It is acceptable for people to die because they can't afford the proper treatment.

Great Debates
101

Is that good enough for you? What does that mean? How bad does it have to be for the 20%?

So what? Let’s say it’s a wash, THIS thread is about people dieing from unaffordable care, preventative measures being part of that. Does your study mention whether or not preventative care saves lives? Increases life expectancy? Reduces infant mortality?

If you have a choice between two systems, both cost the same, one has a life expectancy of 82 the other 79.01, which do you choose?

What if you had a choice between 30 systems, all providing better results at a lower costs, would you be interested?

Why do you care so much about him in this instance. Put health care aside, and think about all of resources going to this useless fuckwit. He’s driving on your roads, taking his beaten kids to your park and smoking in them, using a publicly provided lawyer for his defense, chewing up police and fire resources (for the domestic disturbance calls and the eventual fire caused by his smoking). All while getting the benefit of the most expensive military in the world. Why is health care a sticking point for you?

You know what, fuck him, what about his kids? Do they deserve to die? Tell me that. They’re going to suffer from years of second hand smoke, beatings, neglect, malnutrition. Is it their fault? Do they deserve to die from easily treatable conditions because their dad is a fuckwit that you’ve written off?

Well, no, the point isn’t to show whether or not it saves money, the point is whether or not it can prevent an easily avoidable death. If it saves money, or costs the same, that’s just an added perk.

And it’s not a catch, of course health outcomes will depend on a person’s behaviour, did you just realize that? But you know what else they depend on? Genetics. There are lots of people right now that eat right and exercise who will drop dead of a coronary because they didn’t know they had a blockage, or a weak valve.

So would you feel better if we limited UHC for people with genetically related conditions?

Or wait, maybe it would be better to screen everyone and deny coverage to people with bad genetics. Now THERE is some money savings.

Sounds nice, too bad no body voted for him.

102

Fine. Yes, it is acceptable to me that some people will die an earlier death because of a lack of access to healthcare.

You can now proceed to call me an inhuman monster, etc.

With the caveat that I only feel that way when presented with the current Democratic plan. The cost-benefit ratio with this plan is laughable, so yes, I say we defeat the bill at the cost of human lives.

Did we ever get an actual cite for the 45,000 lives lost due to lack of health care? I’ve asked for that before, in here and in other threads, and never gotten it.

103

Here, let me Google that for you. Mad skills, me…

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

104

You’re wrong. This statement represents a fundamental philosophy of how you view your interaction with society. No one is asking for your kidney, but if you need one should you die because you can’t afford the treatment?

Should everyone be covered?

If you have to say “yes BUT” it stops being your philosophy. I think the most common reaction is to say, “yes BUT not smokers, fat people, blacks, Jews, or that guy down the street I don’t like.”

That’s an entirely different philosophy. It kind of goes back to, “eating me is wrong, except when I’m hungry and don’t feel like going to the store.”

I think the philosophy should be
Everyone deserves adequate coverage regardless of race, religion, or social status.

A lot of people on this board think the moto should be
“Live free and die young of an easily treatable condition.”
“Stay out of my business so I can die when God wants me to.”
“I don’t want the government telling me how I can live longer and healthier”
“I refuse to do the same thing Europe does.”

Instead of you have a situation where you DON’T think everyone should be covered, and just start filling in the gaps with patchwork programs:
“Okay, everyone who has a job (as described by xtism) gets covered”
“well, old people don’t have jobs, let’s give them something, but it will start really late”
“obviously really poor people don’t have jobs, let’s give a few of them something.”
“People in the military should get coverage”
“people injured in war should get coverage”
“that girl over there is cute, let’s give her coverage”
etc
etc
“gee, I hope we didn’t forget someone”

105

You could at least try reading the post you’re replying to.

If a mugger successfully robs you and is not caught, he is more likely to rob more people, because he is not being physically restrained from doing so, and because the benefits he cares about exceed the costs he cares about. It also encourages other similarly unmoral individuals to do the same, as they see the rewards he is reaping. Stopping even this single mugger removes this incentive for his kind to commit crimes, reducing crime for the whole community.

Heart disease is not infectious. Your heart disease does not put others at greater risk of heart disease. Treating one case of heart disease does not make an iota of difference to the other millions of cases of heart disease.

I actually oppose the actions of the US government in the name of “preventing terrorism”, but my reasons have nothing to do with the current discussion.

106

Thank you - I’ll take a look at it…

107

Always happy to extend a helping hand to the Google-impaired…

108

Sorry, I’ve got work to do now and can’t address the more recent posts aimed at what I said. Maybe later. But for now, emacknight, would you please stop typing “dieing”. The word is “dying”. Remember Steven Wright’s joke about how he had to go to the eye doctor because he was speed-reading and hit a bookmark? That’s what reading the word “dieing” feels like. :wink:

109

Okay, so UHC for communicable diseases? Would that make you happy? Please accept my apology, and re-read my post substituting tuberculosis for heart disease.

Although heart disease is the leading killing of Americans. If we were to proportion government funding based on number of deaths, terrorism wouldn’t get more than a few cents.

