The Bitter Health Care Debate

Blades of Passion · Dec 20, 2009

Tonichelle said:
if I had a life threatening injury/medical condition, I'd have to suck it up.

You mean die. Or live in constant agony so harmful that you can't actually have a real life.

Yeah, that's the kind of mentality we should all have. Society would be SO much more harmonious if we all treated each other this way.

Tonichelle said:
I wouldn't be able to afford it, but darn it it's not someone else's responsibility to take care of my needs.

Why should the government pay for children to go to school then?

Why not only allow kids to go to school if their parents can pay for it?

The purpose of government is to maintain order in society and provide basic care to all individuals.

Mathman · Dec 20, 2009

Tonichelle said:
aren't we supposed to keep church out of state affairs

that's what I've been told for so many years.

I think I would say it the other way around. For many years, taking care of the sick was church business.

Hospitals used to be run by religious and charitable organizations. They were staffed largely by lay volunteers and members of religious orders who took a vow of service and poverty. They were paid for by the charitable donations of people responding to the Biblical obligation of loving their neighbors.

Somewhere along the line, that all went out the window and hospitals became for-profit corporations. Love of money being the root of all evil, it wasn't long before insurance companies, pharmaceutical outfits, the government and anyone else looking to make a buck jumped in. Now health care is so expensive that no one -- neither individuals nor society at large -- can afford it no matter what system we set up to pay for it.

Tonichelle · Dec 20, 2009

you and I agree on that, MM... and fortunately I've always been a member of a church that DOES take care of its own. I think it's how it should be.

however, when we use those same principles when forming goverment suddenly it's a "bad thing" which we hear ad nauseum these days on television...

and BoP - personally? I plan on either homeschooling or finding a private school for my kids. the school system - through no fault of the teachers - is sadly lacking. both of my parents' kids were public school kids (I was homeschooled in high school, though) teachers have over crowded classrooms, they are taking away the arts programs (seriously my band teacher never knows if she'll have a job the next semester), and it's always the teacher's fault. It's never the student that cuts up, it's the teacher that can't handle them. It's never the child/parent's fault the work isn't completed, the teacher hand's out too much.

and don't you dare give that jock a D, or you're outta here.

yeah, I think government run programs are FANTASTIC! :clap:

jennylovskt · Dec 20, 2009

Tonichelle said:
well I guess I'm ignorant, then, because I don't have insurance and I just put down 2600 on oral surgery, and not once did I think the government should have been paying any portion of it.

eta - and no, I'm not independantly wealthy. it set me back quite a bit - used my savings to do it... not good, but it had to be done.

Yeah, you can still afford it because it's just a couple of thousand dollars. Is it so bad that the government takes care of your needs when you cannot afford it, or takes care of the people who are much more in needs than you do?

i love to skate said:
I don't pay a monthly premium so I don't think that is true for all of Canada.

How much you pay Monthly premium or don't pay it at all depends on your income, I think.

Tonichelle · Dec 20, 2009

the ONLY reason I can afford it is I'm not in debt up to my eyeballs because I live within my means... and my parents floated me the money which I AM paying them back

the 2600 is on top of other dental expenses I have because of a crap Dentist who destroyed my mouth 6 years ago and I am just now in a place to be able to have it done... my dad - a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE on GOVERNMENT INSURANCE doesn't have dental coverage aside from a yearly exam/cleaning. EVERYTHING else comes out of pocket. Seriously. And that's with the VA. Go figure. That same insurance does not cover my mom or his kids (I'm too old for it now, but 6 years ago...)

If they can't even take care of their own peons, how are they going to take care of us? (and I'm also a government peon... but I'm "temp" [for two years] so the insurance doesn't apply to me. see how it works... loop holes... don't trust it as far as I can throw it)

i love to skate · Dec 20, 2009

jennylovskt said:
How much you pay Monthly premium or don't pay it at all depends on your income, I think.

No, there are no premiums to be paid in my province.

jennylovskt · Dec 20, 2009

i love to skate said:
No, there are no premiums to be paid in my province.

OK, Ladskater is in British Columbia. I was in Alberta. We have premiums.

