|
Post by James McClelland on Nov 9, 2010 2:03:52 GMT -5
I know this has been discussed literally countless times, but I'm just throwin this out here. Should someone die by not beinglable to afford healthcare, or should someone go to jail or face punishment for not being able to afford medical bills? Does everyone have the right to live, rich or poor?
I think that everyone has the right to live, and therefore healthcare should be universal and free. If you can't afford healthcare and you're like "grumble grumble I hate paying these damned taxes," at least if you ever suffer from a stroke or heart attack or broken limb or something you won't have to worry about paying the vast amount of medical bills. Better then being untreated or unpayed for right?
I live in a relatively poor area, although my father has arguably the best paying job in the town, with a salary of $85,000 (Clinic Manager for a rather large hospital.) Although I have like super dooper cool healthcare, I know of plenty of people wo do not. I know this one girl who had a slightly fractured rib, and her parents had to save money for like 3 weeks to pay to get it checked out and stuff. It's really saddening to think about, in my eyes.
Well, that's my opinion. It's 2:00 AM so if I have any mistakes please pardon me :3 What's your guys' opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 9, 2010 12:41:07 GMT -5
Healthcare in the United States fails MASSIVELY. I mean, our system here in Canada kind of sucks too, but it's a right sight better than the outright business that it is in the United States.
People shouldn't be talking about "buying" healthcare. That should NOT be the case. Nobody should have to "buy" healthcare. It should be provided to every citizen through the government through tax money.
And there's all this talk amongst American super-conservatives about "death panels". Why are the complaining? It's not much different than it is now. I mean, the healthcare officials basically decide who lives and who dies based on their records, and the amount of money in their pockets. It's disgusting. It should not be happening.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Nov 9, 2010 13:32:26 GMT -5
well, people die because of hunger but we don't give out food. People die because they don't have shelter but we don't give out houses. Why is this and different? Someone very very smart had an idea to advertise healhcare as a right, and I have to give him credit for that.
Anyways, the way I would solve this is by setting a large set of anti trust laws and then creating incentives for new companies to enter the market. The prices are so high because its not a pure competition. Pure competition creates greatest efficiency so that's the direction we should force market to go to if we want lower prices. Also I would go after the hospitals themselves as cost and price are nearly as close to each other as they should be.
|
|
|
Post by amon91 on Nov 9, 2010 18:58:45 GMT -5
well, people die because of hunger but we don't give out food. People die because they don't have shelter but we don't give out houses. Why is this and different? Someone very very smart had an idea to advertise healhcare as a right, and I have to give him credit for that. Anyways, the way I would solve this is by setting a large set of anti trust laws and then creating incentives for new companies to enter the market. The prices are so high because its not a pure competition. Pure competition creates greatest efficiency so that's the direction we should force market to go to if we want lower prices. Also I would go after the hospitals themselves as cost and price are nearly as close to each other as they should be. There should be regulation in place though. Unless you do that there's no guarantee there'll ever be an insurance company that doesn't have preexisting conditions or lifetime caps. In the end companies just try to make as much profit as they can, and if they don't have anything to make them take some of that money and spend it on care, they most likely won't. Competition alone can't address this. And there are no death panels, that was a straight up lie.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 9, 2010 19:00:27 GMT -5
And there are no death panels, that was a straight up lie. Well obviously, I was just pointing out how absurd it is to accuse someone of that, when they basically already support that concept.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Nov 9, 2010 19:20:38 GMT -5
Imo, health needs to be your own responsibility. But most people in developed countries don't bother staying healthy or don't know how. They fill themselves with junk they think is food and most don't want to exercise.
Nevertheless, I do believe in universal health care, because that's what humans do, they take care of each other. But, I would like to see a larger focus on prevention of health issues rather than everyone expecting the doctor to fix them with pills and surgery.
Btw I'm just talking about disease, not injuries. Everyone already tries to prevent physical injury...
This guy does a better job explaining what I mean.
His quote pretty much sums up the point.
"If we improve a broken system by reorganizing how it's paid for we still have a broken system."
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Nov 9, 2010 20:18:35 GMT -5
well, people die because of hunger but we don't give out food. People die because they don't have shelter but we don't give out houses. Why is this and different? Someone very very smart had an idea to advertise healhcare as a right, and I have to give him credit for that. Anyways, the way I would solve this is by setting a large set of anti trust laws and then creating incentives for new companies to enter the market. The prices are so high because its not a pure competition. Pure competition creates greatest efficiency so that's the direction we should force market to go to if we want lower prices. Also I would go after the hospitals themselves as cost and price are nearly as close to each other as they should be. There should be regulation in place though. Unless you do that there's no guarantee there'll ever be an insurance company that doesn't have preexisting conditions or lifetime caps. In the end companies just try to make as much profit as they can, and if they don't have anything to make them take some of that money and spend it on care, they most likely won't. Competition alone can't address this. And there are no death panels, that was a straight up lie. There are 2 problems I have with such regulations. The first one is of a moral standard, where I don't think companies should be made to provide a service (unless they are monopolies). This would be even bigger problem if we were trying to reach pure competition. The second problem is of economic reasons. If we were to make companies provide this service, they would have to subsitized for it. This would most likely end up being misued where taxpayers would pay a great deal of money for things no one really needed. The way I think it should be done is that a sub-market would naturally create itself for people with dissabilities. This would hopefully lower prices to reasonable rates. The reason why such ssub market can't form right now is because of the difference between cost and price I was talking about before. I still understand that some people may notbe able to afford even that so a government rum program for them would still have to be created.
