No. The government is already massively involved in health care. The debate we are now having (as a country, not the one here in GD) is whether or not to increase that involvement and if so, by how much and in what way. To be perfectly honest, I don’t know the answer. I really don’t. I’m not even sure if the right answer is to increase government involvement, rather than to decrease it. Let’s not pretend that what we have right now is anything remotely like a free market.
(Bell rings.) Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead! (Bell rings again.)
YOU do, are you going to mandate it across the board of everyone?
First off, we’re talking about “dieing from lack of affordable health care.” Please stop acting like I’m trying to prevent death. And dieing from old age isn’t a treatable condition.
Everyone dies, that’s life. But just like the government vs car argument, when death is easily avoidable steps can be taken. If you look around your cube/room/cell right now, it is filled with government required safety features, meant to prevent easily avoidable death.
Even if you stripped out Medicare and Medicaid the government would still be involved with your health care. The FDA and Department of Health and Human Services are just two examples. The fact that doctors and nurses require government licensing is another.
If you’d like to try for a Libertarian Utopia I’ve got a $10,000 rock I can sell you that will cure your terminal cancer and give you whiter teeth. If you don’t believe me, perhaps it’s because the evil government takes steps to prevent that scenario.
No, there isn’t. I know in your head you are trying to imagine the most outlandishly expensive treatment for the most rarest of conditions. But that’s just it, there are extremely expensive treatments–and they are rare. The rest of them amount to a round of antibiotics.
The cost of providing prenatal care is extremely low on the grand scheme of things, but those few check ups and a couple of ultrasounds result in a healthier child being born. I won’t say that creates lower health care costs because I believe there are studies proving against that. But you end up with a healthier population overall, and isn’t that sort of the goal?
Also keep in mind we are talking for the most part about treatable conditions. If it’s going to require “experimental medications and procedures” that’s a different show.
Thank you for rephrasing the question so that it doesn’t make any sense. What does a prosthesis have to do with dieing from lack of treatment? Why do you think that makes us think “more cleanly?”
The person in your example was in an accident and lost his leg. To NOT DIE he needed a variety of relatively basic procedures, first and foremost stopping blood loss and getting blood volume back up. Then he needed the wound cared for so that it wouldn’t get gang green, and he needed surgery to give him a proper stump so he can use a prosthesis.
How does a $50,000 prosthesis fit into “dieing from lack of health care?” There is a very simple answer to your question but I refuse to answer because it is simply a distraction from the real question.
Tell me, should that man have died from his car accident because he couldn’t afford treatment? That is the question YOU need to answer cleanly. You don’t need to answer here, but you should at least be able to give yourself a reasonable answer. To try and twist it by asking about the colour of his hospital gown is intentionally evading the question.
There is this theme in the US that “poor people can use the ER.” And this is a perfect case of where that fails. Amputation of this magnitude is going to require months of wound care, and probably three months of antibiotics. The cost of that is remarkably low compared to the ER visit, but the current system discourages the easily treatable conditions. If left unchecked, his stump will develop infection, that will eventually spread, and land him back in the ER. Why is that a desirable scenario?
PS I’m not quite dead yet.
Can someone give a list of these inexpensive treatments everyone is talking about that will save “x” number of lives (or prevent premature deaths, to be exact) and what is “x”?
This is an honest question, because I really don’t know what they are. Someone mentioned prenatal care, but what exactly is that, how much does it cost, and how many lives are saved?
The elderly cost more to maintain than any other age group, surprising huh?
http://www.bcbs.com/news/national/elderly-health-costs-growing-slowly.html
How much is enough and how much is too much?
One can only speculate (since the elderly are most likely on the govt teat) that costs will go up across the board if everyone has the same access. That is what everyone is doing right? Speculating
Yes, it is a choice between letting people die, or providing reasonable treatment. Why didn’t you answer the question?
Is your answer, “I want to have consent over who gets to live or die”? What are you trying to say other than you don’t like to be taxed? Why do you see it as giving money to the government? And who do you think has more interest in spending it efficiently? Do you think the current system has people spending your money efficiently? Do hospitals in the US spend your money efficiently (when they order extra unneeded tests) and do you think health insurance companies spend your money efficiently when they advertise during the superbowl or sponsor a softball team?
Yes or no, It is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford the proper treatment.
Private industry as no interest in providing affordable-universal-care, any more than Pizza Hut has an interest in providing affordable-universal delivery (seriously, I’m just down the street, bring me my pizza).