Another province which has health care premium is Ontario, I think. You are right. The rest of the Canadian provinces don't have premiums.

i love to skate · Dec 20, 2009

jennylovskt said:
OK, Labskater is in British Columbia. I was in Alberta. We have premiums. Another province which has health care premium is Ontario, I think. You are right. The rest of the Canadian provinces don't have premiums.

Alberta actually got rid of their premiums this year. So now it looks like only BC and Ontario residents have to pay them. I don't understand what the point is in having them.

jennylovskt · Dec 20, 2009

i love to skate said:
Alberta actually got rid of their premiums this year. So now it looks like only BC and Ontario residents have to pay them. I don't understand what the point is in having them.

Oh, really?

Alberta is a rich province because of the oil reserves. I know people there get year end bonuses sometimes.:yes:

Why not having them to help the government to cover part of the health care costs? If you stand on the government side to think, I think it's very understandable. BC and Ontario are the provinces that people like to stay (Alberta too) even with health care premium and high cost of living.

i love to skate · Dec 20, 2009

jennylovskt said:
Oh, really? Alberta is a rich province because of the oil reserves. I know people there get year end bonuses sometimes.:yes:

Why not having them to help the government to cover part of the health care costs? If you stand on the government side to think, I think it's very understandable. BC and Ontario are the provinces that people like to stay (Alberta too) even with health care premium and high cost of living.

People are leaving Alberta in droves though (I left) because the cost of living is too high. The cities that are often rated as having the best quality of life are prairie cities - Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, etc. These provinces are booming right now and people can actually afford to live there.

jennylovskt · Dec 20, 2009

i love to skate said:
The cities that are often rated as having the best quality of life are prairie cities - Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, etc. These provinces are booming right now and people can actually afford to live there.

That is great to hear! :rock:

Mathman · Dec 20, 2009

For the health care bills that are now being debated in the U.S., I think there are two legitimate arguments against the "public option."

(a) It is too expensive. (President Obama is deliberately underestimating the cost by at least a factor of ten, in my opinion. Quite seriously -- do the math :laugh:

-- the only possible way to pay for it is to stop fighting wars.)

(b) Anything the government is in charge of is bound to end up as a chaotic boondoggle. (Although Social Security and Medicare have not been badly run, all things considered.)

The argument in favor of the "public option" is this: however bad it may be, what we have now is worse.

This is what we have now. A poor person gets sick. He has no money so he does not go to the doctor. He gets worse. He still has no money so he still does not go to the doctor. Now he is really, really sick. His friends drop him off at the hospital emergency room. The hospital admits him, tries their best to keep him alive. He dies anyway, leaving behind a $100,000 hospital bill.

Who pays the $100,000? We do. To recoup its losses the hospital jacks up its rates for customers who have private insurance. The insurance companies raise the premiums. Medicaid pays a share, causing our taxes to go up. Everybody pays more for everything.

The patient? Social Security gives his family $250 toward his burial expenses.

Tonichelle · Dec 20, 2009

hm back when my dad got pnuemonia and we didn't have health insurance AND he was working on crappy commission he still went to the dr./hospital

it's still a choice, yes, that means you can't go to mcdonalds for a big mac every day, but it IS possible. if my parents can penny pinch in a crappy (by big city America standards) way of life, I'm thinking it can be done by most. it's not like they're super human.

and don't get me started on how ill treated my grammy was with medicare.

jennylovskt · Dec 20, 2009

Mathman said:
For the health care bills that are now being debated in the U.S., I think there are two legitimate arguments against the "public option."

(a) It is too expensive. (President Obama is deliberately underestimating the cost by at least a factor of ten, in my opinion. Quite seriously -- do the math -- the only possible way to pay for it is to stop fighting wars.)

(b) Anything the government is in charge of is bound to end up as a chaotic boondoggle. (Although Social Security and Medicare have not been badly run, all things considered.)

The argument in favor of the "public option" is this: however bad it may be, what we have now is worse.

This is what we have now. A poor person gets sick. He has no money so he does not go to the doctor. He gets worse. He still has no money so he still does not go to the doctor. Now he is really, really sick. His friends drop him off at the hospital emergency room. The hospital admits him, tries their best to keep him alive. He dies anyway, leaving behind a $100,000 hospital bill.

