not,it works in the uk and in other countries where similar systems exist. I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of humanity and compassion can disagree with the concept but I guess it keeps life interesting.10 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
That doesn't happen in the USPoisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
anecdotal evidence does not make it the norm or make me completely ignorant. How many cancer patients die each year waiting for treatment. I'll tell you what the norm is. Someone with stage 3 cancer waiting so long for an appointment that by the time they see the doctor they have advanced to stage 4 cancer and then has to make another appointment and start the waiting all over again.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Socialized medicine is a bad thing. Look at the countries that have it, it doesn't work. I am on two medical forums that are based out of the U.K. and people from all over the world are on it. One is a hip replacement forum and the other is a hemochromatosis forum. I have talked to many people from countries about the issues they have had with socialized medicine and it is not good at all.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »To the people who think socialized medicine or group pays are a bad thing, you have a rude awakening coming when you get older. you are going to beg for someone younger to help you stay alive.
My dad is alive because of it. So you are completely ignorant.
Average wait time in USA from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 35+ days
Average wait time in Canada from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 28 days.
You can believe the spin all you want, its still better than the crap healthcare you have.
"Waiting for treatment has become a defining characteristic of Canadian health care. In order to document the lengthy queues for visits to specialists and for diagnostic and surgical procedures in the country, the Fraser Insti-tute has—for over two decades—surveyed specialist physicians across 12 specialties and 10 provinces.
This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that, overall, waiting times for medically necessary treatment have not improved since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 18.3 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment—slightly longer than the 18.2 week wait reported in 2014. This year’s wait time is 97% longer than in 1993 when it was just 9.3 weeks.
There is a great deal of variation in the total waiting time faced by patients across the provinces. Saskatchewan re-ports the shortest total wait (13.6 weeks), while Prince Edward Island reports the longest (43.1 weeks). Results for the latter province should be interpreted with caution since data is not available for certain specialties because of either a lack of response or an absence of doctors practising some specialties.
There is also a great deal of variation among specialties. Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopae-dic surgery (35.7 weeks).
The total wait time that patients face can be examined in two consecutive segments.
The first segment occurs from referral by a general practitioner to consultation with a specialist. The waiting time in this segment is 8.5 weeks this year, roughly the same as in 2014. This wait time is 130% longer than in 1993, when it was 3.7 weeks. The shortest waits for specialist consultations are in Saskatchewan (6.7 weeks) while the longest occur in Prince Edward Island (28.3 weeks).
The second segment occurs from the consultation with a specialist to the point at which the patient receives treatment. The waiting time in this segment is roughly the same as last year, 9.8 weeks. This wait time is 76% longer than in 1993 when it was 5.6 weeks, and almost three weeks longer than what physicians consider to be clinically “reasonable”. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits are found in Saskatchewan (6.9 weeks), while the longest are in Newfoundland & Labrador (20.5 weeks)."
Medically necessary and life threatening are two COMPLETELY different things. Anyways im done with you, i dont need to win the internet argument.
Enjoy dying early when you run out of money.
Yes. It does. I live in the UK and suffer from a potentially life threatening autoimmune condition. The American online support groups I'm part of are full of heartbreaking stories about being denied crucial medical care. This does not happen in the uk.The nhs is not perfect and is severely underfunded but no one is denied treatment. I never - never - have to worry about whether or not I can afford my essential medication. Health care should never be subject to market forces;it's essentially unjust.
It is illegal in the US, so if someone is denied emergency or critical care this is a criminal offense.
If you have evidence to the contrary provide citation. "I heard it on the internet" is not sufficient evidence.
Perhaps you can provide citation for some of your thoughts,too?
I'm not referring to emergency care. I'm referring to medication which improves quality of life and prolongs remission.9 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
I'd love it if it was feasible that fellow men had the opportunity to be charitable. From what I'm seeing in cases where that is actually completely voluntary, I'd be very generous in saying that 99% of people asked to give to charities for people who are literally starving to death turn that plea down. You can't have nationwide medical care for people unable to provide it for themselves rely on voluntary charity like that.9 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
And how much disposable income does the fellow man have? One sick person with inadequate funding for medical care is a tragedy, a call to action, etc. A hundred? A thousand? A million? Those are dismal and overwhelming statistics. According to https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html, In 2014, there were an estimated 14,738,719 people living with cancer of any site in the United States.
From https://www.agingcare.com/articles/why-cancer-patients-cannot-afford-treatment-139136.htm"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions. This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.
"Once diagnosed with cancer, whether insured or not, people face significant and sometimes devastating hurdles to receiving timely, affordable treatment in our health care system," he says. "Cancer patients require a lot of services - infusion therapy, medication, surgery, ongoing care from doctors and nurse practitioners. Many don't have insurance, or they aren't reimbursed by their insurance company, so they are forced to do without treatment."One in eight people with advanced cancer turned down recommended care because of the cost, according to a new analysis from Kaiser Foundation. And one in four cancer patients or their families said they used up all or most of their savings to pay for treatment.
That's cancer. There are plenty of other diseases and medical conditions that are costly to treat.
So. How many people can a charity help before it has to turn everyone else away?
