Health Care for Everyone

[Danoff]

You've yet to give a point.

I gave it three four times in the previous post alone. 1000 points if you can figure it out.

 

[Swift]

Correct.

Ok, so you fine with making citizens indentured servants and people on the health profession slaves?

 

[GTsail]

Florida doctors prescribe 10 times more Oxycodone - a frequently abused pain killer....

Oxycodone is definitely addictive.

Abusers have been crushing the tablets to disarm the timed-release nature of the pills.

Purdue Pharma recently (last year) began producing a new version of the tablets that doesn't crush as easily, and therefore abusers have found it harder to get the "quick high". Sales of Oxycodone are expected to decrease somewhat.


According to the 2010 US Census, linked here: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/
Florida has 3.2 million citizens that are older than 65 (out of a total of 18.8M Floridians), while the US as a whole has 40.2 million citizens older than 65 (out of a total population of 308.7M). So Florida definitely has a greater proportion of seniors, but the percentage isn't hugely skewed (17% vrs 13%).

GTsail

 

[Dapper]

I gave it three four times in the previous post alone. 1000 points if you can figure it out.

OK, you did. So your point had nothing to do with what I posted? Because what you said has a negligible effect on the overall numbers, your 'point' you made 4 times does not apply to this scenario. Therefore, this:

Ever occur to you that there are lots of old people in Florida?

had no point. You quoted me for no reason. Then I pointed that out, then you added your point.

 

[Danoff]

OK, you did. So your point had nothing to do with what I posted?

The point was in the first post, but I could have made it clearer. I harped almost entirely on the example rather than the principle. I'll work on that.

Because what you said has a negligible effect on the overall numbers, your 'point' you made 4 times does not apply to this scenario.

Conclusion doesn't follow the premise.

Edit:

This is an awful lot of arguing considering that I started out in violent agreement.

 

[Blake]

Ok, so you fine with making citizens indentured servants...

People still get paid, so they are hardly indentured servants. But yes, I am fine with making everyone contribute a portion of their income for a service that anyone can use and which benefits everyone.

...and people on the health profession slaves?

How would this make people in the health profession slaves?

 

[Keef]

People still get paid, so they are hardly indentured servants. But yes, I am fine with making everyone contribute a portion of their income for a service that anyone can use and which benefits everyone.

It only benefits them if they use it. Sort of like how a private health plan only benefits me if I use it...but that catch is I can choose whether or not to pay for a private health plan. Despite being allowed to use a public health plan, if I don't want to use it then I don't want to pay for it, and at that point I'm stuck paying to help a bunch of people I don't like and that makes me grumpy.

How would this make people in the health profession slaves?

They would be forced to provide their services. Whether they get paid or not, they don't have the option of turning away customers.

 

[Encyclopedia]

They would be forced to provide their services. Whether they get paid or not, they don't have the option of turning away customers.

Aren't doctors forced to help regardless of if they get paid or not by the hippocratic oath anyway?

 

[Swift]

Aren't doctors forced to help regardless of if they get paid or not by the hippocratic oath anyway?

they are required to help anyone that they come in contact with. That's different then saying "work for free" or "You'll work for ___ wage". Basically it's the government forcing a private citizen into a binding contract with another private citizen to which they can be held liable for.

 

[Famine]

Actually, they aren't. They're required not to cause harm through their actions. That doesn't mean they have to help, just that if they do they can't cause harm.

 

[Swift]

Actually, they aren't. They're required not to cause harm through their actions. That doesn't mean they have to help, just that if they do they can't cause harm.

From a straight interpretations I would agree.

However, in the lovely liberal world we seem to live in, it's interpreted that a doctor "not" helping is causing harm. That's how most people interpret said oath.

 

[Famine]

In certain countries it is illegal not to help someone if you can, but that's nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath.

 

[Swift]

People still get paid, so they are hardly indentured servants. But yes, I am fine with making everyone contribute a portion of their income for a service that anyone can use and which benefits everyone.

Kind of like Social Security and Medicare that are both going bankrupt? Yeah, no... Every time something like this is tried, it's upside down. Basically, you're saying that if someone spent money on cigarettes and alcohol for 40 years, then get's a liver transplant and heart surgery, everyone should foot the bill. This is socialism and will kill this county quickly.

the general response to that is, "Well, social security and medicare didn't kill the country. So this won't either." It didn't because people for decades thought there was going to be something for THEM at the end of the road. It's becoming increasingly obvious that if you're 35 and younger you won't be getting anything close to what current social security and medicare recipients are getting.

It's a ponzi scheme that only worked for this long because of the baby boomer generation. now that they are retiring those entitlements are coming due and there simply isn't money to pay them.

