Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Irrefutable Public Health Care Thread
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 286 of 314 (656665)
03-20-2012 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Taq
03-20-2012 6:16 PM


Re: Mr. Obama tear down that Mc Donalds!
That's not the reason.
Yes it is.
quote:
"For Medicare, the costs of obesity are about 72 percent greater just for prescription drugs," Finkelstein said. An obese person on Medicare is going to pay $1,400 in drug costs more a year than a normal-weight person, he said.
"Today's report demonstrating the clear link between rising rates of obesity and increasing medical costs is alarming, but not unexpected," Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation said in a statement. "Obesity is the driver of so many chronic conditions -- heart disease, diabetes, cancer -- that generate the exorbitant costs that are crushing our health-care system," she said.
"The only way to show real savings in health expenditures in the future is through efforts to reduce the prevalence of obesity and related health conditions," Finkelstein said.
...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:
American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention
For most Americans who do not use tobacco, the most important cancer risk factors that can be changed are body weight, diet, and physical activity. One-third of all cancer deaths in the United States each year are linked to diet and physical activity, including being overweight or obese, while another third is caused by tobacco products.
Although our genes influence our risk of cancer, most of the difference in cancer risk between people is due to factors that are not inherited. Avoiding tobacco products, staying at a healthy weight, staying active throughout life, and eating a healthy diet may greatly reduce a person's lifetime risk of developing or dying from cancer. These same behaviors are also linked with a lower risk of developing heart disease and diabetes.
Obviously, it isn't because of the fatties.
It's obvious to the experts that it is.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Taq, posted 03-20-2012 6:16 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 03-21-2012 11:20 AM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 287 of 314 (656690)
03-21-2012 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 3:00 PM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
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)...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2012 10:16 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 288 of 314 (656691)
03-21-2012 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by onifre
03-20-2012 4:18 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by onifre, posted 03-20-2012 4:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by onifre, posted 03-21-2012 1:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 314 (656704)
03-21-2012 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Straggler
03-21-2012 4:18 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2012 4:18 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2012 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 290 of 314 (656712)
03-21-2012 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by onifre
03-20-2012 6:39 PM


Re: Mr. Obama tear down that Mc Donalds!
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:
Your risk of developing breast cancer increases as you get older. About 1 out of 8 invasive breast cancers are found in women younger than 45, while about 2 of 3 invasive breast cancers are found in women age 55 or older.
Breast Cancer Risk Factors and Prevention Methods
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by onifre, posted 03-20-2012 6:39 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by 1.61803, posted 03-21-2012 11:36 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 292 by onifre, posted 03-21-2012 12:52 PM Taq has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 291 of 314 (656715)
03-21-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Taq
03-21-2012 11:20 AM


Re: Mr. Obama tear down that Mc Donalds!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 03-21-2012 11:20 AM Taq has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 292 of 314 (656722)
03-21-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Taq
03-21-2012 11:20 AM


I'm serious Obama, tear down that Mc Donalds!
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:
Spending per capita for obese adults exceeded spending for adults of normal weight by about 8 percent in 1987 and by about 38 percent in 2007. That increasing gap in spending between the two groups probably reflects a combination of factors, including changes in the average health status of the obese population and technological advances that offer new, costly treatments for conditions that are particularly common among obese individuals.
Because lower rates of obesity are associated with better health and lower health care spending per capita, there is considerable interest in devising policies that would reduce the fraction of the population that is obese. Research and experimentation in this area are ongoing, but the literature to date suggests that the challenges involved in reducing the prevalence of obesity are significant.
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:
Here are the facts: People who live an unusually long time tend to be healthier during their later years than shorter-lived people. That means longer-lived ones typically have lower medical costs during their golden years. This health dividend more than offsets the health care costs they accrue by outliving less healthy people.
The proof came out in 2003 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Analyzing Medicare data, federal researchers showed that elderly people in good shape at age 70 meaning they had no difficulties performing tasks of daily living such as walking and shopping could expect to live to 84.3, and after 70 they had average, cumulative health care bills totaling $136,000. In contrast, less healthy 70-year-olds with at least one limitation in daily-living activities could expect to live to 81.6 nearly three years less yet had cumulative medical bills of about $145,000 during their shorter remaining lives.
Unfortunately, there’s a giant exception to the rule that the longer life tends to be a healthier one: Obese people are living longer, thanks to factors such as cholesterol-cutting medicines (as is the entire population), but much of their extra time is spent in ill health, and as a result, their annual medical bills are some 42 percent higher than those of normal-weight people. In fact, the obesity epidemic has greatly increased the prevalence of chronic diseases such as diabetes, but contrary to much of the media coverage on the epidemic, it has had little effect on mortality rates. As the title of one study put it, Smoking kills, obesity disables.
The CDC recently attributed $147 billion a year in U.S. medical costs to obesity over 9 percent of all U.S. health care spending. The nation’s obesity bills are just beginning to ramp up, though, and will soon be growing at a pace comparable to the increase in government medical spending due to the graying of boomers. Annual obesity-related health care costs are projected to rise by nearly $265 billion a year between 2008 and 2018, while annual Medicare expenditures are expected to increase by about $360 billion during the same period. And much of the rise in Medicare spending will go toward treating obesity-related diseases. As one researcher noted, when it comes to chronic health problems, being obese is roughly equivalent to being aged by 20 years.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 03-21-2012 11:20 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Taq, posted 03-21-2012 1:26 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 293 of 314 (656723)
03-21-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by New Cat's Eye
03-21-2012 10:16 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2012 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 10:22 AM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 294 of 314 (656724)
03-21-2012 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Straggler
03-21-2012 4:29 AM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2012 4:29 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2012 4:39 PM onifre has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 295 of 314 (656725)
03-21-2012 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by onifre
03-21-2012 12:52 PM


Re: I'm serious Obama, tear down that Mc Donalds!
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:
Obesity Not Aging Balloons Health Care Costs
. . . Analyzing Medicare data, federal researchers showed that elderly people in good shape at age 70 meaning they had no difficulties performing tasks of daily living such as walking and shopping could expect to live to 84.3, and after 70 they had average, cumulative health care bills totaling $136,000. In contrast, less healthy 70-year-olds with at least one limitation in daily-living activities could expect to live to 81.6 nearly three years less yet had cumulative medical bills of about $145,000 during their shorter remaining lives.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by onifre, posted 03-21-2012 12:52 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 296 of 314 (656749)
03-21-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by onifre
03-21-2012 1:09 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by onifre, posted 03-21-2012 1:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by onifre, posted 03-25-2012 7:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 314 (656817)
03-22-2012 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Straggler
03-21-2012 1:07 PM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2012 1:07 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2012 10:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 298 of 314 (656821)
03-22-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2012 10:22 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 10:56 AM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 314 (656827)
03-22-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Straggler
03-22-2012 10:43 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2012 10:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Taq, posted 03-22-2012 11:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 303 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2012 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 300 of 314 (656830)
03-22-2012 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2012 10:56 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 11:45 AM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024