Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Off Topic- Health Care

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    1



    >>I think everyone should have equal access to medical care and not be bankrupted if they need something major. <<


    Is anyone actually turned down for medical care in this country? I do not believe there is a problem with access.


    In terms of bankrupties: if, as posted earlier, we could see an itemized listing of costs for procedures BEFORE they are done, we could make an informed decision on whether we actually wanted those procedures and tests done, or shop around for another provider or better alternative.


    I value having the freedom to choose where I go and what I have done. The federal government has NO Constitional basis to provide for me, or take assets from me (or whomever they deem) to provide for me or my neighbor.


    I do however believe in charity, and that is the way that many people who couldn&#39;t afford it used to get health care, housing, food, rather than turning to the government to be their provider.


    I fear that with every government intrusion, we lose valuable privacy and freedom. One way to look at this is to see what happened with the enactment of the income tax:

    (this is from the Treasury&#39;s website):

    http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...es/ustax.shtml

    "Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities. The income tax fundamentally changed this relationship, giving the government the right and the need to know about all manner of an individual or business&#39; economic life."


    Now the federal government has access to a great amount of private information that it did not have previously. So privacy was lost there.


    If the federal government will be involved in the personal business of your health, then it will have access to even more very private information that it did not have previously.


    The problem arises when the federal government can decide to use this private information against you. Governments are open to corruption and evil, they are made up of humans just like everyone else, who are not insusceptible to bribery, back-room deals, outright theft.


    History has a habit of repeating itself. We should not so blithely give up the freedoms that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to win.

    Comment


    • #47
      1

      [quote]


      Why have several people thrown up their hands in disgust and declared that they were "done" with the discussion?</blockquote>


      Politics ya know? Everyone has an opinion and the conversation eventually turns nasty.

      Comment


      • #48
        1



        >>I fear that with every government intrusion, we lose valuable privacy and freedom. One way to look at this is to see what happened with the enactment of the income tax:..... snip .....<<


        Marika, I totally agree, which is why I said I have no idea how to fix the problem.


        I disagree that they current system is working. I personally know several people who have horror stories and I&#39;ve read about many other people who also have. I&#39;m kind of amazed anyone thinks the current system is OK.


        bruce b.

        Comment


        • #49
          1

          [quote]

          Until then, a typical libertarian "meritocracy" becomes, imo, dangerously close to advocating for social darwinism.
          </blockquote>


          Exactly what I was thinking. Applying principles of evolutionary biology to social policy has a tendency to devolve into eugenics and elimination of "undesirables." The main problem with social darwinism is that it is a conscious process, whereas evolution itself is an unconscious process; Darwin&#39;s "natural selection" of the biological world becomes mankind&#39;s purposeful exclusion of those who are deemed unfit to survive. A philosophy that labels the weak and indigent as an unconscionable burden on the strong is the selfish justification of inaction from those who would jealously guard their haughty stature.
          [quote]

          Actually, though, many of our greatest people in history have come from backgrounds of quite horrible adversity
          </blockquote>


          Yes, there have been many amazing people who have persevered through terrible adversity to reach great heights of success; however, because it has been achieved by some does not necessarily infer that is equally possible for all. These success stories are exceptions to the rule, and do not negate the fact that people born into overwhelmingly disadvantageous situations are unable to cope with life&#39;s crises and setbacks in the same manner as those with more affluent beginnings. Those on top must do little to remain on top, while those below must put forth a virtually herculean effort to reach the top. This presents a huge discrepancy in necessary ability; many of those who remain on the bottom could have easily remained at the top if they had started there.


          Several people have mentioned that there is no true health care crisis as no one is ever denied medical treatment. This is partially incorrect. While an emergency room will admit a new patient for treatment, they will turn away that same patient in the future if they are unable to pay off the cost of their treatment. At the risk of debasing my statement with anecdotal evidence, I actually knew a man who died from this situation. He was in a car accident and received treatment at a local hospital for several broken bones and head trauma. Unfortunately, he did not have insurance and was unable to pay his medical bills. After being released, he returned to the same hospital complaining of severe headaches. Due his outstanding balance, he was refused medical treatment; he returned home and died later that night.


          I realize that that is a single incident; I do not mean to make an emotional ploy to strengthen my argument. Nonetheless, there are certain situations where an individual will be refused potentially lifesaving medical treatment because of a lack of financial coverage.


          @SS--Arghh I had Rod Stewart stuck in my head all night, lol! I had nightmares of feathered haircuts and white tapered pants.

          Comment


          • #50
            1



            "A philosophy that labels the weak and indigent as an unconscionable burden on the strong is the selfish justification of inaction from those who would jealously guard their haughty stature."


            ? Kind of confused as to how you get that from libertarianism. I don&#39;t see that as a description of libertarian philosophy by any means.


            Libertarians still believe in charity, they just support private charity.

            Comment


            • #51
              1



              "I disagree that they current system is working. I personally know several people who have horror stories and I&#39;ve read about many other people who also have."


              But here is the clincher - with ANY system, you will find horror stories. I know that in Canada and other countries with socialized health care, there are horror stories to be had there too. Would it be correct to say their systems are "broken" then too?

              Comment


              • #52
                1



                I thought this was a good place to post this


                http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

                Comment

                Working...
                X