I'm not even getting to people who would rather die than accept charity. Though I suppose that if they do that, they'll "decrease the surplus population," no?
I see deliberate avoidance of the question "By what rationale are you justifying theft from one party to give to another?" Moreover what gives anyone the right to demand services provided by another without fair compensation? This is the crux of the matter and the reason why all socialized structures inevitably fail.
If charity cannot support this, what makes you think government can sustain an even larger population? Either way rationing is coming in to play as you have an unlimited demand and limited supply.
If someone would reject charity then what is your rationale for them accepting charity from government?
The root causes of the high cost of medical care in the US is insurance, litigation, and government involvement. You want to lower the cost of medical care you need to decrease nonsensical regulation and implement tort reform. Increasing competition and expanding supply is the only logical response.
Socialized medicine is not "theft from one party to give to another,neither is it - or it shouldn't be - based on the concept of individual rights and compensation. Socialised medicine in the UK is founded on the concept of cradle to grave provision of health care,which is free at the point of delivery. It takes into account that we are not all born equal and that those who are able to work ,and pay taxes,support those who cannot. And everyone benefits. So,even millionaires are entitled to free health care (if they want it) If your personal politics and ideology runs counter to that then fair enough. But like it or not,it works in the uk and in other countries where similar systems exist. I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of humanity and compassion can disagree with the concept but I guess it keeps life interesting.
Taking from one and giving to another is the foundation of socialism. It is only possible through the use of force that the government take from one group and gives to another - that by any is theft. Nothing is free, someone is always paying, but since that someone is someone else the majority accept it...until the providers tire of their role.
It's easy to moralize when you aren't personally providing the care and/or services I guess. I fail to see the humanity and compassion behind theft.
Socialism always "works" in the beginning...and then expands, withers, and dies. I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year...or used to be.
5 -
Theft is illegal. Taxation is not theft.13
-
If they didn't qualify for Medicaid then they made too much money. It is need based, based on income and some assets, they won't make you sell your only means of transportation unless it is excessive ( Lamborghini).JeepHair77 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
You may lose your house and go into debt but even after you have exhausted all your resources, the state comes in with Medicaid and takes things from there. It seems you are equating losing your possessions and racking up debt with being left on the street to die. We have a system in place that prevents that, that picks up the tab after you have liquidated your assets to pay your bill.JeepHair77 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Yeah, those pesky little facts got in your way again.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
anecdotal evidence does not make it the norm or make me completely ignorant. How many cancer patients die each year waiting for treatment. I'll tell you what the norm is. Someone with stage 3 cancer waiting so long for an appointment that by the time they see the doctor they have advanced to stage 4 cancer and then has to make another appointment and start the waiting all over again.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Socialized medicine is a bad thing. Look at the countries that have it, it doesn't work. I am on two medical forums that are based out of the U.K. and people from all over the world are on it. One is a hip replacement forum and the other is a hemochromatosis forum. I have talked to many people from countries about the issues they have had with socialized medicine and it is not good at all.Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »To the people who think socialized medicine or group pays are a bad thing, you have a rude awakening coming when you get older. you are going to beg for someone younger to help you stay alive.
My dad is alive because of it. So you are completely ignorant.
Average wait time in USA from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 35+ days
Average wait time in Canada from diagnosis to surgery for cancer 28 days.
You can believe the spin all you want, its still better than the crap healthcare you have.
"Waiting for treatment has become a defining characteristic of Canadian health care. In order to document the lengthy queues for visits to specialists and for diagnostic and surgical procedures in the country, the Fraser Insti-tute has—for over two decades—surveyed specialist physicians across 12 specialties and 10 provinces.
This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that, overall, waiting times for medically necessary treatment have not improved since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 18.3 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment—slightly longer than the 18.2 week wait reported in 2014. This year’s wait time is 97% longer than in 1993 when it was just 9.3 weeks.
There is a great deal of variation in the total waiting time faced by patients across the provinces. Saskatchewan re-ports the shortest total wait (13.6 weeks), while Prince Edward Island reports the longest (43.1 weeks). Results for the latter province should be interpreted with caution since data is not available for certain specialties because of either a lack of response or an absence of doctors practising some specialties.
There is also a great deal of variation among specialties. Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopae-dic surgery (35.7 weeks).
The total wait time that patients face can be examined in two consecutive segments.
The first segment occurs from referral by a general practitioner to consultation with a specialist. The waiting time in this segment is 8.5 weeks this year, roughly the same as in 2014. This wait time is 130% longer than in 1993, when it was 3.7 weeks. The shortest waits for specialist consultations are in Saskatchewan (6.7 weeks) while the longest occur in Prince Edward Island (28.3 weeks).
The second segment occurs from the consultation with a specialist to the point at which the patient receives treatment. The waiting time in this segment is roughly the same as last year, 9.8 weeks. This wait time is 76% longer than in 1993 when it was 5.6 weeks, and almost three weeks longer than what physicians consider to be clinically “reasonable”. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits are found in Saskatchewan (6.9 weeks), while the longest are in Newfoundland & Labrador (20.5 weeks)."
