Can I get a show of hands? (health care)

[Hirka_T_Bawa]

I agree slightly, but not totally.

Ok, I work in a pharmacy, and have seen how the government operates medicare and medicaid, and I don’t trust the government to run our health care system.

With Medicaid I have see people who drive cars better then I do complain that they have to pay a $0.50 copay for their $1,000 drug, and then purchace cigarettes, beer, or just a whole bunch of cosmetics. I have seen mothers complain when their child’s script isn’t covered because it is an OTC product (that you can get for less then $5), and then refuse to get it, but then put $40 worth of cosmetics, beer, etc, on the counter for me to check out.

With Medicare part D, the plans are WAY too confusing to the people who are too old to understand them, seen people who go without drugs they need because they have hit their doughnut hole, and seen people who don’t even know what the hell they have signed up for, and just signed some form that was sent to them in the mail from AARP.

[Hirka_T_Bawa]

(Hit submit too soon, here is the rest of my post)
Basically, I just don’t trust the government to handle health care any better then they handle anything else. I admit that Health Care needs some sort of reform, but I don’t think making it government run is the way to go. I honestly believe that the only way that we can control health care costs in the long run is to make people responsible for their own health care costs. Why pay for something like Lipitor, when you can get Simvistatin (Zocor) generic for WAY less. There are only certain cases where there two drugs make a BIG difference (mainly if you love to eat/drink your grapefruit).

So, I agree that government shouldn’t be in charge of health care for the great majority, but I don’t have a problem paying for children, who shouldn’t be punished because they were born to people who can’t or won’t take care of them.

[athelas]

I agree, except for those who are disabled and physically cannot work to pay for their healthcare. Insurance is used to hedge against risk, not to subsidize the chronically ill. If we want to do that, direct (and transparent) government subsidies are the way to go. At least then the unintended consequences that Hirka notices will be public knowledge, and unfounded emotional appeals will have less currency.

I would also like those most vehemently against to defend their more outlandish statements (“would lead to the collapse of civilization,” “is fundamentally unsound,” etc.)

[PrettyVacant]

[quote=“Shodan, post:50, topic:506375”]

[li]My grandmother was in her eighties, very senile, had had cancer, and was obviously failing. The doctors wanted to put in a feeding tube. This probably would have kept her alive for a few more weeks, at huge expense, and at no benefit to anyone. [/li][/QUOTE]

This isn’t an argument for or against health care systems is it; you appear to be making a financial argument in relation to euthanasia.

Until that law is passed, doctors make all medical decisions, not accountants.

[quote=“Shodan, post:50, topic:506375”]

[li]My cousin runs an NICU. Many of her patients die, and most of the rest go home significantly compromised. Her work increases health care costs, overall. We could, as a society, say, “No, you can’t treat newborns if they weigh less than 2500 grams”, but a minority of her patients born at that stage of development recover and go home normal, and it is almost impossible to tell which are the ones who will. If we reduce care to “kilo kids”, we are condemning that minority to death, when we could save their lives. [/list][/li][/QUOTE]

Sorry, I lost the thread. You treat people until they are no longer treatable, right?

The decision is with the doctors. Again, it is not financial.

@Shodan

[li]If we increase access to health care by shifting the costs of the beneficiaries to someone else, that increases demand. Increased demand increases price. [/li]

Are you seriously suggesting there is a more expensive per head health care system anywhere in the developed world - I’d encourage you to reconsider your understanding of how the industry works.

@Shodan

[li]ISTM that if we want to hold down costs, we will need to implement some form of rationing. That means we say to a lot of people, “We are going to let your loved one die in order to save money”. And make it stick. It means we say to a lot of people “Yes, that new drug improves outcomes by 10%, but it costs twice as much, so you can’t have it.” And make it stick.[/li]

There is no rationing ever. It’s is patent propaganda. There are localised delays when supply and demand projections decouple.

[Lightnin]

@Hirka_T_Bawa

Why pay for something like Lipitor, when you can get Simvistatin (Zocor) generic for WAY less. There are only certain cases where there two drugs make a BIG difference (mainly if you love to eat/drink your grapefruit).

Because my doctor prescribed the other drug. He, a healthcare professional, decided that it would treat my cholesterol problem better than Simvastatin. However, my insurance decided that they knew better than him. Some desk jockey decided that it was cheaper for me to use another drug instead of the one my doctor prescribed. The insurance company’s bottom line is more important than my health. And because drugs are so expensive, I can’t realistically afford to get the one my doctor originally prescribed… so I’m stuck using Simvastatin, even though my company pays for my insurance.

And for the record, I freakin’ LOVE grapefruit. I occasionally take a day off from my pills just so I can drink some grapefruit juice the next day. Damn, now I want a Ruby Red…

[Fear_Itself]

I disagree. On the other hand, I don’t give a shit if Rand Rover’s taxes are increased to 80%. No skin off my dick.

