So, you are not the poduct of public education? Since it is a sort of “pay it forwrard” sort of deal.
No. I attended Catholic schools.
In an ideal system there would be no government schools. (You do not have a right to an education.) All schools would be directly funded by the students and/or their parents. Can’t afford it? Yes you can. I’ve always found it interesting that, when a person wants something bad enough, they somehow find a way to pay for it. Besides, if there were no government schools, you would have more money to spend on education in the first place…
It benefits all of us, because an educated and healthy populace is better for everyone.
I agree education is beneficial. Very beneficial. But so is eating. Should we have a government food program? Clothing is also beneficial. Why don’t we enact a government clothing program? I also think automobiles are essential nowadays. So we also need a government automobile program.
Makes sense to me. Just like you have a right to someone else’s property for your personal wants, at least regarding health care.
When someone get injured in the USA, they can go to an emergency room and get treated, as an indigent. They won’t die bleeding in the street because they can’t afford to pay right there on the spot.
The healthcare system certainly is not perfect in the USA, but we don’t have the kind of insanity that is happening to the OP’s poor grandmother. So, from my rather (uninformed) perspective, the healthcare situation doesn’t sound all that peachy-keen in Australia.
The thing is, here in Australia we do have a Medicare system that is, for the most part, excellent. Under the current system, we already pay the taxes and medicare levy. In return for that, the goverment provides certain medical servies. Whether that’s good policy or not is irrelevant. That’s the current situation. This makes the necessary healthcare a right. In essence, it’s already paid for, and I’m not getting what I paid for - in this instance, treatment for my grandma and people like her.
I should also note that, even if she were being treated as a private patient - she still wouldn’t get the radiotherapy in a timely fashion. Why? Because Tassie, being a small state, only has the Holman clinic, and they don’t have enough radiotherapists to treat everyone within the recommended timeframes. Plus(fortunately) they don’t have the same attitude as some posters to this thread - they prioritise on the basis of need, not dollars - so the wait would be exactly the same.
You don’t really think that if money could have made the wheels turn faster we wouldn’t have found the money somehow?
The treatment is not unnecessary. The treatment is not expensive. It’s not on the wrong side of the cost-benefit line - in any other state and most other (western) countries, she would get the treatment within 2 days (as per standards). The very fact that there are standards for this type of thing shows that the current situation is unacceptable.
Fucking America. I hate this fucking country someti…wait - you’re Australian!? I thought only OUR country was that cruel. :smack:
True story - on two separate occassions just this month, I have tried to check myself into a mental hospital. I’m bipolar, and because I turned 22 this year and no longer am allowed to be on my parents’ insurance, I am also unmedicated. I’m old/mature enough to know this isn’t a good thing - as opposed to being 19, feeling that I didn’t have to take a pill if I didn’t want to, and waking up in a funny farm. Seriously, when I’m watching sunrise after sunrise and having to talk myself (out loud!) into not swallowing pills or not jumping off bridges, it’s time to get some professional help.
But wait. Apparently, the funny farm is only for those WITH insurance. These people have turned me away. No shit. Not caring if I hung up the phone and blew my brains out, or if I took my car and drove it off a cliff. Just…no. No insurance = no medical help for you, you poor piece of street scum! One of the so-called free clinics told me I wasn’t qualified for their program because I hadn’t have a nervous breakdown in under a year. I asked her if I tried to kill myself, could my friend call on my behalf? And would they be able to scrape me off the ground and pour me onto the stretcher? (They weren’t amused.)
Nope. The bleeding comes later, when the victim’s being squeezed until their eyeballs pop out. Not even for REAL care, just some BASIC “we didn’t let you bleed to death” shit. One of my biggest fears is that I’ll be injured now that I have no insuance. I even quit karate because of it.
I’m sorry to read about your granny. I lost mine back in '01, and I’m still terribly bitter about it. hugs
We already do. Food stamps.
Whatever our duly elected representatives deem worthy of spending money on, so be it.
If you don’t want to pay taxes, find a deserted island and live off the land. The cost of living in this society is that some of your money goes towards helping other people. Deal with it.
Hear hear.
There are always people who will bitch and complain about where their taxes are going. The healthy don’t want it going into health care, the childless don’t want it spent on families or education, the wealthy don’t want it going to support the poor, pacifists don’t want it spent on defence and so on.
I am very disturbed by your attitude Crafter_Man. I am making an assumption here but I would guess you have been able to afford good insurance coverage and are currently quite healthy. If this is the case, you are very fortunate but you might feel differently if this were not the case. I speak with chronically ill and disabled people from the US every day, let them tell you how great your health system is. Unlike you, I do believe education and heath care should be a right in a civilized society.
I’m sorry to hear about your grandmother’s plight down in Tasmania robinc308. I agree the situation there is unacceptable.
My thoughts exactly.
Crafter_man, you suggested people should ask their communities and churches to give them money if they are unable to get a loan.
In a nationalised healthcare system, their communities ARE giving them money, and in return, they’ll get a good standard of healthcare that won’t bankrupt them.
Children deserve equal provision of healthcare regardless of the earning power of their parents. We have no control over the family circumstances we are born into, and to treat the child of a wealthy family differently, simple because of their wealth denies the inherent value of a human life. You can argue that as a person who earns money you contribute to society, but you cannot argue that it is just for your children to be judged by that standard.
Can you at least accept that a child should receive good healthcare, whether or not it’s parent’s can afford it?
Let me float this by you and see what you think.
The government should enact a law that says that, if you are unable to afford health care, the government must give you a loan for the amount of the cost. The interest would be determined by the length of the loan (e.g. 2% for a 1 year loan, 4% or a 3 year loan, etc.)