Medically necessary and life threatening are two COMPLETELY different things. Anyways im done with you, i dont need to win the internet argument.
Enjoy dying early when you run out of money.
You clearly have excellent insurance coverage, and it almost sounds like you think everyone else here does, too. I had to wait 11 weeks just to get an initial primary care appointment...in the U.S. Not specialty care, not surgery. Just getting in to see a GP. My brother-in-law went bankrupt after an emergency appendectomy - even with his crappy insurance coverage. It's not all roses and rainbows here in the USA. In case you didn't know...
Yeah, my cousin lost his house over injuries from a car accident and an Aunt passed away from a completely foreseeable aneyrism because her insurance wouldn't pay for the scan that would have detected it.
A close friend of mine, who had "good" health insurance through her employer at the time, lost her house and nearly went bankrupt over medical bills following the birth of a child with moderate brain malformities, requiring extended care and multiple surgeries. They lived with her parents for years to get back on their feet (and not everyone has that option), and will likely be paying those medical bills for many more years. The child in question is 13, now, and doing quite well.
I'll repeat - they had "good" health insurance through her employer at the time.
And I'll add - that child will forever have a "pre-existing health condition."
Good thing they live here in the U.S.A. with all of our excellent health care. /sarcasm
The poor in this country get free medical care in the form of Medicaid . I know this for a fact. I am a single father with full custody of my two daughters. My income level is low enough that all their medical and dental is 100% free with the states Medicaid. I am on VA healthcare but when I lost my job due to medical issues, the state sent me a Medicaid card and all of my medical needs would have been free had I needed it. That IS the way it works in the US. The problem is that everyone thinks they should be able to keep their BMW and vacation fund and not put those toward their medical bills.
My friend did not qualify for Medicaid. At no time, at their lowest point, did they qualify, not that it would have mattered. They also had no BMW and STILL haven't taken a vacation, 13 years later. What are you even talking about?
But maybe that's the point, if we really get down to it. My friend and her husband, educated, hard-working, LUCKY enough to have good careers and insurance and a little savings, were nearly ruined by one unexpected healthcare crisis. I suppose if they'd been on Medicaid, it would have been fine.
I don't actually believe that, BTW. But there's a huge, HUGE gap in the impact a healthcare crisis can have on people, based largely on factors outside of their control.
I've heard many complain about not qualifying for Medicaid, but all the ones who told me their financial information shouldn't have qualified.
2 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
And how much disposable income does the fellow man have? One sick person with inadequate funding for medical care is a tragedy, a call to action, etc. A hundred? A thousand? A million? Those are dismal and overwhelming statistics. According to https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html, In 2014, there were an estimated 14,738,719 people living with cancer of any site in the United States.
From https://www.agingcare.com/articles/why-cancer-patients-cannot-afford-treatment-139136.htm"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions. This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.
"Once diagnosed with cancer, whether insured or not, people face significant and sometimes devastating hurdles to receiving timely, affordable treatment in our health care system," he says. "Cancer patients require a lot of services - infusion therapy, medication, surgery, ongoing care from doctors and nurse practitioners. Many don't have insurance, or they aren't reimbursed by their insurance company, so they are forced to do without treatment."One in eight people with advanced cancer turned down recommended care because of the cost, according to a new analysis from Kaiser Foundation. And one in four cancer patients or their families said they used up all or most of their savings to pay for treatment.
That's cancer. There are plenty of other diseases and medical conditions that are costly to treat.
So. How many people can a charity help before it has to turn everyone else away?
I'm not even getting to people who would rather die than accept charity. Though I suppose that if they do that, they'll "decrease the surplus population," no?
I see deliberate avoidance of the question "By what rationale are you justifying theft from one party to give to another?" Moreover what gives anyone the right to demand services provided by another without fair compensation? This is the crux of the matter and the reason why all socialized structures inevitably fail.
If charity cannot support this, what makes you think government can sustain an even larger population? Either way rationing is coming in to play as you have an unlimited demand and limited supply.
If someone would reject charity then what is your rationale for them accepting charity from government?
The root causes of the high cost of medical care in the US is insurance, litigation, and government involvement. You want to lower the cost of medical care you need to decrease nonsensical regulation and implement tort reform. Increasing competition and expanding supply is the only logical response.
Socialized medicine is not "theft from one party to give to another,neither is it - or it shouldn't be - based on the concept of individual rights and compensation. Socialised medicine in the UK is founded on the concept of cradle to grave provision of health care,which is free at the point of delivery. It takes into account that we are not all born equal and that those who are able to work ,and pay taxes,support those who cannot. And everyone benefits. So,even millionaires are entitled to free health care (if they want it) If your personal politics and ideology runs counter to that then fair enough. But like it or not,it works in the uk and in other countries where similar systems exist. I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of humanity and compassion can disagree with the concept but I guess it keeps life interesting.
Taking from one and giving to another is the foundation of socialism. It is only possible through the use of force that the government take from one group and gives to another - that by any is theft. Nothing is free, someone is always paying, but since that someone is someone else the majority accept it...until the providers tire of their role.
It's easy to moralize when you aren't personally providing the care and/or services I guess. I fail to see the humanity and compassion behind theft.
