6 ms·

> Medical care is a commodity No, it's a right. > No matter how much some starving kid needs food, he doesn’t have a right to steal someone’s wallet or hold u

by fao_ 9y ago

> Medical care is a commodity No, it's a right. > No matter how much some starving kid needs food, he doesn’t have a right to steal someone’s wallet or hold up the local convenience store to obtain it. Everyone has the right to life. I cannot imagine how callous one must be to willingly deprive fellow human beings of that right, purely because it is not how the economic system works. If we have the resources to provide healthcare to everyone, then we should. No matter what the cost. Repeat after me: Property is worth less than people. ""This means that nobody - including the government - can try to end your life. It also means the government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws to protect you and, in some circumstances, by taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk. Public authorities should also consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or that affect your life expectancy."" In the UK, Sweden, Norway, and many other civilized countries, everyone pays into a public pot that is used to provide medical care. Because of this, our workers are much more healthy, and much more able to work without the stress of "what if I get injured during work". They do not have to die of preventable diseases like septicemia, from something silly like duct taping their glass cut because they cannot afford to be treated.

conanbatt 9y ago
> Medical care is a commodity > No, it's a right. You cannot have a right to healthcare without taking the right to not work for someone else. You have a right to access healthcare, you dont have a right to force someone to service your health. And you shouldn't either. > In the UK, Sweden, Norway, and many other civilized countries, everyone pays into a public pot that is used to provide medical care. Because of this, our workers are much more healthy, and much more able to work without the stress of "what if I get injured during work". They do not have to die of preventable diseases like septicemia, from something silly like duct taping their glass cut because they cannot afford to be treated. This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful?
- Voloskaya 9y ago
  > This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful? Good old late stage capitalism. Because economic success is paramount to all things right? Certainly more important than increasing the quality of life of citizens.
  - Domenic_S 9y ago
    How does bankrupting the system improve quality of life for all?
    - Voloskaya 9y ago
      You assume that having a non profitable healthcare system means bankrupting the entire system. This is false. In France, where the healthcare system is arguably one of the best in the world, it has been losing money since as long as I can remember. So what? The healthcare system looses money and the government injects money back, either directly from taxes or by some other means. I don't know a single french person that would want to get rid of this system even if that means paying less tax, because this very clearly improve the quality of life of everyone.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        Its also important to see what cannot be seen. Who bears the cost of the most expensive healthcare? And what is the effect of it? > The healthcare system looses money and the government injects money back, either directly from taxes or by some other means. The government doesnt have money. Its your money. There's no difference between the government paying it and you paying it, except the government takes a slice along the way. Government is seldom if ever efficient there. I dont think french people were happy when retirement age was increased, which was to balance the budget. And the spending per capita is amongst the highest in europe. Its not a perfect system. You are also making assumptions by result. You are saying france has great healthcare because its provided by the government, because it has great healthcare. There are no shortage of examples of countries with socialized medicine and disastrous results, so we must dig deeper to have a model we can compare.
- fao_ 9y ago
  > You cannot have a right to healthcare without taking the right to not work for someone else. [...] you dont[sic] have a right to force someone to service your health. Why is this "right not to work" not enforced across the board? People should be able to just slack off whenever, right? As far as I can recall, capitalists view people striking as a bad thing, and they invoke private millitaries and various laws to force people to stop striking and work. So regardless of that, this is a silly idea, what if the fire department decides not to help you? Do they have a right not to work? What about politicians? What would happen if every single politician decided to exercise this right at once? What about in hospitals? If the only X specialist surgeon available in the world decides to not treat you? And by this I mean, they're willing to treat other people, just not you. What then? The world that you would like to exist, is, quite frankly, insane. What sane person would decide to let other people die, just because they do not feel like working > This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful? Do you think making the working class bankrupt is helping the economy? The very working class that you expect to buy commodities, the working class that, without disposable income to waste on commodities, our economy would crash.
  - Domenic_S 9y ago
