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.

Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?

1363739414275

Replies

  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    There is just ONE reason that healthcare is expensive in the US............................................profit. Until the US becomes a not for profit venture, health care costs for people are just going to keep rising. And really we could have a decent government healthcare system if we diverted money to it. Problem is, taxpayer money is diverted to other profit ventures that benefit people in politics more than it does the people themselves.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Every healthcare system is for profit. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats work for free?
    Socialized healthcare makes a profit? Military healthcare is for profit? Don't think so.
    You can never have decent healthcare without a motive of profit. This is the primary reason healthcare costs have risen beyond the rest of the consumer index - deliberate insertion of middlemen (government and insurance).
    Lots of countries don't have people pay insurance on healthcare and do just fine. Our own would be health care for the military. I grew up an Air Force brat and even today, my retired parents (both past 85 years old) get great healthcare at NO COST to them.
    If you allowed free market forces to compete then you would not have instances where Epipens rose to prohibitive prices. You would have competitive companies offering products at a reduced price to gain market share. Government is the problem, not the solution.
    Lol, wouldn't that be socialized medicine then? Affordability for ALL and not just the elite? And who's keeping big pharma and insurance companies happy? The people getting their palms greased by them. Health care shouldn't be for capital gain. I've personally worked in it and with people who suffer who busted their *kitten* working for decades only to use their retirement to pay for medical help not covered by insurance (mostly prescriptions drugs).

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    It's rare that someone actually touts the VA as an shining example of socialized medicine, but if that's what you want to hang you hat on - be my guest. I'm a veteran and I should get no cost medical; however the scheduling and waiting lines make full time employment and service from the VA nearly impossible, unless you enjoy 6 months waiting lines.

    Who's keeping big pharma happy? Well first you would have to research the relationship between what the congressional committees allow pharma to charge. A convoluted relationship between market wholesalers, market retailers, insurance companies, hospitals, and any other select buying groups...and of course the government. Pretty simple when you see who's providing the bulk of campaign contributions though.

    Shouldn't is not a rational argument. You are actually making an argument against insurance, not for socialized medicine. Remove insurance, remove government. Unleash the free market and the cost of medicine will return to normal.


    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    I think some VA clinics must be more impacted than others, then. Because my husband was able to get his latest appointment within 10 days. That's much faster than the three month wait I had to get an appointment just to see a GP with private insurance.

    I'm not sure the story you brought up about the terminally ill kid is relevant to this thread. Terminally ill patients are allowed to die naturally in non-socialized medical systems, too. This poor kid's parents were grasping at straws to try an experimental treatment that had never been tried before on his condition and that multiple experts agreed would not have reversed his brain damage. So best case scenario, this kid lives longer, but in no better shape than he currently is. How is that a good thing? The potential treatment being offered would not have cured this child, but only "possibly" prolonged his life, while "potentially" causing additional harm/genetic mutations/pain/discomfort to him. IMO, not all medical intervention is a good thing. Sometimes it's best to let nature take it's course. I wouldn't want to be kept alive with a degenerative disorder that has destroyed much of my brain, and caused me to lose all normal functioning with no hope of improvement - only the possibility of living longer in that condition. I feel bad for the parents - no one wants to lose a child - but I can't fault the medical team in this case, and I wouldn't exactly call the doctors caring for him "bureaucrats."

    I can understand why proponents of socialized medicine would want to downplay this story and all others like it. This isn't a matter of being allowed to die - it's one of a bureaucratic panel deciding that a child will die in direct conflict with the wishes of the parents. Of course you wouldn't want to use a term such as bureaucrat as it hurts your narrative. How else would you describe the European Court of Human Rights?

    This isn't about you. Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant, as is mine. The only opinions that matter are that of the parents and the treating physicians, but this is never the case in a socialized structure. What is truly horrific is that the state now refuses to release custody of the parent's child to the parents.

    To be expected as in a socialized system the individual has no unalienable rights. Your rights are those the state allows you to have.

    The treating physicians DID give their opinion and the court upheld it.

    In contradiction to the wishes of the parents and other physicians.