Socialism always "works" in the beginning...and then expands, withers, and dies. I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year...or used to be.
People are totally fine with the police, fire department, primary education, even the roads you drive on working under the same premise, yet when it comes to health people are starting to talk of theft. Can you tell me why that is? Would you rather pay the fire department directly and they just let your house burn down if you can't?16 -
stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
I'd love it if it was feasible that fellow men had the opportunity to be charitable. From what I'm seeing in cases where that is actually completely voluntary, I'd be very generous in saying that 99% of people asked to give to charities for people who are literally starving to death turn that plea down. You can't have nationwide medical care for people unable to provide it for themselves rely on voluntary charity like that.
I work every weekend in a free clinic solely staffed by volunteer medical professionals and supplied with products from the pharmaceutical industry. These exist in every nearly every city in the United States.
There are a few alternatives to insurance springing up now that share in medical costs and bypass insurance - most of which are dramatically cheaper than comparable insurance policies. The insurance lobby is doing everything in it's power to stop this from happening.
GoFundMe has been remarkably effective in mitigating financial ruin and relies solely on charity.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
I'd love it if it was feasible that fellow men had the opportunity to be charitable. From what I'm seeing in cases where that is actually completely voluntary, I'd be very generous in saying that 99% of people asked to give to charities for people who are literally starving to death turn that plea down. You can't have nationwide medical care for people unable to provide it for themselves rely on voluntary charity like that.
I work every weekend in a free clinic solely staffed by volunteer medical professionals and supplied with products from the pharmaceutical industry. These exist in every nearly every city in the United States.
There are a few alternatives to insurance springing up now that share in medical costs and bypass insurance - most of which are dramatically cheaper than comparable insurance policies. The insurance lobby is doing everything in it's power to stop this from happening.
GoFundMe has been remarkably effective in mitigating financial ruin and relies solely on charity.
And how many people are working in those free clinics? How many patients do you get? Do you think it's physically possible to have enough of those clinics to help everyone who would otherwise be financially ruined by medical costs or even a significant portion?6 -
And I'm willing to bet that for every GoFundME that ends up getting enough money together to help someone there's dozens that disappear forgotten and even more who don't even know that is an option or don't want to risk it and look for other alternatives. Hoping for strangers to be charitable is unfortunately about as safe as taking your paycheck to the casino in hopes of getting enough to cover your costs.9
-
comptonelizabeth wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
And how much disposable income does the fellow man have? One sick person with inadequate funding for medical care is a tragedy, a call to action, etc. A hundred? A thousand? A million? Those are dismal and overwhelming statistics. According to https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html, In 2014, there were an estimated 14,738,719 people living with cancer of any site in the United States.
From https://www.agingcare.com/articles/why-cancer-patients-cannot-afford-treatment-139136.htm"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions. This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.
"Once diagnosed with cancer, whether insured or not, people face significant and sometimes devastating hurdles to receiving timely, affordable treatment in our health care system," he says. "Cancer patients require a lot of services - infusion therapy, medication, surgery, ongoing care from doctors and nurse practitioners. Many don't have insurance, or they aren't reimbursed by their insurance company, so they are forced to do without treatment."One in eight people with advanced cancer turned down recommended care because of the cost, according to a new analysis from Kaiser Foundation. And one in four cancer patients or their families said they used up all or most of their savings to pay for treatment.
That's cancer. There are plenty of other diseases and medical conditions that are costly to treat.
So. How many people can a charity help before it has to turn everyone else away?
I'm not even getting to people who would rather die than accept charity. Though I suppose that if they do that, they'll "decrease the surplus population," no?
I see deliberate avoidance of the question "By what rationale are you justifying theft from one party to give to another?" Moreover what gives anyone the right to demand services provided by another without fair compensation? This is the crux of the matter and the reason why all socialized structures inevitably fail.
If charity cannot support this, what makes you think government can sustain an even larger population? Either way rationing is coming in to play as you have an unlimited demand and limited supply.
If someone would reject charity then what is your rationale for them accepting charity from government?
The root causes of the high cost of medical care in the US is insurance, litigation, and government involvement. You want to lower the cost of medical care you need to decrease nonsensical regulation and implement tort reform. Increasing competition and expanding supply is the only logical response.
Socialized medicine is not "theft from one party to give to another,neither is it - or it shouldn't be - based on the concept of individual rights and compensation. Socialised medicine in the UK is founded on the concept of cradle to grave provision of health care,which is free at the point of delivery. It takes into account that we are not all born equal and that those who are able to work ,and pay taxes,support those who cannot. And everyone benefits. So,even millionaires are entitled to free health care (if they want it) If your personal politics and ideology runs counter to that then fair enough. But like it or not,it works in the uk and in other countries where similar systems exist. I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of humanity and compassion can disagree with the concept but I guess it keeps life interesting.
Taking from one and giving to another is the foundation of socialism. It is only possible through the use of force that the government take from one group and gives to another - that by any is theft. Nothing is free, someone is always paying, but since that someone is someone else the majority accept it...until the providers tire of their role.
