Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: Universal Healthcare; yay or nay?

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    No real/true "insurance" coverage would cover these types of diseases without regulation, it is a pre-existing condition from birth that will without a doubt carry millions of dollars before death, it is inherently unprofitable and unmarketable to keep kids like mine alive. Nobody would buy it. No insurance would cover it. Maybe every once in a while a corporation would sponsor a kid for a publicity stunt. In the extreme case, kids would simply bleed out staring at meds on the other side of the counter their parents can't afford. Its that way, right now, 2012, in many a 3rd world country. At the moment, the special interest bleeding heart bureaucrats are all kids like mine have. I really don't like it being that way; I'd prefer we all have the same access my kid has.

    I guess I have come to see the denial of life saving (or morbidity reducing) care qualitatively (though perhaps not quantitatively) equivalent to directly causing someone harm, which creates a liberty issue, and right to life issue.



    ..which, I can agree with completely. There was no such thing as modern health care when the constitution was written. Some pretty fancy stuff there,especially when you get into individualized medicine, nanotech, gene therapy, and the like, lots of unforeseen ethical issues, lots of public and private funding put us where we are. We might need a new amendment to describe our rights to it and protections from it, especially in light of our right to life and the rule of necessity.

    presence
    What I understood, no matter what disease your kid has, the free market would still want to have an insurance policy towards him. Thinking about 1913 and the contracts that doctors made on yearly service by new insurance policies, people enjoyed health care plus it was about $20 - $40 (talking about current 2012). Doctors would be fighting to get as many contracts as possible, no matter the illness. Though we may have the cost/analysis argument, families would have been able to give insurance to their kids in case of any terrible event. I believe in the long run, insurance companies would profit from people that inherent any disease that may happen; and if not, we do have the hospitaleers.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    I would gladly give your child my portion of the health care fund if I could. I don't deny your child or any other person the right to life.

    I totally believe insurance drives up the cost for all concerned including ones like your son. I do wonder if he could receive more affordable care in another country? Is that something your family has ever checked into?
    Generally, in countries where there is coverage for kids like mine there is some form of state interference in pricing, insurance mandates, safety nets, universal coverage, or the like. Putting a finger on "what the meds cost" is pretty amorphous. Bleeding disorders are generally a big bleeding heart issue in 1st world countries; nobody wants to watch a kid bleed out when all it takes is another dose of high-tech to stop it; its a cultural status symbol these days not to have people suffering from lack of bleeding disorder meds. I'm sure insurance plays in but I'm not convinced that insurance is the biggest cost creator in my kids case. Each dose of meds is the technical equivalent of lining up 1500 blood donors. Its just not easy no matter what price tag you put on it, it takes time, people, and infrastructure. Its kind of like (and this is hyperbole) running a nuclear power plant to keep 10 people alive: Some super complex things, no matter how they're payed for, are crazy expensive per person. What I will say is the legal structure here makes me drive past the homes of a half dozen nurses I know who could administer my kids meds, in 5 minutes flat, while on the way to the ER to have them legally administered for $800.
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen
    to set brush fires in peoples minds! Revolution is Action upon Revelation!

    The small green parakeet, Tito, was flung helplessly from the cage, landing on the floor. When a girl screamed, the officer sneerd:
    "F*** THE BIRD !!!"
    ...and stomped on it with his jackboot. READ MORE: http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/n...lugo-parakeet/


  4. #63

    Default

    I believe everyone should have access to health care, which means the last thing I would advocate is the government fixing the price (or making it "free" as it were).

  5. #64
    Member dbill27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    One of the best arguments and someone might have already mentioned it, would be to point out how some of the same medical procedures for dogs are cheaper than for humans and continue to get cheaper while the oppposite is true for humans. The difference being government intervention into one and not the other. Also, I hear that lasik surgery is not covered by any welfare or insurance programs and thus decreases in price while increasing in effeciency.
    "Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan

  6. #65

    Default

    I have no answers, just anecdotes.

