Private VS Public Medical System

[Krylo]

Frankly, if there's stuff that you can live without, then why should the government plop down the money for it. I think that the US government squanders enough tax money without having to pay for everyone's health care.

Does anyone else see the intense irony in this statement?

Up until now I've stayed out of this, because I don't care too much either way. Both sides have their ups and downs.

But that statement right there just made me stop and forced me to reply.

Many many many people can NOT live without health care. Did you even stop to think before you typed that? Do you realize that influenza is one of the most deadly diseases if people can't get the proper treatment for it? You remember the whole SARS thing? More people die of the flu every year than have died to SARS at all. Why? Because they don't have health care and they don't bother taking care of themselves.

I could go on about how easy it is for the cold to move into pneumonia which you then NEED health care and antibiotics or you have an even better chance of dying from than the flu. So on an so forth.

And that's just common diseases. We aren't even touching on cancer patients who can't live without health care. Heart attacks. Hell, let's just point out another common one. Appendicitis. Without health care we'd lose 7% of our population just to that. Maybe it doesn't seem like such a large number, but that's a little over 1 in every 20 people or 138 members of the forums.

Really... health care isn't something people can live without.

Further: Comparing health care to auto insurance is like comparing a flat tire to a broken leg. It's idiotic. Sure, the financial aspects work out about the same, but if my car gets totalled I borrow someone elses, wake up early to walk to work, or use public transportation (taxi, bus, etc). Lacking all of that, I call the 'welfare to work' program in my city and THEY'LL provide me transportation to my job. If I fall off a cliff and get my body totalled without health insurance I'm probably going to die. Game over. No borrowing someone else's body. No paying 15 bucks every morning to get to work. That's it.


Again, both sides have their ups and downs, but the people arguing against it in this thread haven't been providing very good arguements. If The Tortured One had stuck with the economic aspects, then he'd have been ok... but comparing something you NEED to LIVE with something that's USEFUL to get from point a to point b?

[Spider]

Sure, the financial aspects work out about the same, but if my car gets totalled I borrow someone elses, wake up early to walk to work, or use public transportation (taxi, bus, etc). Lacking all of that, I call the 'welfare to work' program in my city and THEY'LL provide me transportation to my job.

You know, not everyone has the convenience of living in a city. I don't have public transportation, I don't have "welfare for work" programs, and most of my relatives and friends live quite a deal away so it'd be terribly inconvenient for them for me to borrow a car or they only have one car that they use to get to work. It'd take me a nearly obscene time to walk or bike to work or school. My life would be significantly crippled if something were to happen to my car, kind of like if I had a broken leg.

But I don't think you're looking at the point of that essay the right way. It's not meant to say "health care and car care are the same things," it's meant to show that if you put the an entire system's costs under the government, things will get out of control (in a way that may be easier for everyone to understand). They are the same in that respect.

[Krylo]

I don't have public transportation

I lived in a city with a population of 3000. I just looked up the exact number: 3110. We had public transportation THERE. I'm pretty sure you have it where you are (Unless you live a decent distance outside city limits, in which case you're in the vast minority and it's your own fault for choosing scenery and open spaces over resources). You just don't see it often. In the city I'm in currently (17,000 population) the taxis don't roam the streets, you have to do call ins, and they have something called 'dial-a-ride,' which is a bus system used mostly for the sick and/or elderly who can't drive. Again, you have to call them.

It'd take me a nearly obscene time to walk or bike to work or school

But you COULD. You can't cure cancer/pneumonia/appendicitis/etc. etc. with your mystical mind powers, however. You need health care. Yes, your life would be much more difficult for awhile, but it wouldn't be OVER. And you can always buy a new car in a few months. They don't sell extra lives.

But I don't think you're looking at the point of that essay the right way. It's not meant to say "health care and car care are the same things," it's meant to show that if you put the an entire system's costs under the government, things will get out of control (in a way that may be easier for everyone to understand). They are the same in that respect.

And I believe I said that if TTO had focused on the financial aspect of that paper instead of going off about how car insurance is just as important as health insurance in his other posts, he'd have had a valid point. He however, didn't. He went about making the same arguements you did in the first paragraph instead of pointing out that the article was about the money involved, not about anything else.


What this whole thing comes down to is, do you value your money or the health of strangers more?

No one is in here, really, saying that socialized health care will make health care worse. It works for nearly every other first world country, after all. What most of you are saying is that it's going to cost money and make taxes go up. That's perfectly correct.

However, people like PSR wouldn't mind having their taxes go up a little in order to provide everyone with the opprotunity to live through serious diseases regardless of how much money they have.

I was merely pointing out the extreme irony in the comment in my first quote up there, and then the foolishness in comparing car insurance to health insurance in terms of importance.

[Psrdirector]

Thank you very much Bravo Bravo
You are the first person who looked at it and didnt just say "public sucks" thank you

I had completly forgoten that basicly every other first world nation in the world has at least sociolised heath care. If they can do it what is so diffrent about us, really is maybe a minor increas in your taxes if that really that bad. If we had it we could save alot of peoples lives, a lot of peoples lives. More people die every year of preventable dieses then of murder, car accidents, plain crashes all together. Just cause you want 10 more bucks in your pocket worth more then someones life

[DragonDaimyo]

Krylo, I'm talking about minor stuff, not life-threataning diseases. You missed my point that people will flock to doctors like moths to a flame for minor treatment that they could live without. For example, I was once sick with pneumonia. It was a minor case, so I stayed home for a few days and I was fine. If we had had a public medical system, I certainly would have gone for a doctor's appointment to get a perscription. But I knew I would get well, so I didn't bother wasting money on it.