Who pays the $100,000? We do. To recoup its losses the hospital jacks up its rates for customers who have private insurance. The insurance companies raise the premiums. Medicaid pays a share, causing our taxes to go up. Everybody pays more for everything.

The patient? Social Security gives his family $250 toward his burial expenses.

MM, thanks! This was a great summary!

If that poor sick person has had health insurance, he could be treated much earlier and the cost maybe just a few hundred dollars. That is the reason everyone has to have health insurance to lift up the standard of living for a whole country.

On the Afghanistan war, I think US should stop it and think some other way to get Bin Ladden. Seems to me that US is using fighters jets and cannons against a few mice.

Tonichelle · Dec 20, 2009

I think we should probably pull out of Iraq... Afganistan, not so much, we'd be much further along than we already are (which is pretty dang far according to those on the ground actually fighting the fight... not the ones calling teh shots, and not the media... that's another rant) if only we'd stayed out of Iraq. Not saying that the cause wasn't just/right... just not sure we should have split our attention...

I understand that it's a huge financial burden, and yes I know I sound like I want an isolationist nation... I don't... I just don't have all the answers, but I do know trusting the government to do it for us is NOT going to work.

Mathman · Dec 20, 2009

Tonichelle said:
I think we should probably pull out of Iraq... Afganistan, not so much, we'd be much further along than we already are (which is pretty dang far according to those on the ground actually fighting the fight...

This is what I think about the wars in the Middle East. These folks have been fighting each other since Cain and Abel. They will still be going at it long after I, you, and President Obama have gone to our reward.

Tonichelle · Dec 20, 2009

I completely agree, there will not be peace in the Middle East until end times

however I do believe the end times will be in my life time...

Ptichka · Dec 21, 2009

Toni, health costs SO much, you just can't fully plan for it. And let's face it, there is no way you (yes, I mean you, Toni, not a hypothetical "you") would want to allow a hospital to turn away a woman in labor, even if she doesn't have the money to pay for the delivery (I'm talking about labor and delivery because it's something I'm well familiar with; my first one cost me $5K out of pocket even though we had insurance (!) and I was lucky to have had no complications except that I needed a Cesarean). So, without a system in place the hospital ends up taking the woman in anyway but without having been able to plan for it, so it spirals up the costs even further.

BTW, there are creative approaches to making patients act more responsibly. For example, a Mexican program instituted in some poorer villages actually pays pregnant women for going to their routine appointments - they figure it actually saves the state more money in the end.

Anyway, back to this healthcare bill. In its current state, I think it's pretty much a joke; it won't make much difference - though I think it's a step in the right direction. What I hope could make a difference is the provision in there to try out various cost cutting initiatives. If costs are lowered (and we all know it's doable without reduction in services; just look at the Mayo clinic!) - then the rest may follow.

Wicked · Dec 21, 2009

I've been in social services for over 20 years. Failure to support the health of all people impoverishes society. Sick people cannot contribute to society. Healthy people can. Yes, we must take care of each other- not only for moral reasons, which would be enough, but because it is good for us as a society. I think it will also save us money in the long run. A big reason why poor people's medical bills can be so high is because they tend to delay medical care until they are seriously ill. What started out minor is now major and costly. Preventive care for everyone could save the US a lot of money.

Ptichka · Dec 21, 2009

Wicked said:
I've been in social services for over 20 years. Failure to support the health of all people impoverishes society. Sick people cannot contribute to society. Healthy people can.

I wish I could agree with that. However, the truth is that not all healthcare makes economic sense. Sure, it makes sense to cure pneumonia in a 30 y.o. man. However, what about cancer in a 60 y.o.? That person would probably retire in 5 years anyway, and not contribute much to society from that point on. I'm not saying we shouldn't have universal health coverage - just G-d forbid we'd start basing it even on the very long term economic sense.

The Bitter Health Care Debate

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

Mathman

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

jennylovskt

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

i love to skate

jennylovskt

i love to skate

jennylovskt

i love to skate

jennylovskt

Mathman

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

jennylovskt

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

Mathman

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

Ptichka

Forum translator

Wicked

Ptichka

Forum translator

Similar threads

Connect with us