    A court of bureaucrats superseded the wishes of parents. Despicable.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    There is just ONE reason that healthcare is expensive in the US............................................profit. Until the US becomes a not for profit venture, health care costs for people are just going to keep rising. And really we could have a decent government healthcare system if we diverted money to it. Problem is, taxpayer money is diverted to other profit ventures that benefit people in politics more than it does the people themselves.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Every healthcare system is for profit. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats work for free?
    Socialized healthcare makes a profit? Military healthcare is for profit? Don't think so.
    You can never have decent healthcare without a motive of profit. This is the primary reason healthcare costs have risen beyond the rest of the consumer index - deliberate insertion of middlemen (government and insurance).
    Lots of countries don't have people pay insurance on healthcare and do just fine. Our own would be health care for the military. I grew up an Air Force brat and even today, my retired parents (both past 85 years old) get great healthcare at NO COST to them.
    If you allowed free market forces to compete then you would not have instances where Epipens rose to prohibitive prices. You would have competitive companies offering products at a reduced price to gain market share. Government is the problem, not the solution.
    Lol, wouldn't that be socialized medicine then? Affordability for ALL and not just the elite? And who's keeping big pharma and insurance companies happy? The people getting their palms greased by them. Health care shouldn't be for capital gain. I've personally worked in it and with people who suffer who busted their *kitten* working for decades only to use their retirement to pay for medical help not covered by insurance (mostly prescriptions drugs).

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    It's rare that someone actually touts the VA as an shining example of socialized medicine, but if that's what you want to hang you hat on - be my guest. I'm a veteran and I should get no cost medical; however the scheduling and waiting lines make full time employment and service from the VA nearly impossible, unless you enjoy 6 months waiting lines.

    Who's keeping big pharma happy? Well first you would have to research the relationship between what the congressional committees allow pharma to charge. A convoluted relationship between market wholesalers, market retailers, insurance companies, hospitals, and any other select buying groups...and of course the government. Pretty simple when you see who's providing the bulk of campaign contributions though.

    Shouldn't is not a rational argument. You are actually making an argument against insurance, not for socialized medicine. Remove insurance, remove government. Unleash the free market and the cost of medicine will return to normal.


    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    I think some VA clinics must be more impacted than others, then. Because my husband was able to get his latest appointment within 10 days. That's much faster than the three month wait I had to get an appointment just to see a GP with private insurance.

    I'm not sure the story you brought up about the terminally ill kid is relevant to this thread. Terminally ill patients are allowed to die naturally in non-socialized medical systems, too. This poor kid's parents were grasping at straws to try an experimental treatment that had never been tried before on his condition and that multiple experts agreed would not have reversed his brain damage. So best case scenario, this kid lives longer, but in no better shape than he currently is. How is that a good thing? The potential treatment being offered would not have cured this child, but only "possibly" prolonged his life, while "potentially" causing additional harm/genetic mutations/pain/discomfort to him. IMO, not all medical intervention is a good thing. Sometimes it's best to let nature take it's course. I wouldn't want to be kept alive with a degenerative disorder that has destroyed much of my brain, and caused me to lose all normal functioning with no hope of improvement - only the possibility of living longer in that condition. I feel bad for the parents - no one wants to lose a child - but I can't fault the medical team in this case, and I wouldn't exactly call the doctors caring for him "bureaucrats."

    I can understand why proponents of socialized medicine would want to downplay this story and all others like it. This isn't a matter of being allowed to die - it's one of a bureaucratic panel deciding that a child will die in direct conflict with the wishes of the parents. Of course you wouldn't want to use a term such as bureaucrat as it hurts your narrative. How else would you describe the European Court of Human Rights?

    This isn't about you. Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant, as is mine. The only opinions that matter are that of the parents and the treating physicians, but this is never the case in a socialized structure. What is truly horrific is that the state now refuses to release custody of the parent's child to the parents.

    To be expected as in a socialized system the individual has no unalienable rights. Your rights are those the state allows you to have.

    The treating physicians DID give their opinion and the court upheld it.

    In contradiction to the wishes of the parents and other physicians.

    A court of bureaucrats superseded the wishes of parents. Despicable.

    http://www.aapsonline.org/patients/billrts.htm
    adopted in 1995
    All patients should be guaranteed the following freedoms:

    •To seek consultation with the physician(s) of their choice;
    •To contract with their physician(s) on mutually agreeable terms;
    •To be treated confidentially, with access to their records limited to those involved in their care or designated by the patient;
    •To use their own resources to purchase the care of their choice;
    •To refuse medical treatment even if it is recommended by their physician(s);
    •To be informed about their medical condition, the risks and benefits of treatment and appropriate alternatives;
    •To refuse third-party interference in their medical care, and to be confident that their actions in seeking or declining medical care will not result in third-party-imposed penalties for patients or physicians;
    •To receive full disclosure of their insurance plan in plain language, including:

    1.CONTRACTS: A copy of the contract between the physician and health care plan, and between the patient or employer and the plan;
    2.INCENTIVES: Whether participating physicians are offered financial incentives to reduce treatment or ration care;
    3.COST: The full cost of the plan, including copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles;
    4.COVERAGE: Benefits covered and excluded, including availability and location of 24-hour emergency care;
    5.QUALIFICATIONS: A roster and qualifications of participating physicians;
    6.APPROVAL PROCEDURES: Authorization procedures for services, whether doctors need approval of a committee or any other individual, and who decides what is medically necessary;
    7.REFERRALS: Procedures for consulting a specialist, and who must authorize the referral;
    8.APPEALS: Grievance procedures for claim or treatment denials;
    9.GAG RULE: Whether physicians are subject to a gag rule, preventing criticism of the plan.

