Health Care

[Einherjar86]

I don't know if this topic hasn't been raised because people have been avoiding it, but some posts I've read recently have sparked my desire for a discussion.

I want this thread to cover multiple aspects of health care and the health care system in America, if we can handle that. However, I'd like to start with the following problem.

In a different thread I read some posts concerning helping the "weak" (if we want to call them that). Some people suggested the idea of simply letting those more prone to sickness or who suffer from disability die. Another post raised the issue of injury. Here's the problem:

Should we place restrictions on those who suffer injuries due to risky behavior? For instance, if someone suffers broken bones from driving a motorcycle or rock climbing, or suffers disability or infection because of drug use, should hospitals reserve the right to turn them away? Should taxpayers be liable to pay for the injuries of those who are more careless than most of us? Should we employ an "at your own risk" policy? Of course, we're bound to run into snags. Where do we draw the line? How can we tell if someone develops an illness due to negligence/carelessness on their part, or because they simply were unfortunate enough to catch something?

I believe that for all health care systems there will always be restrictions. There has to be. There is no possible way that we can protect and cover everyone. So we must draw the line somewhere. It's not an easy decision, but one that we have to make at some point. How do we justify denying people treatment?

 

[Vimana]

I think people would be a lot less prone to sickness if people stopped using antimicrobials. I'm betting the next generation will be loaded with horrible allergies. In Health class we read about antimicrobials, what they do is kill 99.9% of germs. Sounds good but the .1% is bacteria immune or resistant to antibiotics and such. After a number of uses it spreads those stronger bacteria around. It doesn't kill viruses either. And the kids growing up in these houses are going to have extremely weak immune systems. I say we do away with antimicrobials.

I think if we could find out if someone brought it on themselves we should refuse treatment. I feel that the health care system in a way is that rich father whose kids don't work and he pays for everything.

 

[Blowtus]

Anywhere you draw the line is a disincentive to human striving, reaching, living life, etc. Underneath that sort of thinking is the value of 'comfort' as the be all and end all. I take the view that those pushing the boundaries are often more worthwhile to spend the money on than those living comfortably.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Let the idiots get what they (or their beneficiaries) pay for...so long as said turd in the gene pool can foot the bill. Fools and their money are soon parted, methinks this would be such an occasion.

The only line that need be drawn is the bottom line: let the markets sort this out.

 

[Einherjar86]

Anywhere you draw the line is a disincentive to human striving, reaching, living life, etc. Underneath that sort of thinking is the value of 'comfort' as the be all and end all. I take the view that those pushing the boundaries are often more worthwhile to spend the money on than those living comfortably.

That's an interesting perspective. But then it comes down to who values what more. Plenty of non-risk-takers contribute to society in positive ways. So it becomes an assessment of contributions to society versus the money we're spending on the contributing group. At some point, the amount of risks the one group is taking might outweigh their usefulness. No matter what, it comes down to opinion.

 

[ScandinavianMetal]

Everyone is prone to do something idiotic at some point, at least most people are. That's life. To turn someone down because they had a very low point in their life, etc etc doesn't work. NOTHING is black and white. One can't know what's going on. Is one life worth more than another? Are children worth more because they are younger? These are essentially the questions you are asking.

To answer the first one, I personally don't believe this. And to the second one, I value the life of a child more because they have not yet begun experience life. A child should always get aid if there parents won't or cannot support it.

This is what bothers me about the question about Health Care. I feel that nothing should really be given as that is prone to cause dependency. For example, aid to Africa. On that issue, I believe it's hurting more than helping. Apply the same principle here. Would giving health care to everyone hurt or help?

If everyone had a right to health care, why aim for a better job? etc etc. Although,I do think it will be better than worse. But it was just an interesting point.

However, on the issue of healthcare, I do believe everyone should be entitled to it no matter who you are, at least to some degree. However, I do not pretend to know what requires to finance that in America. I have lived in Sweden and mostly ignorant on anything else

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

To imply that one has a right to this, that, or something else likewise implies a claim upon others to pay for this 'right', in doing so violating their right to property through that which otherwise would be theft. I would submit that such a right is not inherent to man's nature, as in a state of nature there is no doctor, pharmacist, or 'medicine man' that would treat him for free and demand compensation from the rest of the tribe or anyone else for his service. Let them either pay a market price for services rendered or perish as they would in nature, just as if he could not find his own food or otherwise keep his affairs in order.

The spectre of that insidious mulatto getting elected is enough to make my chequebook vomit ink. His plan would have employers foot the bill, as if business here is not strained enough.

 

[Blowtus]

In a state of nature there is no police force that would prevent one thieving the funds necessary for health care.

 

[ScandinavianMetal]

People tell me it is the government's duty to protect her people, and then I wonder if they really mean that. What you are saying is that one must only focus on themself, and have no concern for others. I disagree. If we had people running around untreated because they can not afford to even talk to a doctor, everyone will suffer. Health is important to society, not just to one self.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

In a state of nature there is no police force that would prevent one thieving the funds necessary for health care.

Thus why, in practice, people have guns: to prevent said thieving. I keep no less than 1'000 7,62x39 rounds in my apartment for such purposes.

If we had people running around untreated, however, they will die as they should. Nature will have taken its course and there will be less competition for scarce resources. As for society: let them take care of themselves; those who wish to be charitable may do so, but to confiscate others' earnings for any purpose under the sun (i.e. taxation) is tantamount to theft.

The Prince of Liechtenstein says that income tax of 6% is sufficient for public services, anything above that is tyrannical. This percentage is reasonable, but that is not the amount levied.

 

[Einherjar86]

Is one life worth more than another? Are children worth more because they are younger? These are essentially the questions you are asking.

That's because they need to be asked.

