Welcome to PatsFans.com

Healthcare is 'a privilege'

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Mar 5, 2009.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Rep. Zach Wamp (Rep-Tenn) says so.....

    The Raw Story | Healthcare is 'a privilege...not a right': GOP lawmaker


    Belichickfan......here is your spokesperson.

    here is where his $$$ comes from:

    Industry Donation % of total

    Construction $105,453 13.3 %
    Energy/Nat Resource $97,370 12.2 %
    Finance/Insur/RealEst $87,966 11.1 %
    Misc Business $86,017 10.8 %
    Health $83,312 10.5 %
    Other $79,650 10.0 %
    Transportation $65,050 8.2 %
    Communic/Electronics $45,275 5.7 %
    Lawyers & Lobbyists $42,217 5.3 %
    Agribusiness $34,200 4.3 %
    Defense $33,800 4.3 %
    Labor $17,878 2.2 %
    Ideology/Single-Issue $16,750 2.1 %
     
  2. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    got it...

    the talking point form conservatives is circular, and non-sensical. when read out loud together they all contradict the others in such a strange fashion. Its as if each point was created to simply reject one aspect of the benefits of univeral coverage.....which EVERY nation on Earth has accepted as the best way...except the United States.

    Healthcare is not a right.
    people should be forced to accept healthcare from employers.
    If you choose not to accept the employer's care you are on your own and gambling. You will be able to go to the emergency room, and we will complain about the cost.
    If you are unemployed, you can go to the emergency room so we can complain about the cost.
    Illegals will take advantage of this system, and we will complain about that.
    everyone shouldn't be insured.
    For some people its a right, those people are the sick people.



    Its a moronic stance to say that the system isn't brioken, when you have uninsured people going to the emergency room, and that tab being picked up by taxpayers. Its a campaign platform.


    the conservatives backing up Kaiser's pockets dnying care for profit is getting tired, and frankly...its sickly WRONG for our citizens.

    what exactly do backers of private insurance have to gain from all of this?
     
  3. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    I don't really care where is money comes from but I still don't get it being a right. Saying it's a right that you don't have to pay for means that someone else is inherently obligated to pay for your healthcare because it isn't free. Why should Person X is Chicago be forced to pay for Person Y's healthcare in SF just because they can't pay for it. Health coverage just for catastrophic injury isn't that costly and we don't all need platinim padded health coverage. Anyway, again, my point is that the "right" of the poor person to have health coverage is the forcing of someone else to foot the bill.
     
  4. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Great...I'm saying that mensa scholar Zach Wamp is your kind of representative. The points he makes are stunningly contradictory.

    so, its not a right...yet you will not be denied care from an emergency room at a higher cost to the taxpayer?

    YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT!!!!!
     
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    You're only using half the discussion. If you say "they're going to get care anyway, it's just semantics how you pay for it" then, fine, you might be right. The full argument is whether they should get it at all. I say no. I realize my side will never win but that is the full argument. Yours is not worth discussing because the answer is built in.

    Again, paying for health insurance just for catastrophic problems is not expensive. It's all the extra crap that cranks up the price, we should have more catastrophic only options.
     
  6. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Sounds like you're out to pick a fight.

    Anyway, it is not a "right". However, I think the debate lies with the question: Is health care the responsibility of the individual or society (government)???
     
  7. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    never out to pick one.....just presenting sides, thats all.

    BF was quite adamant about Healthcare being a "Privilege" yesterday. I was pointing out a congressman who is on his side.

    given your question, the way we CURRENTLY run it, its neither the individual or the society, its the employer.
     
  8. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Good point.

    Personally, I use HSA (Health Savings Account) for several reasons: Tax deductable savings accounts and it is affordable. However it is high-deductable, mine is $5,000. The good thing about this is that our family doesn't go to the hospital for a bloody nose or stubbed toe, since we are using our own money from the savings account.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  9. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    I see what you are saying, but we completly disagree. I would point to preventative care being the more cost effective way to reduce costs.

    think of it as an oil change every 3,000 miles. at 30 bucks a visit VS saving money for when your engine overheats and seizes up for costs in the thousands.

    which one would you rather? (its rhetorical)
     
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    I agree and argue there's too much health care in the country. Too many drugs, too many visits for no reason. An annual "physical", fine, they do basic tests for signs of cancer, etc. Other than that insurance should be for catastrophic stuff, the rest should come out of our pockets then the waiting rooms wouldn't be so full. And, btw, that would bring costs DOWN because they would only be able to charge a reasonable rate. I'm embarrassed to say I took my kid in once for an in grown toenail - it only cost me my $15 co pay. The 3 minute visit was billed for $75 to the insurance. If we had to pay $100 a visit people would think more before going, not go as much and the doctor would have to lower his rates to something more affordable.
     
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    An annual physical is fine. Drugs for this, that and everything are more of an example I'm talking about. Heck, my wife takes stuff for blood pressure and cholesterol - if she just walked a mile a day that would do just as well. Too much heath care, I say.
     
  12. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    I totally...AGREE!!!!

    sounds like you also agree about preventative care, and or excersise...

    I just saw, I $h!t you not, a commercial for a drug, that was an appology for a previous commercial that the FDA forced them to tell the truth about their side effects, and that the initial commercial was misleading. I forget what drug it was, because all the dumb spots blend together...

    My wife and I laughed at the screen...I couldn't believe it.


    TRICK OR TREAT? from : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article704221.ece

    MENOPAUSE
    Symptoms include hot flushes, night sweats and loss of libido
    Criticism too often “medicalised” as part of a “disorder” when it is a normal phase of life

    IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME
    Symptoms include constipation, cramps and diarrhoea
    Criticism promoted by drug companies as a serious illness needing therapy, when it is usually a mild problem

    SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION
    Symptoms impotence in men, lack of libido or difficulty becoming aroused in women
    Criticism drugs such as Viagra marketed not only for treating genuine erectile dysfunction caused by medical problems but as lifestyle improvers


    OSTEOPOROSIS
    Symptoms thinning of the bones, particularly among postmenopausal women
    Criticism portrayed as a disease in its own right, when it is really a risk factor for broken bones

    RESTLESS LEGS
    Symptoms urge to move legs because of unpleasant feelings, often at night
    Criticism prevalence of a relatively rare condition exaggerated by the media, along with the need for treatment
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,836
    Likes Received:
    343
    Ratings:
    +715 / 11 / -7

    What I'm hearing is, "we medicate too much." "We have too much medicine." That's the literal level. Then the examples are examples of frivolous uses of resources. So the fair answer, and the cost-effective answer, is to establish capitated universal care.

    Is Requip expensive? If so, you have to cope with a long waiting period and whatever tests are appropriate. If not, who gives a sh**?

    More to the point is the general principal: Someone will have to decide rules for who gets what procedure, and under universal care, that will be the gubmit. Now, if one provides for one's own health care, without the gubmit's help, one can decide for oneself whether one needs this or that procedure.

    The problem is, one can not afford the outcome.

    So one groups together with others and buys into a risk pool, i.e., an insurance company.

    But guess what? Even for our "platinum plated" example, insurance runs out. Next, you have enormous bills you can not pay. If hospitals operate under a pure capitalist model -- or as BFan might say, if they get what's entitled to them, and you get what you deserve, e.g., for only having 1 million in coverage -- you'd be kicked out of your house. But the bad socialist laws only let them put a lien on it (effectively), so you owe them money if you ever move. They can theoretically foreclose you, but only get paid after any mortgage creditor, followed by a certain amount you are entitled to collect, depending on state. So no wonder they rarely go this far.

    They can attach what liquid assets you have, and garnish your check, up to a percentage dictated by the state... Maryland hospitals have placed liens against 8,000 homes in the last 5 years.

    Most hospitals have "free bed funds," and many states have "free bed laws," which allow you to apply for the "free bed fund" at any point, because you are a bad freeloader. Yes, they reward your bad freeloading behavior. When you ignominiously apply for this fund, based on certain criteria, the hospital will channel charitable donations made by people you don't even know RIGHT INTO YOUR BEGGING, PANHANDLING, FREELOADING POCKET, to give to the hospital.

    In many cases, still, the hospitals are just SOL because deadbeats like, oh, everybody with an extended hospital stay, "use more resources than they deserve." Guess what happens then? The hospitals get tax writedowns on the unpaid bills, forcing good, non-freeloading people to pay for your bad, immoral hospital stay through a tax giveaway.

    As for the HSA, I take it that it is meant to take care of boo-boos and checkups, and that's fine. But do you really think it's an answer if you're uninsured? A day in the hospital -- a day -- costs you thousands. In NY, the average is 15K per day...just for the bed. So okay, the HSA participant doesn't show up at ERs with minor boo-boos, but on the other hand, an HSA has a very limited role in the scheme of things.

    The bottom line is that the "self reliance" model is just not viable for a universal need such as health care, nor is it viable against catastrophic illness, even when you purchase a catastrophic care product.

    Here's a final segue on the subject of creating (or consolidating, in reality,) a public sphere, not subject to market principles:

    The market purists lost a tremendous amount of credibility with the onset of our current crisis. It was already severely in doubt in relation to health care, but this is part of a broader philosophical issue.

    Simply put, the market purists were forced by events to admit that their model does not work. The model insists that whatever the size of the institution, it must be allowed to fail in the name of "creative destruction." But economists from the right to the left all agreed, that course of action was not viable.

    So they weren't caught in a little lie, they were caught in a SYSTEMIC lie. What they had peddled from time immemorial was not only not true, it contained the seeds of the very crisis that proved the lie.

    It was the removal of regulation, and the disregarding of regulation, that allowed sector-wide supermarkets to function in a way that divorced accountability from the point of transaction, creating market devices based on hope rather than risk assessment. Past a certain point, in the long run, the freer the regulatory environment, the worse it was for the country as a whole -- causing enormous taxpayer expenditures (which of course, are still continuing.)

    But regardless of what narrative we attempt to foist on this event, when push came to shove, Daddy lied. We do not let the market just fix everything by destroying the nation's financial system first. In fact, it was an initial feint in this direction -- allowing Lehman's to go under -- that precipitated the crisis. Not that the fundamentals weren't fugged nine ways from Sunday in the first place. The neo-Cons, the paleo-Cons, the cons of all variety saw the writing on the wall: It's Us or U.S. They swallowed hard, and became socialists overnight. And that's why it didn't go farther than it has.

    BFan, I have to say, often you post consistent arguments, well thought out within a hermetically sealed and ideologically pure environment. The trouble is that the details of real life are constantly at odds with the environment your thoughts turn on, and that's why I recently said you're always wrong.

    There is no health care system that does not cause the public to pay for the health of others, even beyond the contract with a specific pool of others represented by an insurance policy. The public pays for you, if you get sick enough, for me, for Holy Diver, for everybody. The public pays for the indigent, the public pays for the millionaire. Perhaps Bill Gates would be able to personally fund his health care indefinitely; very, very, very few other Americans can say likewise. And that's not the fault of someone of another class or race going to the ER in search of drugs. You may be able to blame big pharma for some costs, or you may be able to blame some other entity... but we still have a massively disfunctional model, designed in a patchwork way, as if to purposefully ruin people for getting sick.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  14. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    because yoou were born to a good family with healthcare and no virtue or accomplishment of yourself.

    are you saying let the little babies go without healthcare?

    if you say yes then you bring up an argument that the strong shall live and the weak shall die.
     
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,836
    Likes Received:
    343
    Ratings:
    +715 / 11 / -7

    Mr.Bigglesworth, do you know that to be true (re: BF's family upbringing?)

    I ask because assumptions like that are poisonous on any side. But if you have had that conversation w/BF, pardon me for butting in.
     
  16. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    I believe I have consistently said that I mean able bodied adults. Of course kids, elderly and disabled can't work to pay for health insurance or anything else.
     
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    All I am trying to say is that all able bodied adults should be able and willing to pay for their own health care. I have said that even if they can't find a job that they could "pay" for health care and whatever else is provided to them through work such as cleaning up trash and graffiti or whatever else needs to be done. But for an able bodied person to sit at home and demand his right for others to pay for his health care - I don't buy it.
     
  18. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I agree with your point. And that is where Universal Health Care fails. It creates greater demand (since the cost is little to nothing) - resulting in rationing and payment caps. In the long term results in lower quality and less people entering the medical field.

    Anywho, the cost will not go down until tort reform is introduced. Though this will never happen, too many lawyers in Washington.
     
  19. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    isn't that the essence of the debate that those in america have access to healthcare?

    by virtue of being born in america we have that access. as to his parents i have no clue.

    let me cite the example of braces. it seems like pretty much every kid has braces these days. it seems that kids on government healthcare get this which begs the question should it be equal? where do you draw the line lifethreatening and inessential?
     
  20. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    I would say there are too many mental disorders. Too many people ahve ADHD or something which apparently makes them not able bodied. how do you dispute a mental disorder? i think we've become a weak nation in that regard
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>