    > Why is this "right not to work" not enforced across the board? People should be able to just slack off whenever, right? It is, and they are. You may end up living on the street if you don't work, but the choice is 100% yours. > what if the fire department decides not to help you? Do they have a right not to work? The fire department entered into a contract with their coverage area, bought and paid for in advance by the people they are covering. > If the only X specialist surgeon available in the world decides to not treat you? And by this I mean, they're willing to treat other people, just not you. What then? This frequently happens, especially with surgeons. Your questions indicate to me you have not sincerely considered GP's argument. Your _choosing_ to work is very different from my (or the government) _forcing_ you to work.
    - fao_ 9y ago
      > It is, and they are. You may end up living on the street if you don't work, but the choice is 100% yours. "Be homeless or work" is not a choice. Just like "Give me the money or I'll shoot you" is not a choice. > The fire department entered into a contract with their coverage area, bought and paid for in advance by the people they are covering. Just like the surgeons, at the hospital. Now you're finally understanding it. > This frequently happens, especially with surgeons. Wow, really? I've never heard of it happening. At least, not within the civilized countries in the EU (As opposed to uncivilized America).
- CogitoCogito 9y ago
  > This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful? Please explain what you mean by economically successful.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Good value/cost in comparison to other developed nation's public healthcare solutions. Isnt that what the OP is comparing healthcare in the U.S. to? Medicare is also very expensive, it spends less in administration but also has very high costs in regulation. Medicare has the size of public healthcare in other developed nations, and its still high cost in GDP/capita. So expanding medicare would not solve the cost issue, it will just swipe it under the rug.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      Medicare spends less than private insurers; despite the bureaucracy and regulations it's far more efficient than private insurers. Something like 98-99% of every dollar spent on Medicare is spent on treatment vs 85% for private insurers. One of the reasons that many doctors hate Medicare is the paperwork associated with patients. (This paperwork only exists because of the bad actors who bill Medicare for non-existent health services.) But they stick with it because unlike private insurers, Medicare will pay out for services legitimately performed, which is why nearly every doctor who drops Medicare patients ends up taking them back within 2 or 3 years.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        Its still very high per patient, higher than developed countries. And medicare will not necessarily get more efficient as it grows, in fact, the opposite. Should we remember what the healthcare.gov for obamacare turned out? Billions into a non functional website. Its true medicare shows some good signs in comparison to private, but it shows some other terrible ones. Lets not forget that healthcare regulation is designed by the same people that run medicare, in a broad sense.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Medicare is phenomenally successful given its constraints. It insures more patients, for lower costs, and better care, than any comparably sized private insurer. As the standard for basic care, it can't be beat in the US. Indeed, one of the original Romneybamacare proposals was to make Medicare the baseline health insurer, covering emergencies and major health crises (like cancer), with additional or concierge treatment options to be offered by private insurers.
  - refurb 9y ago
    The only reason why Medicare works is because private insurance subsidizes it. Costs are lower because the federal gov't say "I will pay you $X, even if it costs you $X+$1,000".
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Can you give me some more info on this? My understanding is that medicare does less administrative work, and that might have some other consequences like they always pay out or never negotiate down, but how is it subsidized? Bear in mind the opposite is definitely true as well: older patients are way more expensive than young ones, so their actually healthcare spending per patient has to be higher.
      - refurb 9y ago
        When I say subsidized, I mean informally. Commercial insurance pays much more than the cost of procedures and that makes up for the fact that Medicare sometimes pays less than the cost of the procedure. In other words, if you were a doctor and you only took Medicare patients, there is a chance that you'd actually be losing money year over year. Of course, it depends on exactly what the doctor is doing as Medicare is more generous with some procedures than others.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Do you have any source for this? I find it generally hard to believe, but i dont know that much about medicare.
hycaria 9y ago
>Everyone has the right to life. I cannot imagine how callous one must be to willingly deprive fellow human beings of that right, purely because it is not how the economic system works. If we have the resources to provide healthcare to everyone, then we should. No matter what the cost. I disagree on so many levels. First its most of the time the right to comfort (not hurting, being sick 3 days and not a whole week, etc) or the right to live carelessly (thinking about tobacco, obesity and their consequences here), not the right to life. Many people accross the globe don't even have access to our level of care yet they still live. Not everyone is sick either. I also don't think we should provide to everyone. I don't think that having sick people being able to lead a normal life only thanks to modern medicine, and thus having the possibility of spreading their bad genes, making their descendance dependant on modern medicine, is a very sound choice to make as a species. As for the public pot, considering that europe's population's getting older, staying longer alive, not being especially healthy (obesity rises too), I don't think that the point where it's not sustainable enough for our societies is very far.