  • fbchick51
    fbchick51 Posts: 240 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    This isn't a product of socialized medicine. This happens here in the US too. Insurance companies denying treatment. Hospitals overriding legal documentation on preferred treatment. Long list of court cases deciding what treatments a person gets when family members disagree. It even isn't that uncommon for a government body to step in and strip the family from the right to decided their loved ones fate.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    fbchick51 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    This isn't a product of socialized medicine. This happens here in the US too. Insurance companies denying treatment. Hospitals overriding legal documentation on preferred treatment. Long list of court cases deciding what treatments a person gets when family members disagree. It even isn't that uncommon for a government body to step in and strip the family from the right to decided their loved ones fate.

    In the US, if a family has a 1.65 Million Dollar Go Fund me account. the Doctors aren't going to refuse to allow the patient to be transferred.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    fbchick51 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    This isn't a product of socialized medicine. This happens here in the US too. Insurance companies denying treatment. Hospitals overriding legal documentation on preferred treatment. Long list of court cases deciding what treatments a person gets when family members disagree. It even isn't that uncommon for a government body to step in and strip the family from the right to decided their loved ones fate.

    This is precisely the outcome of socialized medicine.

    Citation please?

    Show me where an insurance company refused to release a child into the care of a physician wanting to attempt an experimental course of therapy.

    I'll accept one from your alleged "long list".
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,142 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    There is just ONE reason that healthcare is expensive in the US............................................profit. Until the US becomes a not for profit venture, health care costs for people are just going to keep rising. And really we could have a decent government healthcare system if we diverted money to it. Problem is, taxpayer money is diverted to other profit ventures that benefit people in politics more than it does the people themselves.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Every healthcare system is for profit. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats work for free?
    Socialized healthcare makes a profit? Military healthcare is for profit? Don't think so.
    You can never have decent healthcare without a motive of profit. This is the primary reason healthcare costs have risen beyond the rest of the consumer index - deliberate insertion of middlemen (government and insurance).
    Lots of countries don't have people pay insurance on healthcare and do just fine. Our own would be health care for the military. I grew up an Air Force brat and even today, my retired parents (both past 85 years old) get great healthcare at NO COST to them.
    If you allowed free market forces to compete then you would not have instances where Epipens rose to prohibitive prices. You would have competitive companies offering products at a reduced price to gain market share. Government is the problem, not the solution.
    Lol, wouldn't that be socialized medicine then? Affordability for ALL and not just the elite? And who's keeping big pharma and insurance companies happy? The people getting their palms greased by them. Health care shouldn't be for capital gain. I've personally worked in it and with people who suffer who busted their *kitten* working for decades only to use their retirement to pay for medical help not covered by insurance (mostly prescriptions drugs).

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    It's rare that someone actually touts the VA as an shining example of socialized medicine, but if that's what you want to hang you hat on - be my guest. I'm a veteran and I should get no cost medical; however the scheduling and waiting lines make full time employment and service from the VA nearly impossible, unless you enjoy 6 months waiting lines.

    Who's keeping big pharma happy? Well first you would have to research the relationship between what the congressional committees allow pharma to charge. A convoluted relationship between market wholesalers, market retailers, insurance companies, hospitals, and any other select buying groups...and of course the government. Pretty simple when you see who's providing the bulk of campaign contributions though.

    Shouldn't is not a rational argument. You are actually making an argument against insurance, not for socialized medicine. Remove insurance, remove government. Unleash the free market and the cost of medicine will return to normal.


    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    I think some VA clinics must be more impacted than others, then. Because my husband was able to get his latest appointment within 10 days. That's much faster than the three month wait I had to get an appointment just to see a GP with private insurance.

    I'm not sure the story you brought up about the terminally ill kid is relevant to this thread. Terminally ill patients are allowed to die naturally in non-socialized medical systems, too. This poor kid's parents were grasping at straws to try an experimental treatment that had never been tried before on his condition and that multiple experts agreed would not have reversed his brain damage. So best case scenario, this kid lives longer, but in no better shape than he currently is. How is that a good thing? The potential treatment being offered would not have cured this child, but only "possibly" prolonged his life, while "potentially" causing additional harm/genetic mutations/pain/discomfort to him. IMO, not all medical intervention is a good thing. Sometimes it's best to let nature take it's course. I wouldn't want to be kept alive with a degenerative disorder that has destroyed much of my brain, and caused me to lose all normal functioning with no hope of improvement - only the possibility of living longer in that condition. I feel bad for the parents - no one wants to lose a child - but I can't fault the medical team in this case, and I wouldn't exactly call the doctors caring for him "bureaucrats."