With a nationalized health care system, you basically penalize the guy who is in perfect health. He has to pay, yet he gets no benefit from it. Do you truly understand how much taxes would rise for this kind of program? The government has to pay for it all, and where do they get thier money? That's right. The citizens of the US. I think it's not unreasonable to say that taxes in the US could rise significantly for this kind of program for all US citizens. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like paying THAT bill.

I say that it's best to let people handle health care on thier own. People are not idiots and we can handle this on our own. Government intervention is not required!

[Muffin Mage]

PSRDirector:

Banned though you may be, does the system you prefer start with a C and end with the fall of the Iron Curtain? (Oh yeah! Twice in a week!)

Hell, while we're at it, why not socialize the entire economy? That way, no one would have to do without any basic necessity. "A car in every driveway and a chicken in every pot," if you will. No more worrying about electricity, or internet, or water, or phone, or auto insurance, or life insurance, or gasoline, or food, or exotic entertainments, or anything else that slipped my mind that someone might want. We would have no expenses whatsoever, and all it would take would be your [/biting irony] entire paycheck.

Do you know why an even mostly privatized medical system would work? Competition. When you need to convince someone to come to you for your good or service, you try to be the best you can be. In the current environment of high malpractice insurance, doctors can't afford to lower prices the way they want to, and that's where insurance comes in.

My semi-coherant ramblings are at an end, but I'll be back.

[DragonDaimyo]

Originally Posted by Muffin Mage

PSRDirector:
Banned though you may be, does the system you prefer start with a C and end with the fall of the Iron Curtain?

The Muffin Man puts the problem I have been dancing around commenting on in the bluntest form possible. Well done, sir!

[Krylo]

Saiya, you're barking up the wrong tree. Allow me to quote a few things I said, because you obviously missed them last time.

What this whole thing comes down to is, do you value your money or the health of strangers more?

What most of you are saying is that it's going to cost money and make taxes go up. That's perfectly correct.

I don't care too much either way. Both sides have their ups and downs.

I was merely pointing out the extreme irony in the comment in my first quote up there, and then the foolishness in comparing car insurance to health insurance in terms of importance.

So, as you see, I don't care either way. No, I wouldn't want to foot that bill, but, on the other hand, with something as important as keeping people from dying, I couldn't put my weight against it either.

This is a subject I'm neutral on. However, despite PSR's poor grammar, his points were at least valid to his side of the arguement, where as many of the other sides 'points' were completely asinine every time they tried to wander away from the financial problems with it.

However, if you really feel like arguing:

Krylo, I'm talking about minor stuff, not life-threataning diseases. You missed my point that people will flock to doctors like moths to a flame for minor treatment that they could live without.

So? You'd have gotten better sooner and been back to work/school/free time. Big deal. If you're going to start complaining about waiting lists then you should probably be introduced to the huge difference between the ER and the Doctor's Office. You see, if you go to the doctor's office you can get an appointment over anything that's not terribly important or urgent. If you have to wait, it doesn't matter a whole lot. They tell you when they'll probably be free anyway.

The ER, on the other hand, only lets you in if you're in serious trouble. If you have a cold or slight pneumonia they'd kick you out on your ass to let the person who needs triple bypass surgery or has a bullet lodged in their shin get to their bed.

It's not a very effective arguement if you actually understand how hospitals work. If they handled the serious things the same way they handled colds, no one would get in to the hospital in time.

[Robot Jesus]

In Canada we have public healthcare.
WE DONT HAVE ANY SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH HYPOCONDRIA!!!
There, now I feel better.
There are problems with our system but abuses of that system are so rare there statistically insignificant (Unless you’re a member of the loyal opposition, they never shut up about them). I’m sorry but people don't flock to our doctors like lemmings over a cliff, overwhelming them with patents.

We do have problems with waiting lists, but this is to do with too few doctors and hospital beds, not too many patents.

[Spider]

What this whole thing comes down to is, do you value your money or the health of strangers more?

I'm a capitalist through and through. It sounds cold, I know, but I'd rather not pay for someone else's medical expenses when I work for what I have, especially when I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for mine.

Robot Jesus: Canada must be a lot better that the United States when it comes to people getting healthcare for every pissy little thing. (Getting a little off the subject of cost, now...) Here, people go to the doctor and demand prescription antibiotics for the common cold and other viruses that can't be cured by antibiotics quite frequently. Doctors prescribe them for the off chance that maybe, just maybe, the little cold could develop into some serious kind of bacterial infection due to lowered immunity, and if that happens, there's a lawsuit.

The great thing about that is, diseases like Tuberculosis are starting to become immune to the antibiotics we currently use because we use them too frequently. Overprescription is a very serious problem when it's NOT free. I'd hate to see what it'd be like if prescriptions became free.