by fao_ 9y ago

conanbatt 9y ago

> Medical care is a commodity > No, it's a right. You cannot have a right to healthcare without taking the right to not work for someone else. You have a right to access healthcare, you dont have a right to force someone to service your health. And you shouldn't either. > In the UK, Sweden, Norway, and many other civilized countries, everyone pays into a public pot that is used to provide medical care. Because of this, our workers are much more healthy, and much more able to work without the stress of "what if I get injured during work". They do not have to die of preventable diseases like septicemia, from something silly like duct taping their glass cut because they cannot afford to be treated. This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful?

Voloskaya 9y ago
> This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful? Good old late stage capitalism. Because economic success is paramount to all things right? Certainly more important than increasing the quality of life of citizens.
- Domenic_S 9y ago
  How does bankrupting the system improve quality of life for all?
  - Voloskaya 9y ago
    You assume that having a non profitable healthcare system means bankrupting the entire system. This is false. In France, where the healthcare system is arguably one of the best in the world, it has been losing money since as long as I can remember. So what? The healthcare system looses money and the government injects money back, either directly from taxes or by some other means. I don't know a single french person that would want to get rid of this system even if that means paying less tax, because this very clearly improve the quality of life of everyone.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Its also important to see what cannot be seen. Who bears the cost of the most expensive healthcare? And what is the effect of it? > The healthcare system looses money and the government injects money back, either directly from taxes or by some other means. The government doesnt have money. Its your money. There's no difference between the government paying it and you paying it, except the government takes a slice along the way. Government is seldom if ever efficient there. I dont think french people were happy when retirement age was increased, which was to balance the budget. And the spending per capita is amongst the highest in europe. Its not a perfect system. You are also making assumptions by result. You are saying france has great healthcare because its provided by the government, because it has great healthcare. There are no shortage of examples of countries with socialized medicine and disastrous results, so we must dig deeper to have a model we can compare.
fao_ 9y ago
> You cannot have a right to healthcare without taking the right to not work for someone else. [...] you dont[sic] have a right to force someone to service your health. Why is this "right not to work" not enforced across the board? People should be able to just slack off whenever, right? As far as I can recall, capitalists view people striking as a bad thing, and they invoke private millitaries and various laws to force people to stop striking and work. So regardless of that, this is a silly idea, what if the fire department decides not to help you? Do they have a right not to work? What about politicians? What would happen if every single politician decided to exercise this right at once? What about in hospitals? If the only X specialist surgeon available in the world decides to not treat you? And by this I mean, they're willing to treat other people, just not you. What then? The world that you would like to exist, is, quite frankly, insane. What sane person would decide to let other people die, just because they do not feel like working > This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful? Do you think making the working class bankrupt is helping the economy? The very working class that you expect to buy commodities, the working class that, without disposable income to waste on commodities, our economy would crash.
- Domenic_S 9y ago
  > Why is this "right not to work" not enforced across the board? People should be able to just slack off whenever, right? It is, and they are. You may end up living on the street if you don't work, but the choice is 100% yours. > what if the fire department decides not to help you? Do they have a right not to work? The fire department entered into a contract with their coverage area, bought and paid for in advance by the people they are covering. > If the only X specialist surgeon available in the world decides to not treat you? And by this I mean, they're willing to treat other people, just not you. What then? This frequently happens, especially with surgeons. Your questions indicate to me you have not sincerely considered GP's argument. Your _choosing_ to work is very different from my (or the government) _forcing_ you to work.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    > It is, and they are. You may end up living on the street if you don't work, but the choice is 100% yours. "Be homeless or work" is not a choice. Just like "Give me the money or I'll shoot you" is not a choice. > The fire department entered into a contract with their coverage area, bought and paid for in advance by the people they are covering. Just like the surgeons, at the hospital. Now you're finally understanding it. > This frequently happens, especially with surgeons. Wow, really? I've never heard of it happening. At least, not within the civilized countries in the EU (As opposed to uncivilized America).