    I can understand why proponents of socialized medicine would want to downplay this story and all others like it. This isn't a matter of being allowed to die - it's one of a bureaucratic panel deciding that a child will die in direct conflict with the wishes of the parents. Of course you wouldn't want to use a term such as bureaucrat as it hurts your narrative. How else would you describe the European Court of Human Rights?

    This isn't about you. Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant, as is mine. The only opinions that matter are that of the parents and the treating physicians, but this is never the case in a socialized structure. What is truly horrific is that the state now refuses to release custody of the parent's child to the parents.

    To be expected as in a socialized system the individual has no unalienable rights. Your rights are those the state allows you to have.

    The treating physicians DID give their opinion and the court upheld it.

    In contradiction to the wishes of the parents and other physicians.

    A court of bureaucrats superseded the wishes of parents. Despicable.

    Which "other physicians"? You mean the guy who is willing to accept their money for his medical research in exchange for attempting "treatment," but who also acknowledged that the treatment was unlikely to work? Because all the current treating physicians and experts in the field were saying that the treatment has the potential to prolong discomfort or cause pain to the child, without much chance for benefit. Sometimes it's more humane and ethical to let someone pass naturally than it is to experiment on them. Clearly the parents' wishes are based on emotion, not rational medical expertise. Courts supersede parents wishes all the time when the parents' wishes are potentially harmful to their children. Kids are people, not property.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    edited July 2017
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    There is just ONE reason that healthcare is expensive in the US............................................profit. Until the US becomes a not for profit venture, health care costs for people are just going to keep rising. And really we could have a decent government healthcare system if we diverted money to it. Problem is, taxpayer money is diverted to other profit ventures that benefit people in politics more than it does the people themselves.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Every healthcare system is for profit. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats work for free?
    Socialized healthcare makes a profit? Military healthcare is for profit? Don't think so.
    You can never have decent healthcare without a motive of profit. This is the primary reason healthcare costs have risen beyond the rest of the consumer index - deliberate insertion of middlemen (government and insurance).
    Lots of countries don't have people pay insurance on healthcare and do just fine. Our own would be health care for the military. I grew up an Air Force brat and even today, my retired parents (both past 85 years old) get great healthcare at NO COST to them.
    If you allowed free market forces to compete then you would not have instances where Epipens rose to prohibitive prices. You would have competitive companies offering products at a reduced price to gain market share. Government is the problem, not the solution.
    Lol, wouldn't that be socialized medicine then? Affordability for ALL and not just the elite? And who's keeping big pharma and insurance companies happy? The people getting their palms greased by them. Health care shouldn't be for capital gain. I've personally worked in it and with people who suffer who busted their *kitten* working for decades only to use their retirement to pay for medical help not covered by insurance (mostly prescriptions drugs).

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    It's rare that someone actually touts the VA as an shining example of socialized medicine, but if that's what you want to hang you hat on - be my guest. I'm a veteran and I should get no cost medical; however the scheduling and waiting lines make full time employment and service from the VA nearly impossible, unless you enjoy 6 months waiting lines.

    Who's keeping big pharma happy? Well first you would have to research the relationship between what the congressional committees allow pharma to charge. A convoluted relationship between market wholesalers, market retailers, insurance companies, hospitals, and any other select buying groups...and of course the government. Pretty simple when you see who's providing the bulk of campaign contributions though.

    Shouldn't is not a rational argument. You are actually making an argument against insurance, not for socialized medicine. Remove insurance, remove government. Unleash the free market and the cost of medicine will return to normal.


    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    I think some VA clinics must be more impacted than others, then. Because my husband was able to get his latest appointment within 10 days. That's much faster than the three month wait I had to get an appointment just to see a GP with private insurance.

    I'm not sure the story you brought up about the terminally ill kid is relevant to this thread. Terminally ill patients are allowed to die naturally in non-socialized medical systems, too. This poor kid's parents were grasping at straws to try an experimental treatment that had never been tried before on his condition and that multiple experts agreed would not have reversed his brain damage. So best case scenario, this kid lives longer, but in no better shape than he currently is. How is that a good thing? The potential treatment being offered would not have cured this child, but only "possibly" prolonged his life, while "potentially" causing additional harm/genetic mutations/pain/discomfort to him. IMO, not all medical intervention is a good thing. Sometimes it's best to let nature take it's course. I wouldn't want to be kept alive with a degenerative disorder that has destroyed much of my brain, and caused me to lose all normal functioning with no hope of improvement - only the possibility of living longer in that condition. I feel bad for the parents - no one wants to lose a child - but I can't fault the medical team in this case, and I wouldn't exactly call the doctors caring for him "bureaucrats."

