Socialized Medicine

oldsoldier wrote: the HIV positive individual going into final stage AIDS, etc. Each are the result of poor personal choices.

wow. you are so wrong...

Now on to MY question--- Are you willing to pay a lot more in everything, such as taxes, so everyone gets healthcare? (I'm using this to set up a new point-- I know your answer)   Kind of, depends, and maybe.   I do believe that there is a fundamental moral imperative for a society such as ours to provide certain services to all members.  I also believe that healthcare is one of these services.

What about food, water, and shelter?

BUT - healthcare is a "scarce resource."  As a matter of reality we cannot provide unlimited healthcare to everybody.  It just isn't feasible, regardless of moral imperatives.  And beyond the impossibility, at some point the cost becomes so great that it infringes on other moral imperatives.

We're in agreement

But let me ask you the return question:  First, take as a given that we already have limited universal coverage (you will get treated at the ER, regardless of insurance or finances).  Would you be willing to stop this universal coverage, and simply decline treatment to anybody without proof of insurance or a credit card, if it would save us "a lot" of money overall?  Would you, as an EMT, be willing to kick the heart attack guy out of your ambulance when you discover his insurance has expired?

I mean this next sentence in the most respectful way: You're not in healthcare. Having said that, I will explain why I mentioned it.

You are correct, any hospital getting any funds from the federal government HAS to provide life saving interventions to ANYbody. But here's the thing many people outside of healthcare don't know--- Hospitals go WAY beyond the minimum when providing help to the disadvantaged.

Hospitals will bend over backwards to find ways to accommodate the less fortunate. I've seen it. Anyone that works in this field has seen it.


On top of that; The majority of EMS personnel, along with the rest of healthcare, tend to be conservative in views, which is why you see Liberals in Congress vying for the AMA and other groups to swing in their favor.




We're in healthcare. It's quite obvious, or it should be, that we help sick people, regardless of their ability to pay. But you also have to remember that this is capitalism, and people DO profit on other peoples sufferings. If you disagree with this, then you need to start writing your congressman for free caskets for every dead person.


So, to answer your question: No, I wouldn't kick "the heartattack man" out of my ambulance, I don't know anyone who would, and I don't know a single doctor who would refuse to help him.
















One last tidbit-

Every single major healthcare innovation in the past decade, if not longer, has come from America. Capitalism drives innovation. If there is no money to be made, there is little incentive to go through the decade of FDA trials and clinicals for drugs, procedures, or other things.


If you're fine with having 2009 period medicine for the rest of your life, so be it. But where is new innovation, drugs, and procedures supposed to come from if not from the US?




Let's spend the money on something that WILL have an actual positive impact on society--- Education. Do you realize how much good $100billion a year for 10 years can help school systems? With education, people will be able to afford their own insurance.


Edited by Linus - 25 July 2009 at 6:47pm

Linus wrote: I do believe that there is a fundamental moral imperative for a society such as ours to provide certain services to all members.  I also believe that healthcare is one of these services. What about food, water, and shelter?

I really can't phrase it better, as has been said elsewhere;

Make sure that when you file your tax returns next year, you don't get a refund but instead give it back to the government. Otherwise, stop trying to raise my taxes to pay for your beliefs.

Government run health care is NOT the end all, be all that people think it is. Take a look at ANY, and I mean ANY, government program that took tax money in an effort to "help those that need it." Name one program that has worked, without turning into a black hole of spending.

I don't have the answers to this problem, but I do know the answer doesn't lie with the government. To quote President Reagan, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Edited by Linus - 25 July 2009 at 9:04pm

And yet, the majority of the country is against the healthcare reform, but the minority is very well within reach of having it.



Weird.

Linus wrote: minority is very well within reach of having it.

Right.

Bootstraps, etc.

First - I am quite confident that I am a net contributor. My taxes paid far exceed benefits received. Second - You and I are both already paying for each other's beliefs through taxes. Taxes are not a check-the-box thing.

I know you're smarter then to not catch on to a philosophy.




Not to get too personal-- How do you pay $1,500 a month in insurance premiums? Someone in your family, or you, have a pre-existing condition? But honestly, if you can afford $18,000 a year in health insurance, I'm not too worried about you going broke ;)

- Public education - Military intervention - Police - Fire Departments - Child welfare services - Prosecutors - Orphanages - Eldercare - Special education - Publicly funded research - Public libraries

We can spend a crap more on Education. Again, $100billion a year would do wonders.

Firefighters and Police get paid WAY more then many people think. I know of a city, small in size, who starts their FD out at $50,000 FIRST YEAR, and by their 3rd year, are making close to $90,000.

Firefighters and police tend to retire with 90% revenue, meaning if they made $100,000 their last year there, they get $90k a year to retire. That's HUGE. Not saying I don't support it, but people need to realize how much money those places take... and JUST for personnel. That doesn't include the $300,000 quint, or $40,000 cruiser.

But for black holes I was aiming more for Medicare, Medicaid, support for 3rd world style nursing homes. I've experienced the waste... it's pitiful.

America already spend $2trillion on healthcare. What do we have to show for it?

Is our government so horrible that it cannot manage what every European government can?

Not a single European country has a population of over 300,000,000. TOTALLY different effect when it comes to providing something to everyone when you only have to do it for 10mil, even if you take GDP into effect.


It's not the governments job to provide everyone with healthcare.   I haven't seen it stated in the Constitution. Not in the Bill or Rights. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not even in the Confederate papers.



Again, I'm not against healthcare. I'm against the money being spent on the wrong thing. You honestly can not tell me putting the proposed healthcare budget into the education budget won't be better for the country as a whole.

Linus wrote: America already spend $2trillion on healthcare. What do we have to show for it?

Interesting argument...for a revamped health care system

I haven't seen it stated in the Constitution. Not in the Bill or Rights. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not even in the Confederate papers.

That's a silly argument. A lot of stuff are not in those documents that we still find to be important. Societies advance.

It doesn't say, for example, that the government needs to make sure that restaurants keep their kitchens in a sanitary condition. But we find that important enough.



Edited by agentwhale007 - 25 July 2009 at 9:46pm

Ken Majors wrote: OS deserves to have his healthcare paid for...

That is understood. It was part of the contract for his service. I doubt anyone is saying that this isn't the case.

The point that seems to be missed here by you is that it seems a bit hypocritical for OS, who receives health care via the government, to say that people who push for health care reform from the government are inherently wrong.

Bolt3 wrote: And you're against any type of reform?

Who said I was against reform?