Community >> View Post
Post By
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Subj: What I get from your post...
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 08:30:58 am EST (Viewed 1240 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Two Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Three dollars
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:47:20 am EST (Viewed 1214 times)

Previous Post


      I just don't like the idea of 'Big Brother' running your life more than they already do. Do you really want a bunch of Politicians in Washington telling you if you can have that quadruple bypass surgery or something?

    That, of course, comes with the assumption that the government will be trying to decide whether "we need that quadruple bypass surgery or something." I think the entire idea behind universal healthcare is that people will get the help they need regardless of their means, so that they can't be denied coverage. It won't be (or isn't supposed to be) a denial situation, if someone really needs something.

So you think the Government, or the tax payers rather will be able to afford giving those bypasses to everyone who needs them? It's tough to live forever and I see an inevitable rationing of care that will have to be done especially to the elderly.

But lots of people say to heck with the elderly, they've lived a long good life already, let someone that is young have a chance.

    There are only two problems that I see with universal healthcare and procedures:

    1) In the case of organ/marrow transplants, there simply are not enough donors, and not easy enough matches, to make people not have to wait sometimes, and I'm sure this would be brought up as a "failure of the Democrats who pushed through healthcare." However, stem cell research in other countries is advancing the possibility of growing organs specifically suited to those in need (I've read two medical reports so far, one regarding a woman who had a new portion of her trachea and alveoli grown for her, another regarding a mouse heart being cloned (just the heart!), being hooked up to electrodes, and beating as it's supposed to. Very cool stuff).

Stem cell research may prevent rationing of care to a certain extent but lack of organs isn't the only problem with resources. But gosh, with growing new organs, it almost sounds like people could live forever \(\!\) but no, we can't have that, and if the Government is the only game in town when it comes to health care, they have to decide who lives and who dies.

    2) There may not be enough qualified doctors to perform all the procedures that need to be done, which could lead to lower quality healthcare overall. This, in my opinion, is something that could easily be solved within a generation by fixing the public education system--which has its priorities completely skewed (I see it from the inside)-- and growing students who are more educated and able to become doctors. Every year I have students who can barely read tell me they want to be doctors, in all seriousness. The have the desire, just not the skills.

Oh, your a teacher, I feel unworthy all of a sudden *says non sarcastically*. Well, you working on the inside of this, I wont disagree though I do agree anyway lol. I think perhaps if private schools could get some non interference help from the Government help to make schools in the private sector be affordable for everyone.


      Yes, I gotta agree with the Republicans, let people buy insurance nation wide. Give the insurance companies some REAL competition so they actually have to give a cr*& about their customers and want to hold onto them! Of course preexisting conditions will still be a problem and not everyone will still be able to afford Health Care which is a right!!


        A government program that you have to financially qualify for, or if you have preexisting conditions could solve this, but I just think the Government's role is to protect our rights, not run or lives.

    That's fine, and I agree to some point. But if the road in front of your house was filled with potholes, you'd contact the city government to get it fixed, wouldn't you? Is it running our lives to give us the ability to become healthier without breaking the bank? We already have the medical technology to fix many of the problems that are plaguing us, but many people don't get help because their own insurance companies drop them while they're sick. They have paid premiums, given their money to the private system to insure they can get help when they need it, and then they are denied help. Why can't they give that same premium to the government in the form of a tax, and not be denied their healthcare claim?

Yes our current Health Care system is broken and needs definite reform. I do believe Real competition would straighten out these companies a lot, and they would have to start caring about being a reputable company.
If they tick off the majority of their customers, bad word of mouth will eventually spread around on the internet and elsewhere, but right now they know their customers have no real choice.


      If your on the Governments Health care plan, I can only imagine how much they will try to interfere in people lives trying to force them to eat Healthy and perhaps even forced Doctor visits and even house calls.

    Why is it bad to want people to eat healthier? Lots of folks are in very poor condition because the FDA allows restaurants that serve only crap food to operate, and healthier food is more expensive.

I'm out of my league here going at it with a teacher but here does.

I agree that fast food restaurants are pretty much a public health hazard that does need to be regulated (oh I hate that word) but yeah, perhaps the consumers right to know would work, like putting sodium, sugar and calorie levels on the light up menu at fast food places would work.

But mostly a healthy life style should be a choice, it shouldn't be forced on people. If you want to get that candy bar, the only penalty should be in eating it, and not eating it and paying Uncle Sam extra.

Perhaps we do pay for the poor choices that some people make like drinking to many cokes, our walking along side a dangerous highway but offering less choices for people, less freedom is a road to the big red we don't want.

    I'll give you two examples from my own public high school (where I teach students primarily on the low end of the financial spectrum).