    I can understand why proponents of socialized medicine would want to downplay this story and all others like it. This isn't a matter of being allowed to die - it's one of a bureaucratic panel deciding that a child will die in direct conflict with the wishes of the parents. Of course you wouldn't want to use a term such as bureaucrat as it hurts your narrative. How else would you describe the European Court of Human Rights?

    This isn't about you. Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant, as is mine. The only opinions that matter are that of the parents and the treating physicians, but this is never the case in a socialized structure. What is truly horrific is that the state now refuses to release custody of the parent's child to the parents.

    To be expected as in a socialized system the individual has no unalienable rights. Your rights are those the state allows you to have.

    The treating physicians DID give their opinion and the court upheld it.

    In contradiction to the wishes of the parents and other physicians.

    A court of bureaucrats superseded the wishes of parents. Despicable.

    Which "other physicians"? You mean the guy who is willing to accept their money for his medical research in exchange for attempting "treatment," but who also acknowledged that the treatment was unlikely to work? Because all the current treating physicians and experts in the field were saying that the treatment has the potential to prolong discomfort or cause pain to the child, without much chance for benefit. Sometimes it's more humane and ethical to let someone pass naturally than it is to experiment on them. Clearly the parents' wishes are based on emotion, not rational medical expertise. Courts supersede parents wishes all the time when the parents' wishes are potentially harmful to their children. Kids are people, not property.

    "Sometime it's more humane and ethical to let someone pass naturally than it is to experiment on them." - Not your decision. This is between the parents and their physician.

    This is why I advocate for a two tiered structure. You may willingly relinquish all rights and liberty to your betters, but you speak for you and you alone.

    Kids are evidently property of the government as highlighted by this case. Parents have no rights.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    There is just ONE reason that healthcare is expensive in the US............................................profit. Until the US becomes a not for profit venture, health care costs for people are just going to keep rising. And really we could have a decent government healthcare system if we diverted money to it. Problem is, taxpayer money is diverted to other profit ventures that benefit people in politics more than it does the people themselves.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Every healthcare system is for profit. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats work for free?
    Socialized healthcare makes a profit? Military healthcare is for profit? Don't think so.
    You can never have decent healthcare without a motive of profit. This is the primary reason healthcare costs have risen beyond the rest of the consumer index - deliberate insertion of middlemen (government and insurance).
    Lots of countries don't have people pay insurance on healthcare and do just fine. Our own would be health care for the military. I grew up an Air Force brat and even today, my retired parents (both past 85 years old) get great healthcare at NO COST to them.
    If you allowed free market forces to compete then you would not have instances where Epipens rose to prohibitive prices. You would have competitive companies offering products at a reduced price to gain market share. Government is the problem, not the solution.
    Lol, wouldn't that be socialized medicine then? Affordability for ALL and not just the elite? And who's keeping big pharma and insurance companies happy? The people getting their palms greased by them. Health care shouldn't be for capital gain. I've personally worked in it and with people who suffer who busted their *kitten* working for decades only to use their retirement to pay for medical help not covered by insurance (mostly prescriptions drugs).

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    It's rare that someone actually touts the VA as an shining example of socialized medicine, but if that's what you want to hang you hat on - be my guest. I'm a veteran and I should get no cost medical; however the scheduling and waiting lines make full time employment and service from the VA nearly impossible, unless you enjoy 6 months waiting lines.

    Who's keeping big pharma happy? Well first you would have to research the relationship between what the congressional committees allow pharma to charge. A convoluted relationship between market wholesalers, market retailers, insurance companies, hospitals, and any other select buying groups...and of course the government. Pretty simple when you see who's providing the bulk of campaign contributions though.

    Shouldn't is not a rational argument. You are actually making an argument against insurance, not for socialized medicine. Remove insurance, remove government. Unleash the free market and the cost of medicine will return to normal.


    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    I think some VA clinics must be more impacted than others, then. Because my husband was able to get his latest appointment within 10 days. That's much faster than the three month wait I had to get an appointment just to see a GP with private insurance.

