19 ms·

Universal care is not running in the opposite direction. I live in a country with universal healthcare. I have several relatives who were diagnosed with termi

by lubos 14y ago

Universal care is not running in the opposite direction. I live in a country with universal healthcare. I have several relatives who were diagnosed with terminal cancer. In this case, the hospital simply told them, the cancer is terminal and they've been given doses of morphine until they passed away. In USA, hospitals are facing conflict of interest. On one hand, they shouldn't be providing unnecessary expensive care but then they wouldn't be making as much money. No hospital should be ever put in this position. Honestly, I'm shocked at how many people in US are against universal health care.

Jach 14y ago
I'd be nice if in addition to offering morphine they would also offer a basic cryonics plan...
- jtheory 14y ago
  Heh... "basic" like "head only", or "6 months only"?
  - Jach 14y ago
    I'm not sure what you find funny about "we'll suspend you, but only for six months." "Basic plan" typically means "cheapest plan with a certain minimum quality of care", which is the only kind of plan that has a chance at full or partial subsidization; whether that's head-only or not depends on what the market costs for the procedure would look like if people started taking death seriously.
crusso 14y ago
How does this: > I have several relatives who were diagnosed with terminal cancer. In this case, > the hospital simply told them, the cancer is terminal and they've been given > doses of morphine until they passed away. Go with this? > Honestly, I'm shocked at how many people in US are against universal health care. You can ask for palliative care from US doctors any time you like. You tell them you don't want to be treated and they'll send you home to die. Morphine prescriptions at that point aren't tough to obtain. The shocking thing to me is that anyone would want universal health care that leaves them with palliative care as their only option. If I'm diagnosed with cancer that may be terminal, I might choose to go out in a blaze of money desperately looking for a cure... or I might choose to give up and die quietly. It should be my choice, though. When you look beyond the political demagoguery for obvious power grab reasons, you see that the US healthcare system produces just about the best results in the world: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-amer... I'm shocked at how quickly people would give away their Freedoms for the illusion of being cared for.
- lubos 14y ago
  If you are lucky to be rich, nothing is stopping you getting better health care and trying to add 1 or 2 years of life at extraordinary cost. It just won't be covered by your insurance. To me, universal healthcare is a tradeoff. Everybody will get at least some care and nobody will go bankrupt because of medical bills. Rich people will be still able to get whatever care money can buy. I don't understand how this is a question of freedom. Nobody is giving up freedom.
  - crusso 14y ago
    > If you are lucky to be rich What if you work hard to be rich, and then you choose to use your money to pay for expensive treatments for you or your children? What if spending a bunch more money buys you a great deal more than a couple of years? What if the discoveries made at your great expense helps others who aren't so rich? > Nobody is giving up freedom. That's the justification of every little bit of thrown-away freedom we've made over the last hundred years in America. Ah, the smell of boiling frogs! By being forced to put taxes into a least-common denominator system out of your control, you can't help but to give up freedom.
    - jtheory 14y ago
      > then you choose to use your money to pay for expensive treatments for you or your children? That's fine in any country with universal healthcare. > What if spending a bunch more money buys you a great deal more than a couple of years? It's possible, of course, but generally you'll have the best health outcomes with decent (cheap!) preventative health measures. The current insurance-based care system in the US doesn't gain anything from preventative care. Universal healthcare systems have a strong incentive to take this cheap route to a healthy population, fortunately. > What if the discoveries made at your great expense helps others who aren't so rich? Um; you can be proud of that, then? Of course, you can be a rich person who pays for treatments to be developed which you can then deny to poor people; that's called "the pharma industry". > Ah, the smell of boiling frogs! That's a myth; look it up. The frogs jump out when it gets uncomfortable. The same thing applies to most slippery slope arguments -- you have to prove each step would force the next. Most systems actually have forces pushing as well in the opposite direction. Personally, I see how getting reasonable universal healthcare working in the US will be a difficult course, but I'm also convinced we have to fight our way through the problems (mainly: the corporations currently earning enormous profits from the current system...) and get it working. I grew up in the US, sometimes without medical insurance; I've also spent much of my life with a sometimes-expensive "preexisting condition". Obviously, it's not "fair" if I'm bankrupted simply because I had the bad luck to have this condition -- hey, not everything in life is fair -- but I'm pretty sure that on balance, I'd be a more profitable economic unit/taxpayer to the US if I simply didn't have to worry about that. How many people don't launch startups because they can't risk it?

by lubos 14y ago

Jach 14y ago

I'd be nice if in addition to offering morphine they would also offer a basic cryonics plan...

jtheory 14y ago
Heh... "basic" like "head only", or "6 months only"?
- Jach 14y ago
  I'm not sure what you find funny about "we'll suspend you, but only for six months." "Basic plan" typically means "cheapest plan with a certain minimum quality of care", which is the only kind of plan that has a chance at full or partial subsidization; whether that's head-only or not depends on what the market costs for the procedure would look like if people started taking death seriously.

crusso 14y ago

How does this: > I have several relatives who were diagnosed with terminal cancer. In this case, > the hospital simply told them, the cancer is terminal and they've been given > doses of morphine until they passed away. Go with this? > Honestly, I'm shocked at how many people in US are against universal health care. You can ask for palliative care from US doctors any time you like. You tell them you don't want to be treated and they'll send you home to die. Morphine prescriptions at that point aren't tough to obtain. The shocking thing to me is that anyone would want universal health care that leaves them with palliative care as their only option. If I'm diagnosed with cancer that may be terminal, I might choose to go out in a blaze of money desperately looking for a cure... or I might choose to give up and die quietly. It should be my choice, though. When you look beyond the political demagoguery for obvious power grab reasons, you see that the US healthcare system produces just about the best results in the world: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-amer... I'm shocked at how quickly people would give away their Freedoms for the illusion of being cared for.

lubos 14y ago
If you are lucky to be rich, nothing is stopping you getting better health care and trying to add 1 or 2 years of life at extraordinary cost. It just won't be covered by your insurance. To me, universal healthcare is a tradeoff. Everybody will get at least some care and nobody will go bankrupt because of medical bills. Rich people will be still able to get whatever care money can buy. I don't understand how this is a question of freedom. Nobody is giving up freedom.
- crusso 14y ago
  > If you are lucky to be rich What if you work hard to be rich, and then you choose to use your money to pay for expensive treatments for you or your children? What if spending a bunch more money buys you a great deal more than a couple of years? What if the discoveries made at your great expense helps others who aren't so rich? > Nobody is giving up freedom. That's the justification of every little bit of thrown-away freedom we've made over the last hundred years in America. Ah, the smell of boiling frogs! By being forced to put taxes into a least-common denominator system out of your control, you can't help but to give up freedom.
  - jtheory 14y ago
    > then you choose to use your money to pay for expensive treatments for you or your children? That's fine in any country with universal healthcare. > What if spending a bunch more money buys you a great deal more than a couple of years? It's possible, of course, but generally you'll have the best health outcomes with decent (cheap!) preventative health measures. The current insurance-based care system in the US doesn't gain anything from preventative care. Universal healthcare systems have a strong incentive to take this cheap route to a healthy population, fortunately. > What if the discoveries made at your great expense helps others who aren't so rich? Um; you can be proud of that, then? Of course, you can be a rich person who pays for treatments to be developed which you can then deny to poor people; that's called "the pharma industry". > Ah, the smell of boiling frogs! That's a myth; look it up. The frogs jump out when it gets uncomfortable. The same thing applies to most slippery slope arguments -- you have to prove each step would force the next. Most systems actually have forces pushing as well in the opposite direction. Personally, I see how getting reasonable universal healthcare working in the US will be a difficult course, but I'm also convinced we have to fight our way through the problems (mainly: the corporations currently earning enormous profits from the current system...) and get it working. I grew up in the US, sometimes without medical insurance; I've also spent much of my life with a sometimes-expensive "preexisting condition". Obviously, it's not "fair" if I'm bankrupted simply because I had the bad luck to have this condition -- hey, not everything in life is fair -- but I'm pretty sure that on balance, I'd be a more profitable economic unit/taxpayer to the US if I simply didn't have to worry about that. How many people don't launch startups because they can't risk it?