CogitoCogito 9y ago
> This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful? Please explain what you mean by economically successful.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Good value/cost in comparison to other developed nation's public healthcare solutions. Isnt that what the OP is comparing healthcare in the U.S. to? Medicare is also very expensive, it spends less in administration but also has very high costs in regulation. Medicare has the size of public healthcare in other developed nations, and its still high cost in GDP/capita. So expanding medicare would not solve the cost issue, it will just swipe it under the rug.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Medicare spends less than private insurers; despite the bureaucracy and regulations it's far more efficient than private insurers. Something like 98-99% of every dollar spent on Medicare is spent on treatment vs 85% for private insurers. One of the reasons that many doctors hate Medicare is the paperwork associated with patients. (This paperwork only exists because of the bad actors who bill Medicare for non-existent health services.) But they stick with it because unlike private insurers, Medicare will pay out for services legitimately performed, which is why nearly every doctor who drops Medicare patients ends up taking them back within 2 or 3 years.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Its still very high per patient, higher than developed countries. And medicare will not necessarily get more efficient as it grows, in fact, the opposite. Should we remember what the healthcare.gov for obamacare turned out? Billions into a non functional website. Its true medicare shows some good signs in comparison to private, but it shows some other terrible ones. Lets not forget that healthcare regulation is designed by the same people that run medicare, in a broad sense.
gamblor956 9y ago
Medicare is phenomenally successful given its constraints. It insures more patients, for lower costs, and better care, than any comparably sized private insurer. As the standard for basic care, it can't be beat in the US. Indeed, one of the original Romneybamacare proposals was to make Medicare the baseline health insurer, covering emergencies and major health crises (like cancer), with additional or concierge treatment options to be offered by private insurers.
- refurb 9y ago
  The only reason why Medicare works is because private insurance subsidizes it. Costs are lower because the federal gov't say "I will pay you $X, even if it costs you $X+$1,000".
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Can you give me some more info on this? My understanding is that medicare does less administrative work, and that might have some other consequences like they always pay out or never negotiate down, but how is it subsidized? Bear in mind the opposite is definitely true as well: older patients are way more expensive than young ones, so their actually healthcare spending per patient has to be higher.
    - refurb 9y ago
      When I say subsidized, I mean informally. Commercial insurance pays much more than the cost of procedures and that makes up for the fact that Medicare sometimes pays less than the cost of the procedure. In other words, if you were a doctor and you only took Medicare patients, there is a chance that you'd actually be losing money year over year. Of course, it depends on exactly what the doctor is doing as Medicare is more generous with some procedures than others.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        Do you have any source for this? I find it generally hard to believe, but i dont know that much about medicare.

hycaria 9y ago

>Everyone has the right to life. I cannot imagine how callous one must be to willingly deprive fellow human beings of that right, purely because it is not how the economic system works. If we have the resources to provide healthcare to everyone, then we should. No matter what the cost. I disagree on so many levels. First its most of the time the right to comfort (not hurting, being sick 3 days and not a whole week, etc) or the right to live carelessly (thinking about tobacco, obesity and their consequences here), not the right to life. Many people accross the globe don't even have access to our level of care yet they still live. Not everyone is sick either. I also don't think we should provide to everyone. I don't think that having sick people being able to lead a normal life only thanks to modern medicine, and thus having the possibility of spreading their bad genes, making their descendance dependant on modern medicine, is a very sound choice to make as a species. As for the public pot, considering that europe's population's getting older, staying longer alive, not being especially healthy (obesity rises too), I don't think that the point where it's not sustainable enough for our societies is very far.