    I'm not sure the story you brought up about the terminally ill kid is relevant to this thread. Terminally ill patients are allowed to die naturally in non-socialized medical systems, too. This poor kid's parents were grasping at straws to try an experimental treatment that had never been tried before on his condition and that multiple experts agreed would not have reversed his brain damage. So best case scenario, this kid lives longer, but in no better shape than he currently is. How is that a good thing? The potential treatment being offered would not have cured this child, but only "possibly" prolonged his life, while "potentially" causing additional harm/genetic mutations/pain/discomfort to him. IMO, not all medical intervention is a good thing. Sometimes it's best to let nature take it's course. I wouldn't want to be kept alive with a degenerative disorder that has destroyed much of my brain, and caused me to lose all normal functioning with no hope of improvement - only the possibility of living longer in that condition. I feel bad for the parents - no one wants to lose a child - but I can't fault the medical team in this case, and I wouldn't exactly call the doctors caring for him "bureaucrats."

    I can understand why proponents of socialized medicine would want to downplay this story and all others like it. This isn't a matter of being allowed to die - it's one of a bureaucratic panel deciding that a child will die in direct conflict with the wishes of the parents. Of course you wouldn't want to use a term such as bureaucrat as it hurts your narrative. How else would you describe the European Court of Human Rights?

    This isn't about you. Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant, as is mine. The only opinions that matter are that of the parents and the treating physicians, but this is never the case in a socialized structure. What is truly horrific is that the state now refuses to release custody of the parent's child to the parents.

    To be expected as in a socialized system the individual has no unalienable rights. Your rights are those the state allows you to have.

    The treating physicians DID give their opinion and the court upheld it.

    In contradiction to the wishes of the parents and other physicians.

    A court of bureaucrats superseded the wishes of parents. Despicable.

    Which "other physicians"? You mean the guy who is willing to accept their money for his medical research in exchange for attempting "treatment," but who also acknowledged that the treatment was unlikely to work? Because all the current treating physicians and experts in the field were saying that the treatment has the potential to prolong discomfort or cause pain to the child, without much chance for benefit. Sometimes it's more humane and ethical to let someone pass naturally than it is to experiment on them. Clearly the parents' wishes are based on emotion, not rational medical expertise. Courts supersede parents wishes all the time when the parents' wishes are potentially harmful to their children. Kids are people, not property.

    "Sometime it's more humane and ethical to let someone pass naturally than it is to experiment on them." - Not your decision. This is between the parents and their physician.

    This is why I advocate for a two tiered structure. You may willingly relinquish all rights and liberty to your betters, but you speak for you and you alone.

    Kids are evidently property of the government as highlighted by this case. Parents have no rights.

    Without making this into a claim that they are equivalent situations, are you ever okay with the government *requiring* someone to get medical care for a child (if they're rejecting it due to religious/ideological reasons, for example) or punishing parents if they reject medical care and the child suffers lasting harm or death?
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    There is just ONE reason that healthcare is expensive in the US............................................profit. Until the US becomes a not for profit venture, health care costs for people are just going to keep rising. And really we could have a decent government healthcare system if we diverted money to it. Problem is, taxpayer money is diverted to other profit ventures that benefit people in politics more than it does the people themselves.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Every healthcare system is for profit. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats work for free?
    Socialized healthcare makes a profit? Military healthcare is for profit? Don't think so.
    You can never have decent healthcare without a motive of profit. This is the primary reason healthcare costs have risen beyond the rest of the consumer index - deliberate insertion of middlemen (government and insurance).
    Lots of countries don't have people pay insurance on healthcare and do just fine. Our own would be health care for the military. I grew up an Air Force brat and even today, my retired parents (both past 85 years old) get great healthcare at NO COST to them.
    If you allowed free market forces to compete then you would not have instances where Epipens rose to prohibitive prices. You would have competitive companies offering products at a reduced price to gain market share. Government is the problem, not the solution.
    Lol, wouldn't that be socialized medicine then? Affordability for ALL and not just the elite? And who's keeping big pharma and insurance companies happy? The people getting their palms greased by them. Health care shouldn't be for capital gain. I've personally worked in it and with people who suffer who busted their *kitten* working for decades only to use their retirement to pay for medical help not covered by insurance (mostly prescriptions drugs).

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    It's rare that someone actually touts the VA as an shining example of socialized medicine, but if that's what you want to hang you hat on - be my guest. I'm a veteran and I should get no cost medical; however the scheduling and waiting lines make full time employment and service from the VA nearly impossible, unless you enjoy 6 months waiting lines.

    Who's keeping big pharma happy? Well first you would have to research the relationship between what the congressional committees allow pharma to charge. A convoluted relationship between market wholesalers, market retailers, insurance companies, hospitals, and any other select buying groups...and of course the government. Pretty simple when you see who's providing the bulk of campaign contributions though.

    Shouldn't is not a rational argument. You are actually making an argument against insurance, not for socialized medicine. Remove insurance, remove government. Unleash the free market and the cost of medicine will return to normal.


    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    I think some VA clinics must be more impacted than others, then. Because my husband was able to get his latest appointment within 10 days. That's much faster than the three month wait I had to get an appointment just to see a GP with private insurance.