It's easy to moralize when you aren't personally providing the care and/or services I guess. I fail to see the humanity and compassion behind theft.
Socialism always "works" in the beginning...and then expands, withers, and dies. I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year...or used to be.
That's the second time you've mentioned Venezuela. What gives?
I'm sorry but we will just have to agree to disagree. To be honest I feel it's you who is doing the moralising,with your talk of theft and force. It's not how I see it (and yes I've worked and paid taxes all my life) I find your world view frightening and depressing. I'm off to bed- night all !11 -
3
-
I also know of plenty of places to get free or affordable healthcare, emergency rooms have to treat serious injuries, poor people quality for Medicaid, when your insurance runs out and you run out of resources, you will also qualify for Medicaid. I have first hand experience with this. I have done very well and been down and out. When I was down and out my daughters and I were on food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare. We stayed on them until I got back up on my feet again. Some people here just don't want this to be true.2
-
peckchris3267 wrote: »I also know of plenty of places to get free or affordable healthcare, emergency rooms have to treat serious injuries, poor people quality for Medicaid, when your insurance runs out and you run out of resources, you will also qualify for Medicaid. I have first hand experience with this. I have done very well and been down and out. When I was down and out my daughters and I were on food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare. We stayed on them until I got back up on my feet again. Some people here just don't want this to be true.
But if you had a chronic illness,would medicaid cover your medications? All of them,whatever was best for you and your individual case,without question? I'm genuinely interested,seriously- not trying to start an argument.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
I'd love it if it was feasible that fellow men had the opportunity to be charitable. From what I'm seeing in cases where that is actually completely voluntary, I'd be very generous in saying that 99% of people asked to give to charities for people who are literally starving to death turn that plea down. You can't have nationwide medical care for people unable to provide it for themselves rely on voluntary charity like that.
I work every weekend in a free clinic solely staffed by volunteer medical professionals and supplied with products from the pharmaceutical industry. These exist in every nearly every city in the United States.
There are a few alternatives to insurance springing up now that share in medical costs and bypass insurance - most of which are dramatically cheaper than comparable insurance policies. The insurance lobby is doing everything in it's power to stop this from happening.
GoFundMe has been remarkably effective in mitigating financial ruin and relies solely on charity.
LOL - I think you mean every major city. There aren't any free clinics anywhere near where I live. There's a county clinic an hour away, but it's not free - it's reduced cost if you're uninsured - but you have to have a certain income level to qualify to use the services.
6 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
I'd love it if it was feasible that fellow men had the opportunity to be charitable. From what I'm seeing in cases where that is actually completely voluntary, I'd be very generous in saying that 99% of people asked to give to charities for people who are literally starving to death turn that plea down. You can't have nationwide medical care for people unable to provide it for themselves rely on voluntary charity like that.
I work every weekend in a free clinic solely staffed by volunteer medical professionals and supplied with products from the pharmaceutical industry. These exist in every nearly every city in the United States.
There are a few alternatives to insurance springing up now that share in medical costs and bypass insurance - most of which are dramatically cheaper than comparable insurance policies. The insurance lobby is doing everything in it's power to stop this from happening.
GoFundMe has been remarkably effective in mitigating financial ruin and relies solely on charity.
And how many people are working in those free clinics? How many patients do you get? Do you think it's physically possible to have enough of those clinics to help everyone who would otherwise be financially ruined by medical costs or even a significant portion?
...and yet you believe that a system with unlimited demand and limited supply will be effective, but don't believe that charitable institutions can be?
Exactly how many people do you expect to be ruined financially through medical issues?1 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »I also know of plenty of places to get free or affordable healthcare, emergency rooms have to treat serious injuries, poor people quality for Medicaid, when your insurance runs out and you run out of resources, you will also qualify for Medicaid. I have first hand experience with this. I have done very well and been down and out. When I was down and out my daughters and I were on food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare. We stayed on them until I got back up on my feet again. Some people here just don't want this to be true.
But if you had a chronic illness,would medicaid cover your medications? All of them,whatever was best for you and your individual case,without question? I'm genuinely interested,seriously- not trying to start an argument.
I doubt this would be the case for any "socialized" healthcare plan in the world.
0 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
And how much disposable income does the fellow man have? One sick person with inadequate funding for medical care is a tragedy, a call to action, etc. A hundred? A thousand? A million? Those are dismal and overwhelming statistics. According to https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html, In 2014, there were an estimated 14,738,719 people living with cancer of any site in the United States.
From https://www.agingcare.com/articles/why-cancer-patients-cannot-afford-treatment-139136.htm"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions. This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.
"Once diagnosed with cancer, whether insured or not, people face significant and sometimes devastating hurdles to receiving timely, affordable treatment in our health care system," he says. "Cancer patients require a lot of services - infusion therapy, medication, surgery, ongoing care from doctors and nurse practitioners. Many don't have insurance, or they aren't reimbursed by their insurance company, so they are forced to do without treatment."One in eight people with advanced cancer turned down recommended care because of the cost, according to a new analysis from Kaiser Foundation. And one in four cancer patients or their families said they used up all or most of their savings to pay for treatment.