    A local hospital in Michigan was in the paper a few years ago about settling some medicare (I believe, or other federal monies) overbilling. It took them months to figure out and it was estimated they overbilled around 10 million. They settled for a few million less than that. It's times like that when you realize the government, nor the hospital, can understand the typical billing or what the feds actually cover.

    Over Christmas I was in Cleveland for 40 days with my mother for liver cancer surgery at Cleveland Clinic. I was impressed with everything they did and especially how paperwork is handled. Patients can login to their own records at any time, it's your information. The bill is a given rate regardless of what may have come up. She was in the Intensive Care for a long while and it was the same rate every 8 hours regardless of if she had different tests, treatments, had to see different specialists,etc. I know other hospitals you get separate bills from different doctors and it's a nightmare to just wade through. Cleveland was simple. I believe Mayo does the same sort of thing. I can see why Cleveland Clinic was brought up in the debates as what more hospitals should be like. Although if my mother didn't have private insurance she wouldn't have had the care they offered.

    Why other hospitals don't operate that way is beyond me. I can only assume hospitals are a very expensive and hard to enter industry. Even Google gave up on their personal online health records initiative. It was a personal project of a Google founder's wife so you know it had the full company support. If Google can't do that with their resources there is a serious problem.

  7. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    I'm off to the hospital for $3000 worth of drugs for my disabled kid this morning. He has an ultra rare bleeding disorder. I was there 2 days ago and 2 weeks ago for the same. I'll be back in another 2 days for another $3000 treatment. He's 3, we've probably long since passed $100k and are on to $1/4m. No meds? He bleeds to death.

    I'm a carpenter, I make $200 on a good day, about a 1/4 of every month I'm at home enforcing bed rest to help him recover and save everyone money.

    At 3, he's learning to read and has single digit addition and subtraction under control.

    I don't know what the right answer is. I've met a lot of million dollar babies in hematology and oncology. If I could be emperor, I'd declare state royalties on oil and mineral commonwealth to cover the cost of universal health care. Generally, I do not believe in the wisdom of "welfare" for groups. I think there is greater wisdom in "citizen's dividends" for all.

    just some perspective on this issue,

    presence
    These kinds of things need to be handled by charity. Every Million Dollar baby takes up more resources than taking care of an entire village of starving children in Africa for instance. Nature has a very effective way of handling members of a herd that cannot pull their weight due to age or injury. Either the other members voluntarily carry the lame member, or they die off.

    With modern technology, we can keep very old sick people alive for a very long time through mechanical means with respirators, tube feeding, and an array of drugs. The problem is that if those very old sick people don't die, eventually there wont be enough healthy people to take care of them. Death is a necessary element of biological life.

  8. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qdog View Post
    These kinds of things need to be handled by charity. Every Million Dollar baby takes up more resources than taking care of an entire village of starving children in Africa for instance. Nature has a very effective way of handling members of a herd that cannot pull their weight due to age or injury. Either the other members voluntarily carry the lame member, or they die off.

    With modern technology, we can keep very old sick people alive for a very long time through mechanical means with respirators, tube feeding, and an array of drugs. The problem is that if those very old sick people don't die, eventually there wont be enough healthy people to take care of them. Death is a necessary element of biological life.
    What, eugenics much? These "sick" people, whether physical or mental can be able to help the economy by obtaining jobs. In the best buddies program, a place for people of mental disability, they were able to teach the people how to bake, clean, and other stuff. We should also allow people without the oppurtunity to work to just be taken care of the wellfare of the government (only these people, no one else).

  9. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UMULAS View Post
    What, eugenics much? These "sick" people, whether physical or mental can be able to help the economy by obtaining jobs. In the best buddies program, a place for people of mental disability, they were able to teach the people how to bake, clean, and other stuff. We should also allow people without the oppurtunity to work to just be taken care of the wellfare of the government (only these people, no one else).
    Not Eugenics. Just no theft by force from a centralized power to use resources in a top down, and likely inefficent way. Let individuals, and charity groups handle it, instead of the government.