    I'm not sure the story you brought up about the terminally ill kid is relevant to this thread. Terminally ill patients are allowed to die naturally in non-socialized medical systems, too. This poor kid's parents were grasping at straws to try an experimental treatment that had never been tried before on his condition and that multiple experts agreed would not have reversed his brain damage. So best case scenario, this kid lives longer, but in no better shape than he currently is. How is that a good thing? The potential treatment being offered would not have cured this child, but only "possibly" prolonged his life, while "potentially" causing additional harm/genetic mutations/pain/discomfort to him. IMO, not all medical intervention is a good thing. Sometimes it's best to let nature take it's course. I wouldn't want to be kept alive with a degenerative disorder that has destroyed much of my brain, and caused me to lose all normal functioning with no hope of improvement - only the possibility of living longer in that condition. I feel bad for the parents - no one wants to lose a child - but I can't fault the medical team in this case, and I wouldn't exactly call the doctors caring for him "bureaucrats."

    I can understand why proponents of socialized medicine would want to downplay this story and all others like it. This isn't a matter of being allowed to die - it's one of a bureaucratic panel deciding that a child will die in direct conflict with the wishes of the parents. Of course you wouldn't want to use a term such as bureaucrat as it hurts your narrative. How else would you describe the European Court of Human Rights?

    This isn't about you. Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant, as is mine. The only opinions that matter are that of the parents and the treating physicians, but this is never the case in a socialized structure. What is truly horrific is that the state now refuses to release custody of the parent's child to the parents.

    To be expected as in a socialized system the individual has no unalienable rights. Your rights are those the state allows you to have.

    The treating physicians DID give their opinion and the court upheld it.

    In contradiction to the wishes of the parents and other physicians.

    A court of bureaucrats superseded the wishes of parents. Despicable.

    Which "other physicians"? You mean the guy who is willing to accept their money for his medical research in exchange for attempting "treatment," but who also acknowledged that the treatment was unlikely to work? Because all the current treating physicians and experts in the field were saying that the treatment has the potential to prolong discomfort or cause pain to the child, without much chance for benefit. Sometimes it's more humane and ethical to let someone pass naturally than it is to experiment on them. Clearly the parents' wishes are based on emotion, not rational medical expertise. Courts supersede parents wishes all the time when the parents' wishes are potentially harmful to their children. Kids are people, not property.

    "Sometime it's more humane and ethical to let someone pass naturally than it is to experiment on them." - Not your decision. This is between the parents and their physician.

    This is why I advocate for a two tiered structure. You may willingly relinquish all rights and liberty to your betters, but you speak for you and you alone.

    Kids are evidently property of the government as highlighted by this case. Parents have no rights.

    Without making this into a claim that they are equivalent situations, are you ever okay with the government *requiring* someone to get medical care for a child (if they're rejecting it due to religious/ideological reasons, for example) or punishing parents if they reject medical care and the child suffers lasting harm or death?

    In regards to the US Constitution the citizen is the ultimate holder of all rights, society has no inherent rights and charged to ensure that citizen's rights are protected.

    Parents are expected to protect their children and act in their best interests. The government is expected to do the same. I don't know how anyone could make a rational argument rejecting care resulting in suffering or harm.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,142 Member
    So then you agree that the baby should NOT be subjected to experimental treatment that may result in further suffering or harm with little to no benefit?

    I also agree that his parents should be allowed to bring him home to die, rather than in the hospital.
  • Gisel2015
    Gisel2015 Posts: 4,026 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    So then you agree that the baby should NOT be subjected to experimental treatment that may result in further suffering or harm with little to no benefit?

    I also agree that his parents should be allowed to bring him home to die, rather than in the hospital.

    The child is hooked to a lot of hospital equipment for life support that may not be transferable to the home, and most likely that the baby would immediately pass away once the life support equipment is turned off.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    So then you agree that the baby should NOT be subjected to experimental treatment that may result in further suffering or harm with little to no benefit?

    I also agree that his parents should be allowed to bring him home to die, rather than in the hospital.

    No I stand by the fact that this is a decision to be made by the parents and the physicians.

    There is no such thing as certainty in medicine - only risk management.

    The overreach of government in this case is abhorrent, but sadly predictable.
  • fbchick51
    fbchick51 Posts: 240 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    This is precisely the outcome of socialized medicine.

    Citation please?

    Show me where an insurance company refused to release a child into the care of a physician wanting to attempt an experimental course of therapy.

    I'll accept one from your alleged "long list".

    CPS or Child Protective Services. I don't need a list. You'd be amazed at how quickly they can take your child and strip you of parental rights with very little evidence. Especially if a doctor is claiming you are failing to treat you sick child properly. If you think it doesn't count, then go stick your little head back in the sand.