That's cancer. There are plenty of other diseases and medical conditions that are costly to treat.
So. How many people can a charity help before it has to turn everyone else away?
I'm not even getting to people who would rather die than accept charity. Though I suppose that if they do that, they'll "decrease the surplus population," no?
I see deliberate avoidance of the question "By what rationale are you justifying theft from one party to give to another?" Moreover what gives anyone the right to demand services provided by another without fair compensation? This is the crux of the matter and the reason why all socialized structures inevitably fail.
If charity cannot support this, what makes you think government can sustain an even larger population? Either way rationing is coming in to play as you have an unlimited demand and limited supply.
If someone would reject charity then what is your rationale for them accepting charity from government?
The root causes of the high cost of medical care in the US is insurance, litigation, and government involvement. You want to lower the cost of medical care you need to decrease nonsensical regulation and implement tort reform. Increasing competition and expanding supply is the only logical response.
Socialized medicine is not "theft from one party to give to another,neither is it - or it shouldn't be - based on the concept of individual rights and compensation. Socialised medicine in the UK is founded on the concept of cradle to grave provision of health care,which is free at the point of delivery. It takes into account that we are not all born equal and that those who are able to work ,and pay taxes,support those who cannot. And everyone benefits. So,even millionaires are entitled to free health care (if they want it) If your personal politics and ideology runs counter to that then fair enough. But like it or not,it works in the uk and in other countries where similar systems exist. I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of humanity and compassion can disagree with the concept but I guess it keeps life interesting.
Taking from one and giving to another is the foundation of socialism. It is only possible through the use of force that the government take from one group and gives to another - that by any is theft. Nothing is free, someone is always paying, but since that someone is someone else the majority accept it...until the providers tire of their role.
It's easy to moralize when you aren't personally providing the care and/or services I guess. I fail to see the humanity and compassion behind theft.
Socialism always "works" in the beginning...and then expands, withers, and dies. I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year...or used to be.
That's the second time you've mentioned Venezuela. What gives?
I'm sorry but we will just have to agree to disagree. To be honest I feel it's you who is doing the moralising,with your talk of theft and force. It's not how I see it (and yes I've worked and paid taxes all my life) I find your world view frightening and depressing. I'm off to bed- night all !
Venezuela is simply the latest sad example of the ultimate failure of socialized systems. I find this situation frightening and depressing, especially given the previous success of that country.
My world view can be summarized as one of personal liberty above all else. If you find this concept frightening and depressing that is your right.
"A society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty. And a society that aims first for liberty will not end up with equality, but it will end up with a closer approach to equality than any other kind of system that has ever been developed." - Milton Friedman
4 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »I also know of plenty of places to get free or affordable healthcare, emergency rooms have to treat serious injuries, poor people quality for Medicaid, when your insurance runs out and you run out of resources, you will also qualify for Medicaid. I have first hand experience with this. I have done very well and been down and out. When I was down and out my daughters and I were on food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare. We stayed on them until I got back up on my feet again. Some people here just don't want this to be true.
"Plenty of places" for free and affordable healthcare? Please enlighten us.
So you think that people having to wait until their life is in danger to go to the ER for "free" medical care for a problem that could have been easily addressed with preventive care is a viable, economical solution to the healthcare crisis? Really?
So people are supposed to run to the ER because it's the only place they can't be turned away, bankrupt themselves will the medical bills they rack up there, lose all their assets, then sign up for Medicaid now that they have nothing left in life, so they can finally get free care outside of the ER? And you think that's a good, economical, working system? That's back-*kitten*-wards. Mind-boggling.
14 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I hope you're not implying that people who need socialized medicine are lazy or flighty like the grasshopper in said fable. Pity there isn't a third character in there who works and sweats and scrimps and saves... but because of a large family, a need to flee predators, thieves stealing thier food stores, etc. finds themself with insufficient food to get through the winter and now faces, not only starvation but the stigma of being judged a lazy parasite.
An evaluation needs to take place in each case, especially when attempting to take resources by force from one party to another. Otherwise you are replacing justice of law with....what exactly is your rationale for this theft? Taking from those who have done no wrong and giving to those who have not been wronged?
Your third character would and should rely on charity and give their fellow man the opportunity to be charitable.
And how much disposable income does the fellow man have? One sick person with inadequate funding for medical care is a tragedy, a call to action, etc. A hundred? A thousand? A million? Those are dismal and overwhelming statistics. According to https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html, In 2014, there were an estimated 14,738,719 people living with cancer of any site in the United States.
From https://www.agingcare.com/articles/why-cancer-patients-cannot-afford-treatment-139136.htm"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions. This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.
"Once diagnosed with cancer, whether insured or not, people face significant and sometimes devastating hurdles to receiving timely, affordable treatment in our health care system," he says. "Cancer patients require a lot of services - infusion therapy, medication, surgery, ongoing care from doctors and nurse practitioners. Many don't have insurance, or they aren't reimbursed by their insurance company, so they are forced to do without treatment."One in eight people with advanced cancer turned down recommended care because of the cost, according to a new analysis from Kaiser Foundation. And one in four cancer patients or their families said they used up all or most of their savings to pay for treatment.