[Heart_of_Dorkness]

I have been working since I was 14, supporting myself since I was 18, and have never been unemployed since. I firmly believe that every capable adult has the responsibility to do everything in their power to take care of themselves, and I have exceedingly little patience for those who choose not to.

And I strongly disagree with Rand.

[The_Understander]

Emphatically disagree.

As humans, isn’t one of the main reasons that we are the dominant species on the planet our ability to cooperate and care for one another? This law of the jungle shit makes me wanna puke… memo: we overrode that law around the time of the Sumerians.

[MsWhatsit]

Disagree with Rand. I don’t consider health care to be a luxury.

[Jake]

Disagree
Jake

[Der_Trihs]

@MsWhatsit

Disagree with Rand. I don’t consider health care to be a luxury.

He doesn’t oppose it because he thinks it’s a luxury; he thinks that it’s Wrong for the government to help people in any way, luxury or not.

@Rand_Rover

Whether the government should provide something does not depend on whether it is a need or a luxury.

[Lamia]

I could hardly disagree more.

I have a decent job, and I’m in the 25% tax bracket. I would happily pay higher taxes in order to provide universal health care to all Americans. Heck, I’ll weep tears of joy when that day comes.

[MsWhatsit]

@Der_Trihs

He doesn’t oppose it because he thinks it’s a luxury; he thinks that it’s Wrong for the government to help people in any way, luxury or not.

Oh, OK. I haven’t been keeping up with Rand Rover’s Cavalcade of Crazy. Doesn’t change my vote, though.

[NardoPolo]

@Der_Trihs

No, it’s forcing you to contribute your share to society. Just like any other tax supported service.

Right now, the average American “share” is $1 taxed for every $4 he makes on average, PLUS $38,050 each in outstanding national debt. No one should be surprised to see us stand up and say “That’s enough. No more.”

@Zsofia

How do you feel about your government enforced “charity” going to pave roads you don’t drive on or educate other people’s kids? Do you complain when it puts out other people’s fires that you might not have chosen to put out?

In general terms, I’ve few problems with those items (‘cept I’m not sure I trust the government with my kids’ minds). You gotta draw the line somewhere. If we were only talking state-paid immunizations, or something much more limited, I might sing a different tune. But the OP was waaaay too general.

@Sailboat

Eh, see my paragraph above. A lot of the money wealthy corporations have is theft, too. You don’t think Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, the auto executives, and all those golden parachute guys actually earned their hundreds of billions through hard work and innovation, do you?

Is your reasoning that since some people stole money from some other people, therefore the government is entitled to take my money and give it to someone else?

@PrettyVacant

There is no rationing ever. It’s is (sic) patent propaganda. There are localised delays when supply and demand projections decouple.

Medicare and Medicaid currently pay at roughly HALF the rate that commercial plans pay. (CITE, PDF, bottom of page 10) If the gov’t does the same for all health care, the supply will deflate for obvious reasons as health care providers throw in the towel. Demand would remain the same. Ergo, rationing.

[Strinka]

To add to the chorus: disagree.

[Zebra]

disagree

[elelle]

Strongly disagree, from a basic viewpoint that there should not be profit on the misery of others.

[Interconnected_Series_of_Tubes]

Agree for reasons outlined excellently by Hirka T’Bawa. I’m absolutely appalled at the amount of debt the aging powers-that-be cheerfully pile upon my spry, youthful, productive back.

I’m also a little :dubious: at all these responses that seem to be something like this:

Totally disagree omg. But of course we need to <completely impossible thing>.

You guys really want the government to have enough oversight over you to inspect your every purchase? And furthermore, to make an independent decision on whether or not you “need” that item and therefore deduct it from your share of the public pie? Incredible.

[Shodan]

@PrettyVacant

This isn’t an argument for or against health care systems is it; you appear to be making a financial argument in relation to euthanasia.

No, what I am arguing is that, unless we make some fundamental changes in how we treat patients, health care costs will continue to increase whether the taxpayer foots the bill or not.

Until that law is passed, doctors make all medical decisions, not accountants.

That is sort of my point. If we want to address health care inflation, we need to make some decisions based on cost rather than on whether it will postpone death for a few weeks.

Sorry, I lost the thread. You treat people until they are no longer treatable, right?

No. You treat people so long as it is cost-effective to treat them, to put it bluntly.

Are you seriously suggesting there is a more expensive per head health care system anywhere in the developed world - I’d encourage you to reconsider your understanding of how the industry works.

I’m not sure how you got “we have cheap health care” from “increasing demand increases price”. So I’d encourage you to reconsider your understanding of Economics 101.

There is no rationing ever. It’s is patent propaganda.

Again, I am not sure how you got from “we need to implement rationing” to 'there is rationing now".

Perhaps you could reread for content and respond again.

Regards,
Shodan

[Crafter_Man]

I agree, though I would not be against a system run by a state (as opposed to the federal government) wherein a person could take out an interest-free loan to pay a doctor or hospital bill.

But yes, I do believe it is very wrong and immoral to force anyone to pay for someone else’s healthcare.