Sick Medical Care

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, and a number of people can get treatment. I don't care if doctors can get patients to live healthier, heck, how healthy you live should be a personal matter, not one for doctors to order you to do or not to do, which is a reason I *don't* want a universal healthcare system. The technology used in the US is top-notch too, heck, I think that technology is our specialty.

Well, there are IP laws involved, the US cannot violate these laws, Cuba certainly can. And there is certain the fact that the nature of the drug market in the US is different than other nations, other countries buy their medicines at marginal costs, the US pays above marginal costs and in essence is the profit-driver of the pharmaceutical industry(profits being a necessity to spur investment and thereby production), and as I stated earlier, some economists would argue that the US's higher drug prices effectively subsidize the rest of the world's lower drug prices because we drive the profits of the industry.

***delete double post***

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 17 Aug 2008, 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

There will always be people who will abuse the system. There are people who abuse other programs such as LIEAPP, food stamps, social security, and welfare.

A doctor should want to push for their patients to get healthier and the government should help also and make it worth the doctors time like I don't know paying them more to push their patients to quit smoking or drinking. Also the US is not a very technological savvy country your thinking of Japan they are the tech geeks of the world.

So are you ok with drug companies influencing doctors, and denying claims for stupid reasons?? Is that ok with you really because the insurance companies don't care about people they just care about the bottom line, and the easiest way to make money is not to spend it and how do you think they do that???? They deny coverage, and treatments people die because of this and people suffer both are not acceptable.

Also you admit we pay to much for drugs, people across the globe pay thousands of times less for drugs and its wrong if they can have it then so can we.

Research funding cost lots of money.

I work with an immigrant from Cuba. $120 dollars goes a long way there. She regularly sends money to her family that are still there. She also has many health problems. I have never once heard her complain about the cost of her health insurance, the cost of her medication, or the quality of the health care she recieves. Her goal is to save enough money to help move the rest of her family here. I would have to assume there is a reason for this.

I believe many Americans would agree that our system is not perfect. But really...you have stated in other threads that you believe communism does not work, so why are you touting the praises of Cuba? The last time I checked they were not funding the research for many medications. I agree there are countries in Europe who have very fine public health care systems, but their countries are small and their systems are well establised. In larger countries such as Canada, a little reading might show, it may not be as grand as you imagine. They have many issues with wait times.

A grand scale change such as this in the US could cause many problems. Like I said the system may not be perfect, but I see no need scrap the whole thing.

I did not catch that edit, however, yes. My idea of a good healthcare system is one that makes people make economic decisions in relationship to health issues. Are you going to argue that reattaching the guy's fingers is cost-free? No, that is foolish. Are you going to argue that these fingers do not belong to their holder? No, they assuredly are his, just like his house is his, and his car is his as well, as are his heirlooms. If there is a cost, and this cost is related to that person's property, what seems a fairer system, that I pay for the property of somebody else, or that that person pays for what they own? I would say the latter, as I am not responsible for another person's car or heirlooms, so why should I be responsible for their fingers? If they really care about having reattached fingers so much, then why shouldn't they carry the burden of reattaching them? They are the ones calling for economic resources to be allocating to this task, not I, and it is based upon their values that we weight their fingers vs everything else involved.

No, a doctor should act to the wishes of the patient, whatever they may be. Most patients prefer being healthier, but let's take an extreme example, like feederism, or masochism, or something else like that. Should a doctor try to tell these people what to do? No, he shouldn't. If a person wants to eat themselves to 500 pounds or more or regularly injure him/herself, then that is their choice. Same with smoking or drinking. Why should a government tell anybody not to smoke or drink or commit gluttony or self-harm? The US also has a number of major technology companies, produces a lot of research, and is one of the major medical innovators of the world. We are reasonably tech-savvy, just losing our edge to foreign nations.


Drug companies do not deny claims, however, under any circumstance, doctors will be influenced by some force, heck, your own system has them do so paternalistically, I'd rather let doctors be doctors.


Nobody actually cares about people, everybody cares about their favorite statistic, in the market it happens to be the bottom line. The easiest way to make money though, isn't to not spend it, if you never spend your money then people quickly recognize that they are being gypped. The easiest way to make money is instead to create a good balance of profit to loss per customer, and to have a lot of customers.

The issue is that if we are the ones subsidizing the drug production of the rest of the world, then honestly, we can never have it, the best we can do is change the system to spread it out more. Honestly though, we could get the some of the same benefits by allowing importation of medicine from other nations, forcing companies to rethink their pricing policies that way by undermining the strategy of these other nations.

Well I guess you have problems with empathy and sympathy sorry I call them as I see them. Anyways collecting taxes and redistributing them so everyone can have healthcare is the right thing to do, dude there are poor people out there and they can't afford to get medical treatment or health insurance. I have heard of people going bankrupt just trying to stay alive they sold everything, their house, their cars everything because your glories issuance companies cared more about the bottom line than people's lives. I hate your ideas I think they are messed up big time, the idea "well it does not directly affect me so screw them" grrr I hate that crap, its sick and disgusting. We are all humans if one of us is sick we should do whatever we can to help them. I mean if members and supporters of al qaeda can get health coverage why can't I??? I am a citizen I mean do I need to go blow a building up to get treated like a human being wait should I threaten to set a nuke off??? I mean come on seems a little messed up to me they get the royal treatment and they are murders they are the bottom of the bucket when it comes to humanity.

