That, and the fact that a single payer plan would be far more simple than this bill. The far right would launch the same lies, of course. But the Dems could then tell people that they have a choice between guaranteed healthcare and paying a bit more in taxes, versus escalating premiums and dimishing health benefits. It would have both a moral component *and *one of inherent self-interest.
So push polling is only bad when a Republican does it?
It’s not a choice between letting people die and not letting people die, it’s a choice between letting people die and taking other people’s money without their consent and giving it to a government that has little interest in spending it efficiently.
So you oppose public schools, police forces, and the military, I take it?
As opposed to the insurance company, whose only loyalty is to the bottom line, and sees financial reward in not paying out anything at all.
Gotcha.
Oh, they’ll consent, no worries there! Soon as they hear the crunching of liberal jackboots, drawing ever nearer…
In Soviet America, jackboot wears YOU!
Who said anything about push polling?
No, it’s a choice between an efficient, humane system and an absurdly wasteful, barbaric one.
Let me rephrase the question posed in the OP, which might result in looking at the problem of cost vs healthcare more cleanly. Say a person is in an accident. He has no insurance and no one else is responsible. He loses a leg. He goes to the emergency room (which is a level of care no one really disagrees should be available to all). Now he loses his leg. After the doctors do all they can, to what degree is a prosthesis appropriate. Should we just give him crutches? A $5,000 prothetic? A better $15,000 prosthetic which would give him more mobility? Or a $50,000 prothetic like the guys in the military get? (I’m making these numbers up.)
Part 2: Regardless of which prosthetic he gets, to what degree should he receive physical therapy?
Prediction, based on a myriad of such previous exchanges: he’ll say government programs are okay when they’re contracted out to corporations. Because the hallmark of funda-capitalist thinking seems to be: profit justifies everything.
Jesus christ. WTF is wrong with you people? Even in your hypothetical, you say it was an accident. Why shouldn’t the person get the same healthcare as everyone else? This is sheer psychopathy.
Well, I haven’t expressed a point of view yet, but the thinking would be that one should plan for stuff happening. For instance, I always have insurance. Even when self-employed and it costs me a butt load. My sister didn’t have insurance, because she can’t afford squat. And she is ill. I advised her to find a job—any job—that would give her insurance, even if it paid her less money. She did that. Now she has insurance and is getting the care she needs.
So, why should irresponsible/cavalier behavior result with one getting the same benefits when things go wrong as someone who planned ahead and sacrificed?
What,specifically, does “everyone else” get?
Wait. So, you’re against creating a system that guarantees healthcare and, therefore, responsibility, yet you maintain that people who suffer an accident are responsible for their condition solely because they weren’t insured for that second? That is so messed up.
And you are aware that not everyone can afford insurance and not everyone has a job–particularly nowadays? Why not allow people to take responsibility by planning for their entire life by paying into a system over the course their life? Not to mention that it’s cheaper, too.
The implication of the hypothetical posed by magellan01 was that this person was somehow less deserving of care because of the circumstances that led to his condition. I was merely saying that these circumstances should not be treated differently than any other. IOW, whatever the “default” treatment would be, that would be it.
I have a friend who had cancer when he was a teenager. He cannot get insurance now (he’s around 28). Even when we both worked for the state government, which has the most generous insurance program around, they would not cover him. He works hard, pays his taxes, and hasn’t done anything wrong (except, in the insurance industry’s mind, survive the cancer the first time). If his cancer comes back tomorrow, he will certainly die.
If the current health care bill passes, he will be able to purchase insurance. They won’t be able to deny him coverage, and won’t be able to charge him astronomically higher rates.
I support the bill.
Could have prudency panels, I suppose. To judge just how realistic and cautious any given person might be, determine their eligibility. Guy who brushes and flosses twice a day, he’s good for up to two kidneys and two lungs. Guy who just brushes once, maybe a kidney, tops. Overdue library books, definite negative. Art History major? Take two aspirin, die.
Where would you draw the line though? Is it unacceptable for any people to die…or just certain people? Health care is a limited resource that has to be rationed, after all, and all systems, whether they be of the witch doctor with bone through nose variety, our own lovely bastardized system or even the Euro UHC…all have to draw the line somewhere and decide who lives and who dies. So…where do you draw said line, and how do you justify it?
What it actually boils down to is how much a given society can afford, and what does the greatest good for the greatest number of people. There are trade-offs in everything. If one goes the UHC route then you have to make some kind of trade-off somewhere. You can’t treat more people with better care for less money…so, you have to decide which of those factors (quality, quantity and cost) are important, and which have to be emphasized and which not.
Depends on the person. Personally, I’d rather have good food and decent shelter before health care, but then by and large I’m pretty healthy…and, frankly, I’ve done without all three in my life and would emphasize the former two over the latter, given a choice.
If you are talking about the US, there are alternatives for poor people to get insulin if they want it. My grandmother hardly spoke 2 words of English, lived in one of the meaner barrios in South Tuscon after, um, immigrating here from Mexico, and she didn’t seem to have any problems getting insulin. She had diabetes most of her adult life and lived to be over 96.
There are options available. Now…in Mexico (and a lot of other places), the options are even more limited, and if you are talking about world wide I’d say that, while I agree, again, it comes down to resources and emphasis.
Do you think your assertion might be more based on your own pre-disposition to UHC, though? I mean, you seem to be leaping right to it based on what looks like a fairly flimsy logic chain to me. I’m not necessarily opposed to UHC, btw…but I don’t see it as the ONLY alternative out there. I also don’t see either the need or the desirability of attempting such draconian measures as capping doctors salaries and the like…in fact, I think it would have the exact opposite effect than what you are trying to achieve.
Again, where do you draw the line? How do you quantify what is ‘easily treatable’, and who should and shouldn’t get care? And what trade-offs are you willing to have in order to get it? Health care isn’t endless, so there HAS to be trade-offs.
-XT
Well, the $30K is ridiculous, but most single payer proponents don’t see the establishment of UHC as a panacea. There are plenty of things to tinker with, like physician reimbursement mechanisms, cost effectiveness research, delineation of hospital privileges, the kinds of allied health professions that are desirable, the kind of medical education each kind of health professional ought to receive, etc. But UHC would be a major–the major–step forward.
Well, what is the “default” treatment? It’s not a matter of being less deserving, it’s just that often there is often going to be some better treatment. That’s the problem with the OP’s point of view.