That's cancer. There are plenty of other diseases and medical conditions that are costly to treat.
So. How many people can a charity help before it has to turn everyone else away?
I'm not even getting to people who would rather die than accept charity. Though I suppose that if they do that, they'll "decrease the surplus population," no?
I see deliberate avoidance of the question "By what rationale are you justifying theft from one party to give to another?" Moreover what gives anyone the right to demand services provided by another without fair compensation? This is the crux of the matter and the reason why all socialized structures inevitably fail.
If charity cannot support this, what makes you think government can sustain an even larger population? Either way rationing is coming in to play as you have an unlimited demand and limited supply.
If someone would reject charity then what is your rationale for them accepting charity from government?
The root causes of the high cost of medical care in the US is insurance, litigation, and government involvement. You want to lower the cost of medical care you need to decrease nonsensical regulation and implement tort reform. Increasing competition and expanding supply is the only logical response.
Socialized medicine is not "theft from one party to give to another,neither is it - or it shouldn't be - based on the concept of individual rights and compensation. Socialised medicine in the UK is founded on the concept of cradle to grave provision of health care,which is free at the point of delivery. It takes into account that we are not all born equal and that those who are able to work ,and pay taxes,support those who cannot. And everyone benefits. So,even millionaires are entitled to free health care (if they want it) If your personal politics and ideology runs counter to that then fair enough. But like it or not,it works in the uk and in other countries where similar systems exist. I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of humanity and compassion can disagree with the concept but I guess it keeps life interesting.
Taking from one and giving to another is the foundation of socialism. It is only possible through the use of force that the government take from one group and gives to another - that by any is theft. Nothing is free, someone is always paying, but since that someone is someone else the majority accept it...until the providers tire of their role.
It's easy to moralize when you aren't personally providing the care and/or services I guess. I fail to see the humanity and compassion behind theft.
Socialism always "works" in the beginning...and then expands, withers, and dies. I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year...or used to be.
That's the second time you've mentioned Venezuela. What gives?
I'm sorry but we will just have to agree to disagree. To be honest I feel it's you who is doing the moralising,with your talk of theft and force. It's not how I see it (and yes I've worked and paid taxes all my life) I find your world view frightening and depressing. I'm off to bed- night all !
Venezuela is simply the latest sad example of the ultimate failure of socialized systems. I find this situation frightening and depressing, especially given the previous success of that country.
My world view can be summarized as one of personal liberty above all else. If you find this concept frightening and depressing that is your right.
"A society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty. And a society that aims first for liberty will not end up with equality, but it will end up with a closer approach to equality than any other kind of system that has ever been developed." - Milton Friedman
Then you and I occupy opposing philosophical positions and it's pointless continuing this argument. I simply don't and cannot agree with the view that personal liberty,at the expense of all else, is more important than anything.Furthermore,if you believe you truly have "personal liberty " then you are either unique,extremely lucky/privileged,or deluded.12 -
Yes. You might not get the same meds that a finicky wealthy person would demand but you would get what you NEED. Some people get confused between necessity and what they want.comptonelizabeth wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »I also know of plenty of places to get free or affordable healthcare, emergency rooms have to treat serious injuries, poor people quality for Medicaid, when your insurance runs out and you run out of resources, you will also qualify for Medicaid. I have first hand experience with this. I have done very well and been down and out. When I was down and out my daughters and I were on food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare. We stayed on them until I got back up on my feet again. Some people here just don't want this to be true.
But if you had a chronic illness,would medicaid cover your medications? All of them,whatever was best for you and your individual case,without question? I'm genuinely interested,seriously- not trying to start an argument.
3 -
Yes, I believe people should pay for their medical needs until they can no longer do so, them the government takes over. I absolutely believe this is how it should go. If you have a good job that offers insurance and you choose not to purchase it because it might tighten your budget more than you would like, there are consequences to that decision. If you are below the poverty level you will get free health care. If you have insurance and you max it out you should have to liquidate your assets to pay your medical bills. Bottom line, no one is being left out to die .peckchris3267 wrote: »I also know of plenty of places to get free or affordable healthcare, emergency rooms have to treat serious injuries, poor people quality for Medicaid, when your insurance runs out and you run out of resources, you will also qualify for Medicaid. I have first hand experience with this. I have done very well and been down and out. When I was down and out my daughters and I were on food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare. We stayed on them until I got back up on my feet again. Some people here just don't want this to be true.
"Plenty of places" for free and affordable healthcare? Please enlighten us.
So you think that people having to wait until their life is in danger to go to the ER for "free" medical care for a problem that could have been easily addressed with preventive care is a viable, economical solution to the healthcare crisis? Really?
So people are supposed to run to the ER because it's the only place they can't be turned away, bankrupt themselves will the medical bills they rack up there, lose all their assets, then sign up for Medicaid now that they have nothing left in life, so they can finally get free care outside of the ER? And you think that's a good, economical, working system? That's back-*kitten*-wards. Mind-boggling.