 

[chuj666]

Well the next plaque in the US is obesity, which is totally preventable and it's basically a lifestyle choice.

People who are obese should pay more in healthcare and if they lose weight they should pay less

 

[Blowtus]

chuj - Please try to provide at least some basic justification for your arguments here - ie why should they pay more?

 

[10293847]

I remember bringing this up in one of my previous posts. And I think it's a very difficult question to answer. Although I will give as best of a solution as I can.

I'll refer to what I said before: There needs to be a resolution which all will agree with. Without this, you will come across endless arguments from people trying to gray the lines.

A major concern if this strategy isn't taken is that towns people will begin to despise their fellow towns people because they will be seen as abusing the system and being too reckless. Now if it was up to me, I would have a vote on acts that everyone would deem reckless. Some examples may include riding a motorcycle, sky-diving, drugs, etc. Now, some of these incidents may not be the person's fault. Let's say you are riding your motorcycle, and another car hits you and it's plainly their fault. Then you would proceed with this as any normal traffic case, with the person driving the car fronting the medical bills, etc. If someone needs their stomach pumped because they took too many pills, than of course that is that person's fault alone, and they would front the bill. The key here would be to place blame where it's appropriate.

If this was applied on a large scale, there would be clear-defined incidents that would be easy to spot, like the two I mentioned above.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

chuj - Please try to provide at least some basic justification for your arguments here - ie why should they pay more?

Because they invariably cost more but for their deciding to be hideous conglomerations of flesh and lard. If their insurance decided to drop them - and I would screen out and terminate the policies of anyone with a BMI over 25 on my first day as CEO if I ran such a company - that would be the market at work. Let them find an insurance company with higher premiums which will shoulder the risks of such insured parties.

 

[Blowtus]

Thus why, in practice, people have guns: to prevent said thieving. I keep no less than 1'000 7,62x39 rounds in my apartment for such purposes.

Uhuh... because your gun/s are the biggest disincentive to theft

If we had people running around untreated, however, they will die as they should. Nature will have taken its course and there will be less competition for scarce resources. As for society: let them take care of themselves; those who wish to be charitable may do so, but to confiscate others' earnings for any purpose under the sun (i.e. taxation) is tantamount to theft.

Nature is currently taking its course. To argue that the 'natural' course for humanity is otherwise is to completely misuse the term - it is really only of any use as a way to remove humans from the picture, and you can't exactly do that when you speak of humans.

Yes, it may well be 'tantamount' to theft. Big farkn woop. Watching someone die when a simple act can save them is 'tantamount' to murder according to some. Tantamount just means 'isn't the same but I'll say it is so my argument sounds better'.

The Prince of Liechtenstein says that income tax of 6% is sufficient for public services, anything above that is tyrannical. This percentage is reasonable, but that is not the amount levied.

Is the prince up there with Locke and Hobbes for your gleaning of dogma then? Lichtenstein is a tax haven and does not subsist independently to the rest of the world, if everywhere dropped to 6% they as a country would be fucked.

Because they invariably cost more but for their deciding to be hideous conglomerations of flesh and lard. If their insurance decided to drop them - and I would screen out and terminate the policies of anyone with a BMI over 25 on my first day as CEO if I ran such a company - that would be the market at work. Let them find an insurance company with higher premiums which will shoulder the risks of such insured parties.

I agree.

 

[Einherjar86]

Obesity is a great example. It is an issue that puts people at high risk, but it is managable, if the person is committed. I agree that they should have to pay more, since they may end up costing taxpayers more. Of course, there is no way to know if they eventually will need serious health care; but that's the risk they choose to take. It's a lifestyle choice, and they can choose to lose weight.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Uhuh... because your gun/s are the biggest disincentive to theft [1]

Nature is currently taking its course. To argue that the 'natural' course for humanity is otherwise is to completely misuse the term - it is really only of any use as a way to remove humans from the picture, and you can't exactly do that when you speak of humans. [2]

Yes, it may well be 'tantamount' to theft. Big farkn woop. Watching someone die when a simple act can save them is 'tantamount' to murder according to some. Tantamount just means 'isn't the same but I'll say it is so my argument sounds better'. [3]

Is the prince up there with Locke and Hobbes for your gleaning of dogma then? Lichtenstein is a tax haven and does not subsist independently to the rest of the world, if everywhere dropped to 6% they as a country would be fucked. [4]

1. You tell me.
2. I speak of a state of nature vis-a-vis Locke.
3. In the aforementioned two scenarios, one interferes with one's natural rights i.e. right to property, the other does not. If one lets someone else die, the act is not one of murder, for one was never a party to any event bring it about. The dying one has no claim on your property or mine, the same way I have no claim on your property without a contract.
4. No, he is not. For purposes of this example, he lends authority to the notion of excessive taxation as being tyrannical. If everyone dropped taxes to 6%, the resulting economic growth would be explosive.

 

[Blowtus]

1. Fear of getting caught by the authority's (that taxes pay for) is the biggest disincentive to theft. A single armed individual with no authority behind them is a lot more appealing target than an unarmed individual with that authority backing them up. Weight of numbers / firepower is what it comes down to, the authorities have them on a large enough scale.

2. State of nature is rubbish terminology, anarchy is the more useful and less deceptive way of stating it.

3. If one does not provide the basic requisites of life to one in need one interferes with their 'universal human rights'. Which, although still ridiculous, at least bear some weight of numerical support amongst the developed nations.

4. What good is economic growth?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

1. If only that were the case...crime occurs precisely on account that authority is dis-regarded.
2. A rose is a rose by any other name, though 'anarchy' would be an accurate description of a state of nature.
3. Laughable. That would imply a claim to property that is not their own...could I lay claim to your property on grounds of such things without a pre-existing contract in the name of such things?
4. You likely ate dinner this evening, it must be good for something.