To me, “efficiency” in the health care industry is about how many people are covered. Canada (and two dozen over industrialized nations) has everyone covered, to me that’s very efficient. What is your measure of efficiency?
I’m still reading through it but the highlights so far are:
{Magellan, I’m not targeting this at you, but English doesn’t have a version of nous}
What the fuck is wrong with you, why is that seen as a viable solution to the problem? What the fuck does employment have to do with health care?
And not just employment, but employment that provides a group based policy so that she isn’t excluded.
{cough cough} “gee sis, that cough sounds pretty bad. You should quit your current means of income generation and find a job, any job, that provides you with health care. Then wait 6 months for the policy to kick in, then go see a doctor.”
Not every “job” provides health benefits, do you realize that? Lots of people could be productive members of society, but the system tells them not to be so they can get an office job in order to get health insurance.
At the very least, could we not agree that we need farmers in society? Where do they get health insurance? There are millions of such jobs that are valuable to society, pay a decent wage, but don’t provide health insurance.
My original beef with all this is that THOSE people can’t afford health care.
The ONLY reason you made this suggestion is because in the 1940s the government froze wages to stop inflation. To compensate, employers realized that a group-based insurance policy was CHEAPER than individual private insurance (imagine that, mini-UHC was cheaper than individual coverage). So they started to offer it as a means of compensation. 70 years later we have several generations of Americans that don’t know any other way, and think, “get a job with health insurance” is a normal way of thinking. It’s not.
It’s always easy to create a boogy-man scenario, a fictitious individual we can all rally around and agree doesn’t deserve coverage. In Canada we like to target smokers, should we really be paying for their cancer treatment? Let me help you out, should Hitler get the same health care as everyone else? Is that what you’re trying to say? (ignoring for the moment that currently prisoners get cancer treatment they couldn’t otherwise afford).
First, universal means just that, everyone gets covered regardless of their level of responsibility.
Second, and putting the ball back in your court, what about the people that WERE responsible? Had a job, had insurance, had savings. Under the current system THEY still get fucked. They get claims denied, they get their coverage dropped. They get laid off. They have companies that go bankrupt.
Should THOSE people die because they can no longer afford treatment? Forget the Hitlers of the word, should the GOOD people die because they can’t afford treatment? At least answer that.
No, that is not the problem with my point of you, because no, there isn’t always some better treatment. You’re trying to contort the situation and create a fictitious scenario where everyone needs a million dollars to survive.
A man comes in complaining of chest pain and shortness of breath. His treatment is relatively straightforward and uncomplicated. He has a variety of things he needs to avoid dieing from an easily preventable heart attack. That is basic, affordable health care, practiced by dozens of countries all over the world.
With that said, there are all kinds of things he DOESN’T need. He doesn’t need a 4-D ultrasound of his heart. He doesn’t extraneous tests. He doesn’t need a month in a private room in the ICU. He doesn’t need a helicopter ride to the most advanced cardiology center in the world.
The answer to your fake scenario is very simple, look at what all the other countries with UHC do. It is entirely possible to provide good health care for less money, this has been proven.
The debate in this thread is more basic than that - it is whether there is a social obligation to not let people die because of lack of money - which does not mean that none will. Once we get that resolved, we can worry about the details, but it is useless to try to negotiate the most effective means of providing care for those without with people who think this is a bad idea.
You convinced me. A UHC system for the elderly would never work!
Nice try, try reading the cite.
I said nothing about the elderly on UHC (super duper you already figured out that they were already on one)
The costs for the elderly are already as much as 10x the costs as the next age bracket. How much of that do you figure is because they are on it? How much is just age?
May I summarize the thread?
tap tap 10 million dollar treatment tap tap Get a job *tap tap * Gummint taking my money tap tap
I’ve never seen so many people tap dancing around a simple yes/no question.
On a government plan, people will die due to lack of funding. For the bottom line, how is that different than what happens now?
The answer is yes, it happens daily.
Why does dieing from an easily treatable heart attack not fall under the same consideration? Think for a moment about the cost right now of “preventing terrorism.” But why, what are you trying to stop?
We all seem to agree we want to live in a society where you don’t fear getting on a plane or going to a coffee shop. I saw we agree because a huge portion of our stolen tax dollars goes towards preventing acts of terrorism.
I personally don’t fear dieing in a terrorist attack, to me that is money wasted inefficiently.