So the Obama administration comes up with a plan to charge another tax or get a government approved insurance program. So, when we know the money isn't there we're going to increase coverage and the amount of people covered and CUT the deficit? How is that possible.

At the end of the day it's not about being compassionate about people with healthcare issues, it's about the fiscal stability of this country that is already very shaky. We can go back and forth with this all day, but if there is no country or no money because we can't borrow or print anymore what is the point?

 

[Blake]

It only benefits them if they use it.

Not correct. That is a short sighted view. In fact it benefits everyone.

They would be forced to provide their services. Whether they get paid or not, they don't have the option of turning away customers.

People in the health industry would always be paid though. Doctors and nurses don't go hungry because their last customer was covered by public health insurance... They're not slaves, they would just be working in an industry that provided services to the public.

Kind of like Social Security and Medicare that are both going bankrupt? Yeah, no... Every time something like this is tried, it's upside down. Basically, you're saying that if someone spent money on cigarettes and alcohol for 40 years, then get's a liver transplant and heart surgery, everyone should foot the bill. This is socialism and will kill this county quickly.

Ah, but here's the secret sauce! If lots of people are getting sick and requiring medical attention for a certain reason then the government now has financial incentive to take action.

For example, smoking could be costing the government (and by extension, tax payers) millions of dollars every year in health care costs. That is the incentive government and people need to take action to drive down the health care costs associated with smoking.

This is the part where everyone benefits from a universal health care plan. Trends in costs can be more easily monitored and this will drive legislation to improve the general health of the population.

Even if you never see a doctor, you will benefit from policy decisions that mean you are exposed to fewer health risks.

 

[BobK]

Actually, it can be argued that less is spent on smokers health care than the average non-smoker. When a nonsmoker reaches old age, they have on average about three major medical crises (heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc) before finally succumbing to one of them. The first one generally gets the smoker.

 

[Swift]

Not correct. That is a short sighted view. In fact it benefits everyone.

Forget the rest of your post. I want to see how you justify this objectively. No touchy feely stuff. Numbers would be great.

 

[Blake]

Forget the rest of your post. I want to see how you justify this objectively. No touchy feely stuff. Numbers would be great.

Read the third section of my post. That follows on from the part you quoted.

 

[Dapper]

Read the third section of my post. That follows on from the part you quoted.

The incentive to find cures would be much greater, right? Using cancer as an example, currently all the money is in the treatment, a cure would just cut back on profit for everyone from pharmaceuticals to physicians.

 

[Swift]

Read the third section of my post. That follows on from the part you quoted.

If that's your justification, one law begetting more laws for social engineering with a hope that people will be healthier and health care costs go down, that's not a very solid argument.

 

[Swift]

The incentive to find cures would be much greater, right? Using cancer as an example, currently all the money is in the treatment, a cure would just cut back on profit for everyone from pharmaceuticals to physicians.

Interesting point. While it would certainly seem weird to not treat a cancer patient, if that money was spent on a cure and not treatment, would that not eventually save money?

 

[Blake]

If that's your justification, one law begetting more laws for social engineering with a hope that people will be healthier and health care costs go down, that's not a very solid argument.

Oh.

Would you like to elaborate or are you being dismissive for a reason?

 

[Danoff]

The incentive to find cures would be much greater, right? Using cancer as an example, currently all the money is in the treatment, a cure would just cut back on profit for everyone from pharmaceuticals to physicians.

That's not really how it works.

Let's say you had a car part that failed after 10,000 miles regularly. All the money would be in selling that part over and over and over. Mechanics, parts manufacturers, etc. There's a chain of people that profit. But what happens is that someone invents a part that lasts 50,000 miles and sells it for more and undercuts the guy selling the part that fails.

This is the nature of competition. Just because something makes more money, or costs more money, doesn't mean there isn't another guy out there dying to undercut the product that's out there now. This is the case with cancer. There is huge money in a cure for cancer because of how much it costs to treat cancer.

 

[Dapper]

Interesting point. While it would certainly seem weird to not treat a cancer patient, if that money was spent on a cure and not treatment, would that not eventually save money?

I'd say beyond weird, more like unethical. That is also assuming there is a cure. But if money could be saved by finding cures instead of losing money, just think of all the revenue made by chemo that would be lost, the incentive to find cures would be greater.

Maybe a more real example is Rick Perry and HPV vaccines. He wants nothing to do with a HPV cure, he wants to sell vaccines forever so the pharm company has plenty of money to give him.

That's not really how it works.

Let's say you had a car part that failed after 10,000 miles regularly. All the money would be in selling that part over and over and over. Mechanics, parts manufacturers, etc. There's a chain of people that profit. But what happens is that someone invents a part that lasts 50,000 miles and sells it for more and undercuts the guy selling the part that fails.

But if every car was owned by the government, the government and everyone in that society would benefit from the car part lasting forever. Car parts failing makes the private sector money... but health isn't car parts.

 

[Swift]

Oh.

Would you like to elaborate or are you being dismissive for a reason?

Your justification has no basis. The its all hope and change. There is no substance at all.

 

[Jump_Ace]

I'm all for it, and glad it happened. If for example, you go to church and give to the offering plate, but are against the Health Car for everyone, you need to get your head examined; you are donating money to benefit everyone.

The anti-health care people use fear tactics like 'goverment take-over'. To that I say, look at all the 'freedom' the Housing Industry had and what happened there?

Health requirements for businesses, those are run by the government. No one complains because it's safer for everyone. We all pay for federal programs and the health regulations are run by the government, but no press? Not everyone knows the importance of the health care system yet It's sad to hear Danoff say if you can't afford it, too bad.

I believe in life after birth, but that's just me 👍


Jerome

 

[Danoff]

But if every car was owned by the government, the government and everyone in that society would benefit from the car part lasting forever.

But in all historical examples where every car was owned by (or built by) the government, the cars are horrible (because of lack of competition).

Car parts failing makes the private sector money

It does, but there is still an incentive within the private sector to improve car part reliability (and cars have been improving in reliability). You're treating the free market as thought it exists without competition. This is why you keep reaching a false conclusion.

 

[Dapper]

But in all historical examples where every car was owned by (or built by) the government, the cars are horrible (because of lack of competition).

What does the government covering health care cost have to do with car quality? Besides, if the govt let people choose between cars that are built by private car manufacturers... I'm sure you know where this is going.

It does, but there is still an incentive within the private sector to improve car part reliability (and cars have been improving in reliability). You're treating the free market as thought it exists without competition. This is why you keep reaching a false conclusion.

Easy to say when taking things out of context (as usual). People's health has nothing to do with cars. Besides, if one gets to choose the doctor... And you are still under the assumption people in health care are not in the industry to help others, but rather to make money, that is why your whole belief system is wrong on this subject. Anyone that wants to help others does not need competition or a monetary incentive to do what is best or to get better- health is not cars.

 

[Danoff]

What does the government covering health care cost have to do with car quality?

Well, the statement you quoted was in direct response to your misguided statement about cars.

But if every car was owned by the government, the government and everyone in that society would benefit from the car part lasting forever. Car parts failing makes the private sector money

Besides, if the govt let people choose between cars that are built by private car manufacturers... I'm sure you know where this is going.

That's not what we're talking about here and it's not what Obamacare is.

Easy to say when taking things out of context (as usual). People's health has nothing to do with cars.

On the surface no, nothing at all. Fixing a fever is not the same as replacing brake pads. Knowing how to transplant a heart is not the same as knowing how to replace a water pump.

Slightly deeper than the surface though, and we can discover that the economic principles that apply to health services also apply to mechanical services. The economic concept of competition applies to drugs sold in exactly the same way that it applies to automotive parts, or cars in general, or anything in general such as plumbing, food, or toilet paper (I chose those at random and yet they're related).

So in the context of this discussion, yes they are completely related.

And you are still under the assumption people in health care are not in the industry to help others, but rather to make money, that is why your whole belief system is wrong on this subject. Anyone that wants to help others does not need competition or a monetary incentive to do what is best...

That's absolutely false. I personally know several excellent physicians and I can tell you with 100% certainty that they require monetary incentive to work... but it's not just false, it's beside the point.

We were talking about whether there is a financial incentive to cure cancer vs treating cancer. I was pointing out that there is one. I'm not sure what the assumption of perfect altruism among health care workers has to do with the financial incentives acting on pharmaceutical companies that you were interested in a few posts back.

 

[Dapper]

That's absolutely false. I personally know several excellent physicians and I can tell you with 100% certainty that they require monetary incentive to work... but it's not just false, it's beside the point.

It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who reads what they want to read instead of what is really there. I never implied a health care professional would work without being paid.

Anyone that wants to help others does not need competition or a monetary incentive to do what is best or to get better-health is not cars.

 

[Keef]

Dapper, the first definition of the word "need" is "requirement". Any person assuming you meant the word literally (which is often the case in serious arguments and discussions) would assume that you effectively said, "Anyone that wants to help others does not require competition or a monetary incentive..."

Semantics, yes, but semantics is very important. Language would be gobbledy-gook without it.