    1) About a third of the students in my school receive free or reduced-price lunch, because their parents can't afford to give them lunch. This is a great thing, provided to them by the county. But the lunches they get are very low quality foods--fried chicken sandwiches, tacos and hamburgers made with very low-grade meat, pizza. Even their salads, which is an option, are made with iceburg lettuce, which has virtually no nutritional content. Why can't the be given higher quality foods, like healthier pastas, white meat chicken, etc.? Why are they allowed to be given food that will damage their bodies?

Well, that is the Government giving them that food. This is why I really doubt Big Brother can give us better quality health care.

    2) Since schools aren't being given the proper amount of money to run (currently facing our second consecutive year of budget cuts in the 10% range), they are forced to find money for programs other ways, like allowing vending machines in the hallways for kids to get a snack. While this may seem okay, there's absolutely nothing nutritional in the machines--candy bars, pastries, etc. In the drink machines, there's a little water and a ton of soda, and even what they call juice is usually fruit punch. Why can't we pull unhealthy options from the machines? The kids are hungry. If the only thing in the vending machines were apples and bananas, believe me, the kids would still be eating. If the only thing in the drink machines was water and orange juice, they'd still be buying. Why do we only provide them with options that could kill them?

Since this is public school, gotta agree. What if the kids parents do not want them eating junk food from a vending machine. This makes it hard for the kids to eat what their parents want.

    And remember, the students are already "forced" to take physical education to graduated. If they're "forced" to exercise, why can't we "force" them to eat healthy? It's education--we can teach them proper diets, and in the long run they will feel better and live easier lives.

Forcing kids to do things till their 18 years of age is one thing, but forcing adults to buy health insurance and get on a Government plan once the private health sector is regulated into bankruptcy is quite another.


      The free market is the most sacred thing we have. Without it, there would be no advances in technology, competition Between AMD and Intel have lead us to these 3ghz processors, competition between Nvidia and Ati has also lead to these massive graphics cards we have now.

    But the problem with a pure free market is that eventually companies who get larger and larger and larger have the ability to squash all competition. A small sandwich shop has virtually no chance in a town that already has three Subway restaurants. Cable television services providers set up shop in cities and carve up the market amongst themselves instead of all competing for business in all areas, leaving people with very few options.

I don't know, there plenty of non chain restaurants in Austin like Waterloo, Top Notch, other semi out of town ones, but it can work. With Cable television, alright, there are 3 options that I know of where I am, and I guess that isn't that many lol. It's probably not easy starting up a cable company (lol again), but I know that cable rates would just go up or the quality of service would just get worse if the Government told them how to run there business.

    The free market is fine, but if there is no regulation to ensure that these businesses have to treat their customers properly once they've grown to a point that they're the only option for the customers... if it becomes profit over quality, then how is that fair?

I think greed is the most underrated word out there. Greed has lead to innovation like cellphone becoming affordable for everyone and yes greed has lowered prices for consumers in department and grocery stores.

I am thankful to greed for my pocket cell phone (that the Government originally invented but the private sector way improved on), I am thankful for my 2.6 ghz quad core CPU and video card with a gig of ram on it. I am thankful for all the pretty good video games greed has led to. I am thankful for intriguing commercial television like LOST and SGU (the UK has one government funded channel, the BBC wheeeee).

Would government run health care really make the middle class more wealthy? There is no such thing as a free lunch. Uncle Sam will have to charge high health premiums to pay for this universal health care and sure to an extent he can do that to the evil rich CEO's in America. It's just to bad those big evil rich companies than wont be able to hire as many middle class working people, and that the companies will have to raise the prices on their products. Oh well, if you managed to read this far, what's my grade?

...without entering in the details of what you said, I think it is essentially a matter of collective values. A majority of people living in the US seem to prefer keeping control of as much money as they can. Value behind : freedom.

As someone who live in a society with universal healthcare, it's always a strange feeling to hear about it from the perspective of those who don't. The way it is demonified in your country is culturaly very interresting. Not many think like you do where I live and they indeed have to pay more tax to sustain the public services. Far from me the idea of pretending universal health care is without flaw of course. After all, the weight of the system is huge and many try to balance public and private. Like many have already suggested I agree that investing in prevention would yield far better results down the line and cost us all a lot less. Anyway, the idea I wanted to express is, for a majority of us here, it is morally unacceptable to refuse health care to someone in need regardless of his ability to pay for it. You are a citizen, you are covered. The healthy and the non-healthy contribute to the pot, relative to their capacity of course, and those who need it use it. Nobody is above illness. Not being rich and having required hospitalisation I can say without a shred of a doubt that I'm VERY please to contribute to the pot hoping with all my hearth never to see that money again in my life. In the US it seem like people goes the other way... they resent not seeing that money ever again.

Bottom line, I think a system will work if in accordance with the society's value, not because it is so much better in itself. See what is more important for you and act accordingly.

Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows Vista
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software