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    fbchick51 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    This is precisely the outcome of socialized medicine.

    Citation please?

    Show me where an insurance company refused to release a child into the care of a physician wanting to attempt an experimental course of therapy.

    I'll accept one from your alleged "long list".

    CPS or Child Protective Services. I don't need a list. You'd be amazed at how quickly they can take your child and strip you of parental rights with very little evidence. Especially if a doctor is claiming you are failing to treat you sick child properly. If you think it doesn't count, then go stick your little head back in the sand.

    Depends on the state...

    The courts have ruled both ways over the last 70 years.

    It's not as black and white as you would like it to be.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,142 Member
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    So then you agree that the baby should NOT be subjected to experimental treatment that may result in further suffering or harm with little to no benefit?

    I also agree that his parents should be allowed to bring him home to die, rather than in the hospital.

    The child is hooked to a lot of hospital equipment for life support that may not be transferable to the home, and most likely that the baby would immediately pass away once the life support equipment is turned off.

    Well, that's the point. To let him pass. And most basic life support equipment is portable. I know this from personal experience.
  • rlvdv1984
    rlvdv1984 Posts: 3 Member
    My insurance does not penalize those who are over their BMI or are obese, but instead rewards those who are fit or 'shape up' with perks, discounts, and gift cards. I think it's great! Information has to be submitted by your mds and also labwork.
  • missh1967
    missh1967 Posts: 660 Member
    Slippery slope IMHO.
    1st...smokers.
    2nd...obesity.
    next????
    Genetic predispositions based on DNA.
    What you ate for dinner.
    How much sleep you get.
    How fast you drive your car to work.
    What type of activities you do or don't participate in after work hours.

    I get it, but most of those activities affect my life insurance rates!

  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,841 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    There is just ONE reason that healthcare is expensive in the US............................................profit. Until the US becomes a not for profit venture, health care costs for people are just going to keep rising. And really we could have a decent government healthcare system if we diverted money to it. Problem is, taxpayer money is diverted to other profit ventures that benefit people in politics more than it does the people themselves.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Every healthcare system is for profit. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats work for free?
    Socialized healthcare makes a profit? Military healthcare is for profit? Don't think so.
    You can never have decent healthcare without a motive of profit. This is the primary reason healthcare costs have risen beyond the rest of the consumer index - deliberate insertion of middlemen (government and insurance).
    Lots of countries don't have people pay insurance on healthcare and do just fine. Our own would be health care for the military. I grew up an Air Force brat and even today, my retired parents (both past 85 years old) get great healthcare at NO COST to them.
    If you allowed free market forces to compete then you would not have instances where Epipens rose to prohibitive prices. You would have competitive companies offering products at a reduced price to gain market share. Government is the problem, not the solution.
    Lol, wouldn't that be socialized medicine then? Affordability for ALL and not just the elite? And who's keeping big pharma and insurance companies happy? The people getting their palms greased by them. Health care shouldn't be for capital gain. I've personally worked in it and with people who suffer who busted their *kitten* working for decades only to use their retirement to pay for medical help not covered by insurance (mostly prescriptions drugs).

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    It's rare that someone actually touts the VA as an shining example of socialized medicine, but if that's what you want to hang you hat on - be my guest. I'm a veteran and I should get no cost medical; however the scheduling and waiting lines make full time employment and service from the VA nearly impossible, unless you enjoy 6 months waiting lines.

    Who's keeping big pharma happy? Well first you would have to research the relationship between what the congressional committees allow pharma to charge. A convoluted relationship between market wholesalers, market retailers, insurance companies, hospitals, and any other select buying groups...and of course the government. Pretty simple when you see who's providing the bulk of campaign contributions though.

    Shouldn't is not a rational argument. You are actually making an argument against insurance, not for socialized medicine. Remove insurance, remove government. Unleash the free market and the cost of medicine will return to normal.


    Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177

    In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.

    I think it's important to rebut this misleading statement. The "alternative treatment" is admitted BY THOSE OFFERING IT to have zero potential to help whatsoever. The child is unable to respond but still able to feel pain. He is going to die no matter what happens. Again, the US facility offering the treatment freely admits the treatment would be futile. It's not usual for European courts to rule on whether a child gets medical treatment, but in this case doctors felt it was crossing a line into abuse. This sort of ruling is sometimes made even in the United States.
  • chokhas
    chokhas Posts: 33 Member
    hmm. just adding on that my insurance agent kid did not manage to qualify to get'insurance because of being obese. the insurance company is not even asking to pay a higher premium but totally rejected. at the time the kid was rejected he was actually fit n was serving in the military'yet the insurance company rejected due to overweight.