What do you think of that?
I think that would, in many cases, amount to people having to choose, on a monthly basis, whether to make the payment on the loan or buy food…
It makes me sick to see some people using the situation of the grandmother in the OP as an excuse to bash nationalized health care.
Civilized countries have nationalized health care. (Well, most anyway-- the USA will someday). In modern, rich states, we can afford to pay for everyone’s health care. We CAN’T afford not to, because if you don’t pay for the preventitive and early care it’s just gets a lot more expensive down the line.
As for the situation in the OP: the lack of radiologists and/or the reluctance of the government may be, in part, due to it being a national health system. Does that mean we should abandon it and have private health care everywhere? Of course not. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yes, costs have to be controlled (just like private health care). Yes, difficult decisions have to be made at times. But really— it’s not like the lady in question is asking that the gov’t pay for elective rhinoplasty even as she is terminally ill!!! What she wants (as I understand it) is effective palliative care that won’t leave her feeling like a doped-up vegetable in the last stages of her life. Sounds reasonable to me. Lines must be drawn; but surely not there.
Nationalized health care is a GOOD THING, but it’s not perfect-- some changes may need to be made. Let’s work to make it better instead of sticking our heads in the sands of unfettered capitalism hoping the poor, sick people will just go away.
Crafter_Man, you say you went to a Catholic school. You must not have paid too much attention.
I also attended a Catholic school. And one of the things I was taught, throughout my nine years there, is that people deserve a decent education and general quality of life REGARDLESS of their economic status. That the poor don’t just deserve the crumbs we can throw to them. It was a basic tenant of our faith, we were told-you cannot just say, “Well, it’s my property, so too bad, you can’t have it, you’re poor, screw you.” You do indeed have a responsibility to the poor and the disadvantaged in our society.
Don’t you remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus?
I hope your parents didn’t spend a lot on your tuition, if that’s the case.
Whatever. :rolleyes:
Look, we’re really arguing about philosophy here. It would appear most (all?) of you desire a socialistic form of government. Not me. I want liberty, which makes me a weirdo. I believe people should keep most of what they earn, which makes me an oddball. I do not covet my neighbor’s property, which makes me a strange. I take complete responsibility for obtaining my wants and needs, which makes me a wacko. I believe socialism is an evil system based on legalized theft, which makes me an unmitigated, uncompassionate, cold-hearted bastard. I refuse to force my neighbor to give me some of their property at gunpoint, which makes me complete nutcase. I believe the individual is sovereign, and that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of individuals, which makes me a back-thinking idiot. I believe in Laissez Faire freedom & rugged individualism, which makes me an archaic, unenlightened moron. I believe in the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, which makes me a hopelessly selfish jerk.
Yep. Just call me The Weirdo[sup]TM[/sup]. We can only hope that folks like me will all die off in the near future and the world can finally become the socialistic utopia it was meant to be.
Howdy Guinbabe, howya doing?
I must admit I have a soft spot for you, so I’ll throw you an easy one.
Jesus taught us to feed the hungry and clothe the poor. I totally agree we should do this. But can show me where Jesus said we should force people to do this? Jesus taught that charity must come from the heart, and thus should be voluntarily. I think he would be quite upset to find that people use his words to justify forcing people – at gunpoint no less – to give to the poor. Such compulsorily and forceful actions were simply not part of his philosophy. Thoughts? Comments?
Look, Crafter_Man all political theory aside, the fact of the matter is that robinc308’s grandmother did not receive treatments that had already been paid for (well, in the end she did…but for the sake of argument).
While I don’t necessarily agree with you on the subject of health care, I can certainly see where you are coming from. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean that I think you are a wacko or wrong. It just really means that I disagree what a society’s responsibility to its members is.
However, under the current system in Tasmania, the entire populace is taxed to provide the members of its society with national healthcare. I would say that it’s a system that the majority of citizens desire.
Now, I would be somewhat more “with you” if the system were reformed and individuals hadn’t already paid for their treatments via taxation. If robinc308’s grandmother had been allowed to contract for her own care without being taxed to have it provided, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem. But…not receiving treatment that one had already paid for with his/her taxes is not acceptable. I don’t think that you would like to pay for something in advance and then be denied it. That is what happened in this situation.
I can certainly understand your position even though I don’t really agree with all points. If you believe that you shouldn’t be taxed to provide your neighbor with healthcare, that is an acceptable position. However, when you have already been taxed to provide your neighbor’s healthcare and your neighbor does not receive that care, you and your neighbor have both been cheated.
Thanks for the reasonable reply, Stillsmiling.
This may come as a surprise, but I am extremely conscience of the fact that I sound like a cold-hearted, selfish, greedy individual. This may come as an even bigger surprise, but I’m really not a cold-hearted, selfish, greedy individual. I’m quite compassionate and generous. (Seriously.) I also don’t want the grandmother to suffer. Really, I don’t. But I’m just looking at the big picture from a philosophical PoV. And the way I see it, there are two “wrongs” here: 1) It is wrong for the grandmother to not receive “free” healthcare, and 2) It is wrong to force other people – at gunpoint – to pay for her healthcare. So which is the “bigger” wrong? From a philosophical PoV, I would say #2 is the “bigger” wrong. In my book, it is completely, 100%, totally evil to forcibly take a person’s property to satisfy another individual’s personal wants & needs. I am more than willing to voluntarily share these things with people. I believe this is true with most people. But I get irate – and I fight back – when someone sticks a gun to my head and tries to force me to hand over my property.