I want to live in a society where I don’t fear going bankrupt from medical costs. To me that is peace of mind. Knowing that I can get proper treatment to prevent an easily avoidable death.
It would actually be a monopsony and not a monopoly. Does that make you feel any better? Right now if you think about your current options for health insurance, it starts to look like a monopoly. At my work I can only choose between two different companies that basically offer the same plan, another places it’s just one. To me that is a monopoly. If you agree having a monopoly is bad, shouldn’t you be against that?
Yeah, I know. That’s why I said “often” and not “always”.
It seems to me your problem is with the OP, not me. He said it was unacceptable for people to die because they cannot afford “proper” treatment. The OP didn’t put any boundaries on that, and that’s what we’re trying to do in the rest of this thread.
I thought we were past the point of simply answering the question in the title, and were working on the more nuanced position. But if you’re still wondering, then yes, it is acceptable for some people to die because they can’t afford proper treatment. OK?
Well…because the employed are going to be paying for it, one way or the other? I’d say that employment has a rather profound effect on health care, all things considered. 
Why tie health care to employment? It was a way to ensure that companies paid their share of health care, and probably seemed a good idea at the time. It’s basically the system we all grew up with at this point, since we’ve been doing it this way for quite a long time. In a lot of peoples minds there is a sense of ‘better the devil we know than the one we don’t’. I don’t entirely agree with this, btw, and I do think reform is needed. But when I hear these glowing, over the top praises for UHC (it will be cheaper, better AND more available! It’s MAGIC!) I get the same feeling as when folks are discussing how we’ll replace all our coal fired power plants with solar and wind generators, and this will be cheaper, cleaner AND make all the forest animals love us, like in a Toyota commercial.
It twinges my skeptical bone when someone tells me that a new system is going to do everything for everyone, cost less and provide better care than what the majority are getting now.
cough cough “Sis…what kind of job do you have that you have to wait 6 months before your policy kicks in? I started my new job last week and my policy has already kicked in. You sure you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole there? You always did that when we were kids…”
But MOST jobs provide health benefits. That’s why the system has lasted so long. And for those who don’t have regular health benefits, there are fall backs they can use. Again, that’s why the system has lasted as long as it has…it serves a majority of people in this country adequately, to the point where most people aren’t all that fired up about having it change. Oh, tell them that they will get magic health care (i.e. that it will cost them less a month, give them better service AND make them feel good because everyone will get their piece), and they are going to be on board…hell, convince me that this will be the case for me, personally, and I’D be fully on board too! Throw in a chicken in every pot (or, at least in my own pot), and perhaps a few interns and show me where to sign!
Yeah, we need farmers. Are you claiming that farmers can’t get insurance?? Are farmers in danger of dying off, so to speak, due to their lack of health care, leaving us all starving and forlorn?
IIRC, there are something like 20-30 million people without formal insurance. That means they can’t get regular checkups and such…it doesn’t mean they can’t get any health care at all, or that they can’t get prescriptions or even checkups. That said, there are between 300 and 400 MILLION American’s…so you are talking about less than 10%. And, again, it’s not like those 10% can’t get any health care at all…it’s that they don’t get regular health care.
Could our system be better? Yeah…it could. Should we push for reform…yeah, we should. Should we try to ensure that those ~10% get better care than they are getting today? Yeah…I think we should. What’s the best way to do this? Damned if I know.
But to get back to your original OP, we as a society accept every day that decisions made or resources available are going to cause some number of deaths for the greater good. Want to increase the speeding limit by 5 miles an hour? Some number of people will die due to that decision. Want to make cars lighter to save fuel? Some number of people are going to die due to that decision. Continue to use coal plants for power? Some number of people will die. Cut the state budget in California? Some number of people will die because of that.
At it’s base, no matter what you do, it’s going to cause deaths. Health Care isn’t an unlimited resource. There is no magic way to cut costs, increase service and provide it to more people, so choices have to be made, the resource has to be managed, and this will have both a positive and negative effect on a non-zero number of people. If you go to a UHC system, there will be some people who will die that wouldn’t have died…just as there will be some people who will live who would have died under the current system.
-XT
That’s a bullshit study and I suspect you already know it. The researchers took the insurance status at the beginning of the study, waited a decade, and grouped those who died into two categories:
- Those insured at the beginning of the trial
- Those uninsured at the beginning of the trial
Among the many limitations of the study this one is of interest:
Not to mention that the authors are proponents of universal health care.