  10. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qdog View Post
    These kinds of things need to be handled by charity. Every Million Dollar baby takes up more resources than taking care of an entire village of starving children in Africa for instance. Nature has a very effective way of handling members of a herd that cannot pull their weight due to age or injury. Either the other members voluntarily carry the lame member, or they die off.

    With modern technology, we can keep very old sick people alive for a very long time through mechanical means with respirators, tube feeding, and an array of drugs. The problem is that if those very old sick people don't die, eventually there wont be enough healthy people to take care of them. Death is a necessary element of biological life.
    I'm going to go off libertarianism here for a bit. What you just proposed might work in a giving community but in reality it wouldn't work. Hell we were able to keep a presidential campaign going for a long while, but after the funfair was over we're barley floating C4L.

    Do we as a organized society have any social obligation to help the sick, needy, elderly etc? Parts of me say we do and parts say we don't. My guess is that if you go back in time there are several diseases that found cures because we tried to "fix" people through procedures, drugs etc. If everyone had to pick up the enormous cost on the frontend maybe there wouldn't be cures to polio or eye glasses or many of the cheap thigns we have today?

    Again this is a hard question as it is but it is really easy to answer if you're not dealt those cards of a $M baby.

  11. #70
    Site Staff - Moderator Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,739
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    I think most liberty minded people look at these types of social program issues the wrong way.

    Question: How is it morally objectionable in of itself for the government to provide medical care for the needy?

    If it is funded by donations or other non-coercive, non-violent means then what is the problem?

    So the issue isn't if we should have "universal health care", it's: "How are you going to pay for it?"

    If it's by forced taxation or debt slavery (as we live under now) then there are clear grounds of it being morally objectionable. If a bunch of people want to create and fund the system themselves then so what?

    I have yet to see this position be defeated by either the left or right.

    Edit- of course we still need free markets, such as described in this already posted link: http://mises.org/daily/3643
    but the two are not mutually exclusive.
    Some on the left would say that it can't be voluntary, and they need the biggest possible pool of money to take care of the "million dollar baby" disease exceptions. Thus, it must be universal and mandated. Of course this line originated with the medical/pharma/insurance/government industrial complex. Nothing like big pools of money to take advantag..., err, take care of people with.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  12. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbill27 View Post
    One of the best arguments and someone might have already mentioned it, would be to point out how some of the same medical procedures for dogs are cheaper than for humans and continue to get cheaper while the oppposite is true for humans. The difference being government intervention into one and not the other. Also, I hear that lasik surgery is not covered by any welfare or insurance programs and thus decreases in price while increasing in effeciency.
    devils advocate: Could it be that if a dog dies after treatment, people don't normally sue? What about value of one life over the other being a factor in costs?
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

    Why Government Doesn't Work

    The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles

  13. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    devils advocate: Could it be that if a dog dies after treatment, people don't normally sue? What about value of one life over the other being a factor in costs?
    That would explain why treating humans is more expensive in general. It doesn't explain why HC costs are increasing at such a rapid rate above inflation while the cost of treating animals isn't.

  14. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    Look at the crashing EU for your answers...
    I want to say thanks for all the +reps I received from my above response to the OP

  15. #74

    Default

    Whenever I see posts like this on rpf, I cant help but wonder if the OP really wants an answer or the OP is trying to wind us up. Nay, because you should not force anything on free people, no matter how good the thing is. I actually think universal healthcare could be better than what we have now, but a free market based system is far more preferable than UHCS.

  16. #75

    Default

    Medical bills are destroying my family and I..I mean DESTROYING.

    I had a surgery that cost 15k and I refused medicade..at this point I dunno what to do.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •