4 ms·

Why should medical care be a higher priority than food?

by Dilpil 17y ago

rdtsc 17y ago
Or a higher priority than endless wars for oil overseas. But I digress... The reason is because most people can still afford food in US, but cannot afford $3k/day hospital stays.
- BRadmin 17y ago
  Isn't the crux of the problem that it costs $3k/day for a hospital stay to begin with?... A bloated health care industry that inflates prices on medical services, making "insurance" the only viable option for payment, seems like the main issue that demands reformation.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    Worse , the bulk of debate is focused on how to shift responsibility for covering that $3K/day rather than figuring out why is costs that much and how to make it cost less.
lionhearted 17y ago
And moreover, why should we have to pay for food? By God, I pay taxes. It seems so barbaric and 8th century to make people pay for the food they eat.
- old-gregg 17y ago
  Your comment (and its upmods) is why, my friend, even the most educated and interesting Americans sound like incoherent cavemen when it comes to discussions about finally having a health care in this country: here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least... I have no idea where this sudden drop comes from. Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food? You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious. It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that?
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > Your comment (and its upmods) is why, my friend, even the most educated and interesting Americans sound like incoherent cavemen... Totally unnecessary to having a discussion. But I'll address your point: > ...here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least... Many people who are opposed to the healthcare bill, including me, do care quite a lot about people. I've run charity events for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in the Stats and Great Ormond Street Children's in London. I donate to charity too, including trying to get a therapy dog program going in Tokyo. With me so far? Okay, I care about people. I'm not looking at people as consumers or customers. I think the more say elected and appointed officials get over medicine, the worse medicine will be. Elected and appointed officials typically do a terrible job with any science, business, or production that they try to run. For every success story, there's 3-10 dramatic failures. > Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food? They're both essential for survival. The difference is that we've made food very accessible, largely without the help of government. Medicine will get there too, given time. In fact, over the counter medicines today are incredibly powerful by historical standards. The fact that we can get anti-inflammatories and mild topical steroids over the counter is incredible. We'd be able to get antibiotics too, if it wasn't for the government legislation requiring prescriptions. It's rationalized by saying people could abuse or mistake antibiotics, leading to more antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases. But this hasn't been found to be true in countries with over the counter antibiotics. > You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious. 1. The vast majority of medicine isn't trauma medicine, it's fairly routine and predictable thing that you can make educated, thought out judgment calls on. 2. Doctors need to get paid like anyone else to practice their profession. Someone needs to pay them. 3. I'm unwilling to pay for other people's medicine under threat of force. I will actually pay for someone's medicine in some circumstances - I'll run a charity event, donate money, help out a friend or relative. But I do not accept being mandated to buy insurance, pay a tax, or be arrested. I think it's bad for me as an individual and bad for society. > It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that? Look, I've seen your comments. People reply to you with intelligent points. Do you care? You talk past people, you ignore their points and respond with more rhetoric. -- My points: 1. Doctors need to be paid to practice their profession. 2. I'm unwilling to pay doctors for other people's medicine under threat of force for failing to do so. You're willing to have me arrested for refusing to play along? That's the argument. I want healthy people too. I care about society. I've done more to help sick people I don't know than the vast majority of people stumping for government run healthcare. But I think it's wrong on an individual and societal level.
conflux0 17y ago
Because the majority of the voting population has no problem obtaining food.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
runningdogx 17y ago
In no small part, food is medical care. Good food is good preventive medical care. Bad food is like trying to perform a back-alley abortion. But I take your point. Medical care doesn't have a higher priority, but its nature makes it a more important issue for government to deal with. The statistical nature of medical costs is that the vast majority of people cannot prepare for the worst without buying into an insurance plan of some sort. Food costs, although they can go up a lot during crises, never reach such heights. Barring a severe depression or massive food shortages -- which it should be noted affect everyone, not just a small portion of the population -- people living above poverty can shift their budgets to be able to afford food even if the price goes up 50%. Hardly anyone can modify their budget to be able to afford bypass surgery or treatment for cancer. However, another side to the issue is that the government already interferes substantially in food costs and food policy. There are substantial subsidies paid to corn and soy farmers, for instance, driving consumer costs of many food products below the actual costs of production if you take away government subsidies.