2 -
Both my daughters had jacked up teeth. One of my daughters needed braces out of medical necessity so they were covered 100% by Medicaid. My other daughter was not deemed to have a medical necessity for braces so I paid for them out of my own pocket.1
-
But is it of the same quality as those who "have a good job that offers insurance "? If yes,then fine,but if not then surely you can see how unjust that is? Those with health problems are those most likely to be unable to work and therefore unable to buy health insurance .peckchris3267 wrote: »
Yes, I believe people should pay for their medical needs until they can no longer do so, them the government takes over. I absolutely believe this is how it should go. If you have a good job that offers insurance and you choose not to purchase it because it might tighten your budget more than you would like, there are consequences to that decision. If you are below the poverty level you will get free health care. If you have insurance and you max it out you should have to liquidate your assets to pay your medical bills. Bottom line, no one is being left out to die .peckchris3267 wrote: »I also know of plenty of places to get free or affordable healthcare, emergency rooms have to treat serious injuries, poor people quality for Medicaid, when your insurance runs out and you run out of resources, you will also qualify for Medicaid. I have first hand experience with this. I have done very well and been down and out. When I was down and out my daughters and I were on food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare. We stayed on them until I got back up on my feet again. Some people here just don't want this to be true.
"Plenty of places" for free and affordable healthcare? Please enlighten us.
So you think that people having to wait until their life is in danger to go to the ER for "free" medical care for a problem that could have been easily addressed with preventive care is a viable, economical solution to the healthcare crisis? Really?
So people are supposed to run to the ER because it's the only place they can't be turned away, bankrupt themselves will the medical bills they rack up there, lose all their assets, then sign up for Medicaid now that they have nothing left in life, so they can finally get free care outside of the ER? And you think that's a good, economical, working system? That's back-*kitten*-wards. Mind-boggling.
Also I would hope that civilised societies can aspire to more than simply making sure people don't die! What about quality of life,what about being able to work at all (ie not being prevented from doing so by ill health)
1 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
Yes, I believe people should pay for their medical needs until they can no longer do so, them the government takes over. I absolutely believe this is how it should go. If you have a good job that offers insurance and you choose not to purchase it because it might tighten your budget more than you would like, there are consequences to that decision. If you are below the poverty level you will get free health care. If you have insurance and you max it out you should have to liquidate your assets to pay your medical bills. Bottom line, no one is being left out to die .peckchris3267 wrote: »I also know of plenty of places to get free or affordable healthcare, emergency rooms have to treat serious injuries, poor people quality for Medicaid, when your insurance runs out and you run out of resources, you will also qualify for Medicaid. I have first hand experience with this. I have done very well and been down and out. When I was down and out my daughters and I were on food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare. We stayed on them until I got back up on my feet again. Some people here just don't want this to be true.
"Plenty of places" for free and affordable healthcare? Please enlighten us.
So you think that people having to wait until their life is in danger to go to the ER for "free" medical care for a problem that could have been easily addressed with preventive care is a viable, economical solution to the healthcare crisis? Really?
So people are supposed to run to the ER because it's the only place they can't be turned away, bankrupt themselves will the medical bills they rack up there, lose all their assets, then sign up for Medicaid now that they have nothing left in life, so they can finally get free care outside of the ER? And you think that's a good, economical, working system? That's back-*kitten*-wards. Mind-boggling.
You do know that "the government takes over." means all the people working and paying taxes are now paying for that "free" health care - right? You do know that's how the government gets money-right?6 -
Of course I do but the difference is in countries with socialized medicine, the government starts paying right away for everyone at the expense of the tax payer. In the US you would have to max out your insurance first then run out of assets, THEN the government takes over. Huge difference.peckchris3267 wrote: »
Yes, I believe people should pay for their medical needs until they can no longer do so, them the government takes over. I absolutely believe this is how it should go. If you have a good job that offers insurance and you choose not to purchase it because it might tighten your budget more than you would like, there are consequences to that decision. If you are below the poverty level you will get free health care. If you have insurance and you max it out you should have to liquidate your assets to pay your medical bills. Bottom line, no one is being left out to die .peckchris3267 wrote: »I also know of plenty of places to get free or affordable healthcare, emergency rooms have to treat serious injuries, poor people quality for Medicaid, when your insurance runs out and you run out of resources, you will also qualify for Medicaid. I have first hand experience with this. I have done very well and been down and out. When I was down and out my daughters and I were on food stamps, Medicaid, and other welfare. We stayed on them until I got back up on my feet again. Some people here just don't want this to be true.
"Plenty of places" for free and affordable healthcare? Please enlighten us.
So you think that people having to wait until their life is in danger to go to the ER for "free" medical care for a problem that could have been easily addressed with preventive care is a viable, economical solution to the healthcare crisis? Really?
So people are supposed to run to the ER because it's the only place they can't be turned away, bankrupt themselves will the medical bills they rack up there, lose all their assets, then sign up for Medicaid now that they have nothing left in life, so they can finally get free care outside of the ER? And you think that's a good, economical, working system? That's back-*kitten*-wards. Mind-boggling.
You do know that "the government takes over." means all the people working and paying taxes are now paying for that "free" health care - right? You do know that's how the government gets money-right?
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions