|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Irrefutable Public Health Care Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
That's not the reason. Yes it is.
quote: ...and for the most part it is unavoidable even for those who have lived a healthy lifestyle. You're a pretty smart dude, but that was some dumb shit right there. Cancer for the most part is unavoidable even for those with a healthy lifestyle? Wow!
From the American Cancer Society: quote: Obviously, it isn't because of the fatties. It's obvious to the experts that it is. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
FFS CS!!
Dentists are proactively checking the teeth of nursery school kids. Qualified professional expert dentists that treat private and publicly funded patients on a daily basis. Doing free-checkups and making appointments for those nursery kids with the early signs of potential problems. It's not like the government minister for teeth is turning up in his tooth-mobile and forcing government manufactured toothpaste down the throats of government bred babies.
CS writes: Perhaps soon enough, all we'll have to do is pop out a kid and leave it on the doorstep for the government to pick up and handle it from there. I tell you about dentists checking the teeth of nursery kids and you do the "It's da GOVERNMENT!! AAAArrrrggghhhh!!!" thing. Why? Let me ask you - If your kid (pretend you have one) brought home a letter from nursery telling you free dental checkups were taking place next week would you opt your kid out? Are you so ideologically bound that you would refuse this sort of service because it's funded by "da GOVERNMENT" (play sinister music)...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So health is simply a matter of personal responsibility and nothing else as far as you are concerned?
If everybody just applies some restraint and eats well and jogs and does situps then all will be well and healthcare won't be an issue at all - That is your position here right? Frankly you might as well say that if we all just love each other then world peace could be achieved. True. But probably worth exploring some alternatives just in case that doesn't quite happen.
Oni writes: I don't know why you insist on us having your style healthcare? I can't insist you do anything. Nor is ours prefect. I am saying that there are better and more cost effective ways of providing healthcare than those presently in place in the US. But that these require a shift away from the current ideology.
Oni writes: Fast food!!! It will kill us all, but in a legal, free-market kinda way. So - What do we do about that? And how can what needs doing be done without some form of publicly funded aspect of health provision?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I tell you about dentists checking the teeth of nursery kids and you do the "It's da GOVERNMENT!! AAAArrrrggghhhh!!!" thing. Why? Because of the way you brought it up as an advantage of universal health care... as if we need the government involved in telling our kids to brush their teeth.
Let me ask you - If your kid (pretend you have one) brought home a letter from nursery telling you free dental checkups were taking place next week would you opt your kid out? Of course not.
Are you so ideologically bound that you would refuse this sort of service because it's funded by "da GOVERNMENT" (play sinister music)...? Not at all; its not the simple government involvement that I mind. Its the idea that its an advantage to have the government teach our kids basic things like dental hygeine instead of us doing it for them at home. Its this shift in mentality away from doing what needs to be done and taking care of ourselves and towards shruggin it off on the government instead that I find distasteful. Kinda like what Onifre's talking about: rather than getting people to eat right and exercise, we'll just all chip in for a healthcare system that allows them to trash their bodies further. Don't worry about teaching your kids personal hygiene, they'll take care of that shit in school. Its an advantage!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Yes it is. Then you need to show that the gap between healthcare expenditures in the US and France is due to higher obesity rates in the US compared to France. You haven't done that yet.
You're a pretty smart dude, but that was some dumb shit right there. Cancer for the most part is unavoidable even for those with a healthy lifestyle? Wow! Cancer risks increase with age. There is nothing new about this. Age is by far the leading risk factor. For example:
quote: On top of that, end of life care is by far the most expensive. From what I have heard, no one is immortal. If you live long enough you will get cancer. It is just a matter of time before that last oncogene goes down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1524 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
That is why we should impliment the solution founded in the Movie Logan's Run. Once you have passed on your genome and raised your kids you are no longer a asset to society. All of your knowledge can be accessed if need by via a database. And while we are at it, we should also look into making soylent green from the refuse, no sense in perfectly good protein going to waste.
Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given. Edited by 1.61803, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Then you need to show that the gap between healthcare expenditures in the US and France is due to higher obesity rates in the US compared to France. You haven't done that yet. I don't have to do any of that. I just have to show you that we spend more per person on heathcare due to obesity...and I have. Now granted, it's not a black and white issue, there is some gray area. More on the subject here:
quote: Cancer risks increase with age. There is nothing new about this. Age is by far the leading risk factor. Nonsense! See link bellow.
On top of that, end of life care is by far the most expensive. From what I have heard, no one is immortal. Obesity Not Aging Balloons Health Care Costs quote: I don't know what else to show you to sway you that obesity is hurting our healthcare cost and NOT aging. Now, and more so, at an alarming rate, in the future. - Oni PS. I believe this is a Post of the Month, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Because of the way you brought it up as an advantage of universal health care... Actually what I brought up as an advantage is the increased focus on prevention as opposed to the tendency for private insurers to only pay out when they absolutely have to.
CS writes: ... as if we need the government involved in telling our kids to brush their teeth. If the dentists in question had been privately funded by some wealthy-benefactor-philanthropist with a passion for the dental hygiene of nursery children rather than publicly funded would that be somehow better in your eyes? If so - Why?
Straggler writes: Let me ask you - If your kid (pretend you have one) brought home a letter from nursery telling you free dental checkups were taking place next week would you opt your kid out? CS writes: Of course not. Then I am bewildered as to why my comments prompted in you the bizarre response about leaving kids on doorsteps to be raised by governments?
Straggler writes: Are you so ideologically bound that you would refuse this sort of service because it's funded by "da GOVERNMENT" (play sinister music)...? CS writes: Not at all; its not the simple government involvement that I mind. Its the idea that its an advantage to have the government teach our kids basic things like dental hygeine instead of us doing it for them at home. Its this shift in mentality away from doing what needs to be done and taking care of ourselves and towards shruggin it off on the government instead that I find distasteful. Is that really what you think giving nursery kids publicly funded dental checkups amounts to? Some sort of crazy big government plot to take over your rightful role as a parent?
CS writes: Kinda like what Onifre's talking about: rather than getting people to eat right and exercise.... How do you intend to do that exactly? Isn't there a role for public healthcare provision in achieving that aim? Or do you think we can just tell everyone to buck up their ideas and Voila! Problem solved. No doubt along with world peace and enlightenment for all.
CS writes: ....we'll just all chip in for a healthcare system that allows them to trash their bodies further. And yet it seems that those in countries with the best public healthcare tend to live healthier lifestyles than in the US where there is apparently every reason to take the sort of 'individual responsibility' approach you are advocating. Why is that do you think? I would suggest that what no doubt seems like common sense to you is in many cases the very opposite of how things actually work in practise.
CS writes: Don't worry about teaching your kids personal hygiene, they'll take care of that shit in school. Its an advantage! How do you come to that from me providing you with the fact that my youngest son got a dental checkup at nursery as an example of focussing on prevention?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
So health is simply a matter of personal responsibility and nothing else as far as you are concerned? Yes, of course.
If everybody just applies some restraint and eats well and jogs and does situps then all will be well and healthcare won't be an issue at all - That is your position here right? I think I've proven well beyond a doubt that staying fit, eating well and exercising will reduce the overall cost of healthcare on ANY population. And will reduce the need for healthcare as they age - see the link in the post to Taq. Healthcare at that point will have it's normal issues, and not the nonsense that is happening now.
I am saying that there are better and more cost effective ways of providing healthcare than those presently in place in the US. But that these require a shift away from the current ideology. And I'm saying that if the shift happens - lowering the obesity rate - the healthcare system in the US will work just fine. As it is now, we are so unhealthy that they have us by the balls. Do you think Big Pharm wants healthy Americans not using their drugs? Of course not. We are so dependent on the drugs to live that the prices can by anything they want; we will pay or die. That puts them in control. Look at Taq's chart in message 10 - the US and Finland are off by about $2,500 (cost per capita). That difference CAN be reduced by lowering obesity putting our healthcare system at a cost per capita equal to that of a universal healthcare country. With even more effeorts on healthier living, there is no doubt we can equal the cost to that of Canada, or even France.
So - What do we do about that? And how can what needs doing be done without some form of publicly funded aspect of health provision? Reduce the obesity rate and the price per capita drops significantly. - Oni PS. Post of the Month, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I don't have to do any of that. I just have to show you that we spend more per person on heathcare due to obesity... We spend more per person, period. It costs less to treat an obese person in France than in the US. That is the point I am trying to make. There are still obese people in France as well, and yet they are able to afford universal health coverage at half of our cost.
quote: That is not that much of a difference, too little to explain why we pay twice as much as France for comparatively inferior care. You should also compare this to the average cost of healthcare for 20-35 year olds. I think you will see a difference.
I don't know what else to show you to sway you that obesity is hurting our healthcare cost and NOT aging. I never said that obesity was not hurting our healthcare cost. What I am saying is that end of life care is the most expensive, and it is. I am also saying that US healthcare costs twice as much as comparable, and even better, healthcare in countries with universal health coverage. The difference in cost between the US and other countries is because of our for profit system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Let's have a quick review here:
Straggler writes: So health is simply a matter of personal responsibility and nothing else as far as you are concerned? Oni writes: Yes, of course. Oni writes: Frankly, there isn't one person in the US that doesn't already know everything you want to teach them. Oni writes: If marketed correctly, cyanide would be in every cereal too. So on one hand you think that people will happily poison themselves as a result of the power of marketing but on the other hand all health problems can be waved away by simply telling people to ignore such things and show some personal restraint. Is that your (rather contradictory) position?
Oni writes: Reduce the obesity rate and the price per capita drops significantly. OK. So how are you realistically going to do that? Because I see public health provision as part of the answer to this problem whilst you don't seem to be offering anything other than the health equivalent of "Let's all love each other and bring about world peace". Yeah - Let's get everyone eating salad, forgoing burgeres and jogging 5 miles a day and a lot (but by no means all - knee problems would soar) healthcare issues will miraculously vanish. But how do you make this happen?
Oni writes: With even more effeorts on healthier living, there is no doubt we can equal the cost to that of Canada, or even France. "Even more efforts" from who exactly? - Be specific.
Oni writes: My plan is simple. Shut down fast food places and make it illegal to produce harmful food. Who is going to objectively research and classify which foods are "harmful" if not publicly funded health bodies and research institutions? Didn't I earlier in this thread suggest a fat tax as a more realistic alterantive? But you shot me down because of the government involvement in that. See Message 134 and your response to that. Now you want the government to step in and determine which foods are legally healthy and which should be banned? If not the government - Who? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If the dentists in question had been privately funded by some wealthy-benefactor-philanthropist with a passion for the dental hygiene of nursery children rather than publicly funded would that be somehow better in your eyes? If so - Why? No. Although, if you said that one of the advantages of having wealthy philanthropists was that kids'll get dentintry tips at school, then I'd be mocking that as stupid as well.
Then I am bewildered as to why my comments prompted in you the bizarre response about leaving kids on doorsteps to be raised by governments? Your advocating the system teaching our kids basic stuff they should be learning at home as advantageous.
Is that really what you think giving nursery kids publicly funded dental checkups amounts to? Some sort of crazy big government plot to take over your rightful role as a parent? Not at all (take over?). I'm more concerned about people liking the fact that they can shrug off these responsibilities onto the government.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your attitude amazes me. I tell you about qualified health professionals giving nursery school kids dental checkups as an example of preventative healthcare. But because it's publicly funded all you hear is a tale of government bogey-men infiltrating people's lives and then you start ranting on about leaving kids on doorsteps and suchlike.
Meanwhile I simply see dentists who happen to be publicly funded giving nursery school children checkups. As right-wingers go you are reasonably sane CS. And yet still the mere mention of publicly funded health provision of any sort has you frothing at the mouth like a rabid pit-bull.
CS writes: Your advocating the system teaching our kids basic stuff they should be learning at home as advantageous. By "the system" do you mean dentists in this case? Don't dentists in America provide advice to people on oral hygiene? Isn't that part of their job....?
CS writes: I'm more concerned about people liking the fact that they can shrug off these responsibilities onto the government. But it seems to be in the US where these things are not publicly funded at all that people lead the least healthy lifestyles. In fact I would argue that the deeply individualistic approach is part of the problem. If you measure your liberty in terms of your personal right to consume rather than embrace the obligations of a more collective approach to things like healthcare then it's not that surprising that people think that doing what they want no matter how personally damaging it may be or how much it flies in the face of public-health advice is somehow a blow struck for freedom. But if you consider yourself as benefiting from a system that all contribute to then it is in your own and everyone else's interest not to abuse it. I think you have the responsibility thing completely back to front.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Your attitude amazes me. I tell you about qualified health professionals giving nursery school kids dental checkups as an example of preventative healthcare. But because it's publicly funded all you hear is a tale of government bogey-men infiltrating people's lives and then you start ranting on about leaving kids on doorsteps and suchlike. Can you not read? I don't care about the funding or the government, its the attitude of shrugging off personal responsibility onto others as something to be desired that I think is stupid.
But it seems to be in the US where these things are not publicly funded at all that people lead the least healthy lifestyles. Compared to other countries with different people in a different culture in a different environment... but sure, its the fact that their healthcare is publically funded that makes them healthier
I think you have the responsibility thing completely back to front. Depends on how you look at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Can you not read? I don't care about the funding or the government, its the attitude of shrugging off personal responsibility onto others as something to be desired that I think is stupid. I think this is more of a moral responsibility across the entire system. At this time, healthcare in the US is for profit. There is no driving force in the market to push prices down. For any business, there is simply no reason to make your services affordable to everyone, and that is exactly what we have in the US. It is actually poor business practice for insurance companies to insure people with health problems. It is in the best interest of insurance companies to deny coverage to people who need insurance the most. This is a very big moral problem. We can use education as an analogy. We have decided that it is a moral imperative that education be available to everyone across all economic classes. Public school systems began after the US Civil War to educate the children of former slaves. At the time, literacy was extremely low in this group. Access to education was being doled out based on class and economics, a very non-democratic system. Where would we be now if only the middle and upper classes had access to education? How immoral would it be if access to education was based on class?
Compared to other countries with different people in a different culture in a different environment... but sure, its the fact that their healthcare is publically funded that makes them healthier Norway, Sweden, Finland, the UK, and France are all different countries with different people in a different culture. They all have universal healthcare. They are all healthier than us. Everyone has access to healthcare from the day they are born, and before that. Their per capita healthcare costs are well below ours.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024