Me too.

110

Cite to the actual study.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/12/2289

I assume most will not be able to access it if it is not a free journal. Luckily I have access to it at work and, upthread, pointed out a big limitation of the study directly from the article. This study is bullshit.

*Whoops…on edit I see that your link provided the study as a PDF…that’s what I get for not clicking on the link. Read the study limitations section.

111

The statement represents a juvenile portrayal of a very complex issue of coverage, payment, and available treatments.

Should everyone be covered by WHAT? Does everyone get a private room at the Mayo clinic? Do we all get the same coverage as Obama?

Now, as soon as you define adequate coverage, I just might agree with you.

112

Isn’t there “an official fallacy” that covers this? It’s kind of a “bad things only happen to bad people” thing, the Just World or something like that.

113

Well your cite certainly didn’t say what I thought it was going to say. It says that costs for people on Medicare - the elderly - are going up less rapidly than the costs for those on private insurance. It certainly says that these costs are higher (not surprisingly, to quote the cite). Did you mean to say that UHC would reduce the growth of health care cost more than I thought? If so, I apologize. If not, I don’t know what your point is.

114

For one thing, it should happen much less often. For another, we might prioritize care, as in UHC countries, so that people with life threatening illnesses go ahead of those with hangnails. Or are you contending that the unnecessary death rate will remain unchanged?

115

Thank you. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

116

Why is the immediate reaction always to ask about the private room at the Mayo? (or a $50,000 prosthesis) Do you currently get a private room at the Mayo? How many people in the US currently have access to a private room at the Mayo? I checked with my provider and the Mayo is out of network for me.

Is adequate coverage that foreign a concept? It means people don’t die from easily treatable conditions. That they have access to a family physician, ER visits, specialists when required, surgery as needed. It means if they need life saving medical treatment, they get it.

It means everyone gets the same level of care, which looks a lot like what that 80% of Americans currently get. A good standard level of care that means no one dies because of the cost of treatment. If you want to pay to get extras, make that part of your system. In Canada you can pay to get a private room.

But the direct answer is no, you don’t get a private room at the Mayo, and you don’t get your own personal private physician that Obama gets. Sort of like the coverage you get now. Sort of like the way public education doesn’t mean everyone gets to go to Harvard.

You get a shared room at a perfectly acceptable hospital, and the treatment deemed medically necessary by your attending physician.

I’m not sure what people expect. My health care in Canada “felt” remarkably similar to my health care here in the US. I picked my own doctor, I went to the ER, etc etc. The difference being that if I lose my job in Canada I can still get medical care. If I want to start my own business or be self employed, I still get medical care.

I personally don’t believe anything would change in the US. The rich could still afford private rooms at the Mayo, the bulk majority couldn’t but would get the same shared rooms at their local hospital. Only difference is that a few more people are able to make use of it.

117

Please point out to me where in any Dem. proposal anyone would be forced to go anywhere. The government of course forces us to buy automobile insurance, like the plan would force us to buy medical insurance (if we can afford it.) However, since we can choose not to drive, but can’t choose not to get sick, it makes sense that those who cannot afford medical insurance get subsidized. BTW, I have uninsured driver coverage (I’m not sure if this is required or not) and have used it. I don’t know if my insurance company directly sued the uninsured person at fault in one accident, but I didn’t have to deal with it.

And government forces us to pay for airbags and seatbelts, a limitation on our freedom if I ever heard one.

So, we can put you down on the “it is fine for babies and other people to die because they can’t get insurance” side then.
Maybe we are, but that’s not what Blalron said, which was:

Well, you clearly think they should be cool with paying twice as much as those in Europe do. And I find your faith that UHC will crash and burn touching. The British system started more or less in WW II, so I’d hardly call it immature. Perhaps you also think the WMDs will turn up also?

118

I think your answer is “no” in the sense of the thread. Though emacknight said it more elegantly and completely, minimum acceptable care is that which keeps you from dying. No one died from not having a private room at the Mayo Clinic. So one died from not having the world’s best surgeon take out their tonsils. Good enough. But saying that everyone should be covered puts you on the side of the angels in my book - we can work out the details later.

119

Is it acceptable for people to die because society can’t afford the proper treatment? I would say Yes. It’s the reason that the national speed limit isn’t ten mph. We cannot afford to take that much time to get where we are going, so we accept the much higher death rate of driving sixty-five.

If health care costs continue to rise, there will be a point at which we will have to be explicit about letting people die in order to save money. I think we should have done that already. Perhaps paying for health care at one more remove will make that easier, but I doubt it.

Regards,
Shodan

120

The growth rate wasn’t what I was emphasizing it was the fact that working age people’s insurance costs were about 4k, the elderly were at 14k.

How much is too much? We are back at that arbitrary line that you’ll have to draw and the need for a “death panel” should become obvious.
The same line dictates:
“need some blood, fine I’ll donate”
“need a kidney, look elsewhere”

Don’t take from me what I wouldn’t normally or happily give.

BTW, how many old folks (over 65) are there and what does that work out to be at 14k each?