Why should medical care be a higher priority than food?

by Dilpil 17y ago

Why should medical care be a higher priority than food?

rdtsc 17y ago

Or a higher priority than endless wars for oil overseas. But I digress... The reason is because most people can still afford food in US, but cannot afford $3k/day hospital stays.

BRadmin 17y ago
Isn't the crux of the problem that it costs $3k/day for a hospital stay to begin with?... A bloated health care industry that inflates prices on medical services, making "insurance" the only viable option for payment, seems like the main issue that demands reformation.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  Worse , the bulk of debate is focused on how to shift responsibility for covering that $3K/day rather than figuring out why is costs that much and how to make it cost less.

lionhearted 17y ago

And moreover, why should we have to pay for food? By God, I pay taxes. It seems so barbaric and 8th century to make people pay for the food they eat.

old-gregg 17y ago
Your comment (and its upmods) is why, my friend, even the most educated and interesting Americans sound like incoherent cavemen when it comes to discussions about finally having a health care in this country: here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least... I have no idea where this sudden drop comes from. Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food? You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious. It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that?
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > Your comment (and its upmods) is why, my friend, even the most educated and interesting Americans sound like incoherent cavemen... Totally unnecessary to having a discussion. But I'll address your point: > ...here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least... Many people who are opposed to the healthcare bill, including me, do care quite a lot about people. I've run charity events for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in the Stats and Great Ormond Street Children's in London. I donate to charity too, including trying to get a therapy dog program going in Tokyo. With me so far? Okay, I care about people. I'm not looking at people as consumers or customers. I think the more say elected and appointed officials get over medicine, the worse medicine will be. Elected and appointed officials typically do a terrible job with any science, business, or production that they try to run. For every success story, there's 3-10 dramatic failures. > Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food? They're both essential for survival. The difference is that we've made food very accessible, largely without the help of government. Medicine will get there too, given time. In fact, over the counter medicines today are incredibly powerful by historical standards. The fact that we can get anti-inflammatories and mild topical steroids over the counter is incredible. We'd be able to get antibiotics too, if it wasn't for the government legislation requiring prescriptions. It's rationalized by saying people could abuse or mistake antibiotics, leading to more antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases. But this hasn't been found to be true in countries with over the counter antibiotics. > You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious. 1. The vast majority of medicine isn't trauma medicine, it's fairly routine and predictable thing that you can make educated, thought out judgment calls on. 2. Doctors need to get paid like anyone else to practice their profession. Someone needs to pay them. 3. I'm unwilling to pay for other people's medicine under threat of force. I will actually pay for someone's medicine in some circumstances - I'll run a charity event, donate money, help out a friend or relative. But I do not accept being mandated to buy insurance, pay a tax, or be arrested. I think it's bad for me as an individual and bad for society. > It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that? Look, I've seen your comments. People reply to you with intelligent points. Do you care? You talk past people, you ignore their points and respond with more rhetoric. -- My points: 1. Doctors need to be paid to practice their profession. 2. I'm unwilling to pay doctors for other people's medicine under threat of force for failing to do so. You're willing to have me arrested for refusing to play along? That's the argument. I want healthy people too. I care about society. I've done more to help sick people I don't know than the vast majority of people stumping for government run healthcare. But I think it's wrong on an individual and societal level.

conflux0 17y ago

Because the majority of the voting population has no problem obtaining food.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

runningdogx 17y ago

In no small part, food is medical care. Good food is good preventive medical care. Bad food is like trying to perform a back-alley abortion. But I take your point. Medical care doesn't have a higher priority, but its nature makes it a more important issue for government to deal with. The statistical nature of medical costs is that the vast majority of people cannot prepare for the worst without buying into an insurance plan of some sort. Food costs, although they can go up a lot during crises, never reach such heights. Barring a severe depression or massive food shortages -- which it should be noted affect everyone, not just a small portion of the population -- people living above poverty can shift their budgets to be able to afford food even if the price goes up 50%. Hardly anyone can modify their budget to be able to afford bypass surgery or treatment for cancer. However, another side to the issue is that the government already interferes substantially in food costs and food policy. There are substantial subsidies paid to corn and soy farmers, for instance, driving consumer costs of many food products below the actual costs of production if you take away government subsidies.