When will the USA have free and universal health care?
#21
Don't Canadians wait 6-8 months for routine medical procedures under their great "free" medical care?  How does the UK National Health Service work?

Show me an example of "free" health care with positive patient outcomes.

You need to learn...it just doesn't work.  The approach is not "it's a good idea, and these existing European plans that we ADORE just need some tweaking to be made perfect".

The entire notion is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be made to work.

If you think health care is expensive now, just wait 'till it's free.
Reply
#22
DesperatelySeeking Wrote:Don't Canadians wait 6-8 months for routine medical procedures under their great "free" medical care?

In the US, the uninsured don't get any routine medical procedures at all.  They have to go without.
And the uninsured are becoming a bigger portion of our population every day, especially with businesses cutting out insurance for their employees to save themselves money.

A for profit medical 'industry' goes completely against Catholic morals.
Reply
#23
Quote:A for profit medical 'industry' goes completely against Catholic morals.

I doubt it, but it's certainly a statement worthy of serious debate.  Any sources, or existing ethics debates/articles to lend some weight to that?

Reply
#24
DesperatelySeeking Wrote:
Quote:A for profit medical 'industry' goes completely against Catholic morals.

I doubt it, but it's certainly a statement worthy of serious debate.  Any sources, or existing ethics debates/articles to lend some weight to that?

A for profit medical industry says that money is the deciding factor on who is "deserving" of care.  This is very calvinist "if God loves you, you'll have material wealth" thinking, which is obviously not Catholic.  We believe what Christ said about what we do to the least of His brothers, right?

If the least of Christ's brothers are denied medical care because they are poor, what does that say?

Reply
#25
DesperatelySeeking Wrote:Don't Canadians wait 6-8 months for routine medical procedures under their great "free" medical care?  How does the UK National Health Service work?

Show me an example of "free" health care with positive patient outcomes.

You need to learn...it just doesn't work.  The approach is not "it's a good idea, and these existing European plans that we ADORE just need some tweaking to be made perfect".

The entire notion is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be made to work.

If you think health care is expensive now, just wait 'till it's free.

It works quite well in small countries like Finland.

About healtcare, I think it is overrated. I think the only real healthcare that should be given to all is emergency care and the care of infants. We have a right to live, not a right to struggle to stay alive. To date, no medical advance has stopped death.
Reply
#26
ErinIsNice Wrote:
DarkKnight Wrote:"There is no such thing as free [healthcare]."

It will be empowering the government to make the decision who lives, dies or is treated and allowed to malinger.

And right now, insurance companies and people's bank accounts decide who lives and who dies and who is treated. (Insurance companies deny people care that they think is "too expensive" all the time)

Health insurance costs are so high precisely due to the massive government regulations that control health care production, distribution and treatment.  For example, many procedures could be done by nurses and medical students for far less money but state protected medical guilds stipulate that a doctor must perform the procedure, artificially inflating the value of a doctor (and conveniently increasing his or her salary).  The idea that the US has a "private health care system" is a myth.  There is no "private health care" in the US, simply "multi-payer" health care.  There is also no such thing as "free" health care, as the financing is stolen en masse from taxpayers whether they need or desire health care or not.  Government connected insurance companies receive regulations they lobby for that benefit them at the expense of competition. Businesses are forced to cut health insurance from their employees' benefits because otherwise they would go out of business, and if people do not have jobs, it is unlikely they will be able to take out insurance.

Government mandated employer health insurance also subsidizes the deliberately unhealthy: those who smoke, drink, are overweight, etc. do not actually experience the costs of their self-abuse, some "evil" corporation does instead.  If the government did not regulate the health care industry at all, health insurance would be significantly cheaper to the point where in the absence of employer health insurance, people would be able to afford basic health insurance on a personal level.  How?  Because without state intervention, the general tendency is for the price of goods and services to fall.  For example, a top of the line computer in 1985 cost upwards of $5,000.  Now a far superior computer to the 1985 model can be purchased for a $300. 

The problem is when government gets involved in health care, it sees health care operations solely as an expense.  The capital it receives is an expense, and thus its goal is to always be cutting costs.  The taxpayer is not a customer or an investor.  A private company on the other hand, sees capital as an investment with a return.  If it builds an MRI facility, it will make a greater return on its investment in the patients it sees.  Private companies have an incentive to expand services in order to increase their potential for market.  Companies have a desire to increase their market share as well as their absolute market, thus they always look for ways to deliver more goods and services for less money, via technological advance and creative implementation (increasing productivity).  Undistorted, simple supply and demand will generate the optimal health care arrangement.
Reply
#27
Quote:
A for profit medical industry says that money is the deciding factor on who is "deserving" of care.  This is very calvinist "if God loves you, you'll have material wealth" thinking, which is obviously not Catholic.  We believe what Christ said about what we do to the least of His brothers, right?

If the least of Christ's brothers are denied medical care because they are poor, what does that say?
Medical care is so expensive because that money is needed to do all the research. Sure that's an inexpensive pill, so why is it so much money at the Pharmacy? Because they are still footing the bill for all the pills that didn't work on the lab rats.


Reply
#28
Which is a good argument for not having patents on medicines.
Reply
#29
Anastasia Wrote:Which is a good argument for not having patents on medicines.

It's also a good argument for not having patents on anything.
Reply
#30
I am self employeed, so I have an Individual policy.  I take the lowest rate policy for my family to just pay for medical emergencies, still not cheap.

So in essence, I wind up paying for all my own regular health care, until my large deductible is meet.  Also, the coverage does not include maternity, which happens to be the biggest healthcare cost to us.

Guess !#$%^& what?  We shop around for the best price or work out deals with hospitals and doctors.  What is needed though is time to call people to find out who you need to talk to in the administrative staffs at providers to talk down the price.

This is what really is needed.  There was a medical conference in the area, and they discussed what is best for the healthcare industry.  They basically said what I am doing.  People need to shop around and get the best deals, and stop putting up with high prices on mediocre treatment.

So in essence, I don't utilize the private industry much to pay for my coverage, and sure as Hell do not want the government meddling in it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)