|
|
|
Post by amon91 on Nov 10, 2010 16:36:51 GMT -5
There should be regulation in place though. Unless you do that there's no guarantee there'll ever be an insurance company that doesn't have preexisting conditions or lifetime caps. In the end companies just try to make as much profit as they can, and if they don't have anything to make them take some of that money and spend it on care, they most likely won't. Competition alone can't address this. And there are no death panels, that was a straight up lie. There are 2 problems I have with such regulations. The first one is of a moral standard, where I don't think companies should be made to provide a service (unless they are monopolies). This would be even bigger problem if we were trying to reach pure competition. The second problem is of economic reasons. If we were to make companies provide this service, they would have to subsitized for it. This would most likely end up being misued where taxpayers would pay a great deal of money for things no one really needed. The way I think it should be done is that a sub-market would naturally create itself for people with dissabilities. This would hopefully lower prices to reasonable rates. The reason why such ssub market can't form right now is because of the difference between cost and price I was talking about before. I still understand that some people may notbe able to afford even that so a government rum program for them would still have to be created. The problem is we have that right now. Healthcare companies right now are being subsidized a whole lot. With tax payer money. And, mind you, they're making huge profits. It's not like they're on the brink of bankruptcy.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Nov 10, 2010 17:17:31 GMT -5
There are 2 problems I have with such regulations. The first one is of a moral standard, where I don't think companies should be made to provide a service (unless they are monopolies). This would be even bigger problem if we were trying to reach pure competition. The second problem is of economic reasons. If we were to make companies provide this service, they would have to subsitized for it. This would most likely end up being misued where taxpayers would pay a great deal of money for things no one really needed. The way I think it should be done is that a sub-market would naturally create itself for people with dissabilities. This would hopefully lower prices to reasonable rates. The reason why such ssub market can't form right now is because of the difference between cost and price I was talking about before. I still understand that some people may notbe able to afford even that so a government rum program for them would still have to be created. The problem is we have that right now. Healthcare companies right now are being subsidized a whole lot. With tax payer money. And, mind you, they're making huge profits. It's not like they're on the brink of bankruptcy. And the new system is only making it worse. Maybe it will be easier to get health care, but we will still have to pay for it in the form of taxes, so nothing will really change.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 10, 2010 17:30:29 GMT -5
And the new system is only making it worse. Maybe it will be easier to get health care, but we will still have to pay for it in the form of taxes, so nothing will really change. The question is: why is it a business in the first place?
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Nov 10, 2010 18:03:12 GMT -5
Both universal health care and the crazy-ass system the US has in place now are wack, but I prefer the former. I'd rather everybody have mediocre health care than millions of people have NO health care.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Nov 11, 2010 12:41:08 GMT -5
And the new system is only making it worse. Maybe it will be easier to get health care, but we will still have to pay for it in the form of taxes, so nothing will really change. The question is: why is it a business in the first place? Because there is money to be made
|
|
|
Post by amon91 on Nov 11, 2010 14:01:42 GMT -5
The problem is we have that right now. Healthcare companies right now are being subsidized a whole lot. With tax payer money. And, mind you, they're making huge profits. It's not like they're on the brink of bankruptcy. And the new system is only making it worse. Maybe it will be easier to get health care, but we will still have to pay for it in the form of taxes, so nothing will really change. At least none of the money would go to CEO bonuses and million-dollar profits.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Nov 11, 2010 17:00:28 GMT -5
And the new system is only making it worse. Maybe it will be easier to get health care, but we will still have to pay for it in the form of taxes, so nothing will really change. At least none of the money would go to CEO bonuses and million-dollar profits. hehe, yes it would. They MAKE people buy health care. How much better can it get, the government is making people buy your service.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Nov 11, 2010 22:24:21 GMT -5
The thing I see is that "universal" healthcare is MUCH cheaper than the private kind. Also, no one is required to pay to stay alive.
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Nov 11, 2010 22:30:59 GMT -5
In mexico, healthcare is TERRIBLE. If you ever even get to schedule a visit there, you get it in 2 months
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Nov 12, 2010 12:33:33 GMT -5
stephen, I don't know about that. Since most of the costs are being moved over to taxes.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Nov 12, 2010 12:44:56 GMT -5
stephen, I don't know about that. Since most of the costs are being moved over to taxes. Yes, we pay for health care through our taxes, but what the government pays the health care providers in much less than in the U.S. (That's also the problem in the U.S. that even government health coverage still pays the providers the same the huge costs as everyone else) Also drugs tend to be a fair bit cheaper here in Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 12, 2010 17:11:10 GMT -5
In Canada, there is no concept of "buying" health care. I think it's absurd that, in America, people "buy" health care as if it were another commodity. It's absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by amon91 on Nov 12, 2010 18:37:21 GMT -5
At least none of the money would go to CEO bonuses and million-dollar profits. hehe, yes it would. They MAKE people buy health care. How much better can it get, the government is making people buy your service. I never said I agreed with that. That, mind you, was put in due to pressure by lobbyists early into the writing of the healthcare bill. I was referring to healthcare regulation in general, not the Obama bill, which I mostly agree with, but it's not what it could have been.
|
|