So what about the people who get denied even though they are really sick??? What about people with cancer??? They paid the insurance companies and when the time comes the insurance companies refuse to pay is that right?? Its a yes or no answer so answer YES or NO!! !

Why do I have problems? Because I disagreed with you on a position? Because I do not think that the government should do act on behalf of your moral sentiments?


I disagree with you in the very first line, "collecting taxes", the very idea that you can command the lives of other people to your goals, no matter how noble you think they are, is abhorrent to me. Yes, people suffer, they will always suffer no matter how you design the system, but to me that does not mean that you take away the liberty of others towards that end. The fact of the matter is that the insurance company is *supposed* to care more about the bottom line than anything else, it is their *job* to care more about the bottom line than anything else. Their goal is to organize an efficient system to handle the demand for insurance, therefore they seek to minimize costs while maximizing quantity supplied.


"Well it does not directly affect me" therefore I do not see why I should be impelled to do as another person wants to. I am not your slave, and if my moral system is different than yours, then why should I bark like a dog for your righteousness? If I was avoiding paying for something to my benefit, then I can see where an issue might pop in, at least at an efficiency stand point, however, beyond that, the attitude that I must live for your cause and sacrifice myself for your desires is sick and disgusting.


We are all individuals, and if one of us is sick, then he should do whatever he can to help himself, either that or bloody well avoid getting sick. Such things are his responsibility directly, and only mine if I choose to accept it.


Wait??? You think they get royal treatment???? You really do not know what you are talking about at all, do you??? HA HA HA HA HA!! ! Have you ever talked to a cop who thinks you are doing something wrong? It is degrading. Have you ever been to a jail? It is dehumanizing. Have you even read about the Standford Prison Experiment? People started suffering psychologically after less than a week. Have you even been keeping up with Guantanamo? People being removed from their families and then humiliated and tortured for the purposes of the government. It is not a fate to be envied. The only reason these people receive care is simply because they are no longer individuals, they have been denied their personhood, and thus are taken care of by a master like a slave or pet might, not because they are special, holy, and certainly not because they are considered people.

That depends on what deal they negotiated with the insurance company. If the insurance company is reneging on it's deal, then let that company be sued for what it failed to provide. If the company is not reneging on it's deal, then what is the problem, people are getting what they agreed upon.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 17 Aug 2008, 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

*** delete, double post again***

Geeze. Why do you get so mad when someone disagrees with you? I don't want to pay for that guy's fingers either. I've got a family to take care of and the tax increase that would be needed to fund a socialized medical system would most likely cause *me* to loose my home. There is no such thing as free.

As for your question...In my case the answer would be yes...that is correct. My particular health insurance plan has a clause stipulating that they will only pay a certain amount for cancer. So yes. The insurance company in my case would not pay. If I get cancer, I'll contact you for a donation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care

Maybe if America payed less attention to there millitery then it could afford to look after the people who are unable to afford to look after themselves. As it was said before that it is insurence companies job to make profit, but it is the governments job to look after the people, and a government is ment to be a total represenitive of the people. If the government does not want to help its own people who are unable to afford to stay alive then that is what the people as a whole want.

My heart has yet to wither into nothingness instead it grows every day I hate that society lets people suffer and die in vain. I see not adopting universal health care as wrong simple as that just like murder in many ways it is murder. Its amazing you trust issuance companies with such blind faith that they will take care of you but they won't unless you fight them, I hear black mail is a good tactic. Personally I would trust a serial killer or terrorist before I trust an issuance company.

Another question if it costs so much how come Cuba can afford it or the UK???

Do you know how much it costs to buy HIV drugs in the UK?? Its around 10 dollars same with cancer drugs.

Your so right Bradleigh the US has gone to extremes lately to build its military but nope no money for health care and other such things like that. The government is a tool of the people of a country they are in total control but of course American's are so bloody stupid right now they can't remember they run the show. The government is a tool of the people for the people nothing more, the people on capital hill are the bus drivers we the common people are the navigators we can tell them where to go when to go and how fast to go. We have spoiled our elective officials and they have taken to much power I say protest in every city and town and put the fear of god in them and make them do right.

Last edited by philosopherBoi on 17 Aug 2008, 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Touche

I would also like to contribute...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

If you scroll down, you will see...wait times, medical professional shortages, etc...

The US certainly pays too much for the military.

The role of government in society is something that there is considerable question over. I mean, there are multiple notions of what the government is called to do or not to do, and a number of conflicts over that.

The issue that the government is supposed to be a total representative of the people though, I am not sure I believe that. Let's just take that logic over to the social issues, let's say that the people in a society decide that homosexuality is a terrible sin, should the government then start punishing homosexuals by publicly flogging them and then locking them away? Let's say that the people believe that Catholicism is a crime against humanity, should we then start executing Catholics? I'd say the answer to both questions happens to be no, and in the 2nd case, most nation's constitutions would certainly disagree. The fact of the matter is that the ideology that our society is based upon is not a simple notion of democratic authoritarianism where "the people" being 27% of the populace decide what 100% of the people including the disagreeing 26% and the apathetic 47% of the people end up doing. It is based upon the notion of liberality, which is a neutrality towards human beings and their choices. That is why we have freedom of speech, that is why we have freedom of religion, that is why the US opted towards a more federal system. Simple notions of democratic rule simply lead to a tyranny of the majority, rather than a legitimate freedom. The fact of the matter is that if the government doesn't do something, that is because the government is meant to have limits, not that the people are or are not anything.