You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How much is your life worth?
- Thread starter anonymous
- Start date
Government should pay for healthcare and subsidize medicine development. This for profit crap just isn't working. It would work if their weren't so many criminals getting MBAs and running drug companies, hospitals, and other healthcare businsses.
Mixing profit based incentive business model with health incentive based industry is so wrong. A business man's idea of profit isn't healthier people it is more money. If only we could arrange a for-profit (capitalist) health care industry where the industry gets paid based on the successful resolution of an illness, or the successful prevention of an illness. And when the patient dies or get sick the businesses are not paid (ever if necessary) until that patient is healthy once again.
Mixing profit based incentive business model with health incentive based industry is so wrong. A business man's idea of profit isn't healthier people it is more money. If only we could arrange a for-profit (capitalist) health care industry where the industry gets paid based on the successful resolution of an illness, or the successful prevention of an illness. And when the patient dies or get sick the businesses are not paid (ever if necessary) until that patient is healthy once again.
I really like that last answer. Although I love my country and I actively defend it, there are things I absolutely DO NOT agree with. Nothing will ever be perfect, that's just not the way the world works-but something MUST change in our health care and welfare system. I agree that drug companies are getting paid so much because they continue to produce the drugs, not because they create a cure for the illness. If they did, where would the money in that be. There is a basic human need to have the means to support yourself and your family, and there is nothing wrong with making A profit, but there should be limits. I really cannot comprehend how hundreds of millions of dollars can be more important that saving a human life-but people are greedy and are much more powerful than you and I-and the world has worked that way (overall) for as long as history documents. We will eventually be the cause of our own demise.
Julie (wife to Mark 24 w/CF)
Julie (wife to Mark 24 w/CF)
Oh, I forgot to mention to anonymous at 10:16am, there are some soldiers on this site and husband and wifes of deployed soldiers. While I am not one of those over there actively in the war zone-and thank God for that- I am in San Diego wich is one of the biggest hit areas for deployment, espeically in the medical department. Many Navy hospital corpsman, Navy nurses and Navy doctors were deployed from my hospital and from the surrounding clinics, to augment the Marines in Iraq. The Marines are the only branch of service that does not have their own medical officers and enlisted medical support, so when the Marines go to war, groups of Navy doctors, Navy nurses and Navy corpsman join them as their medical support, to set up "tent" hospitals all over the war zone areas. I feel honored to be able to treat these men and women that come back from Iraq bearing the scars of what they did to protect our country. It is tragic, but it is also a feeling that leaves me very proud. So, although I am not risking my life everyday in Iraq, on behalf of those who I work with-those who I know who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and those who will never return to us, some of which I know personally-Thank you for your appreciation. I will pass on the appreciation to some who just returned.
Julie (wife to Mark 24 w/CF)
Julie (wife to Mark 24 w/CF)
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr>Government should pay for healthcare and subsidize medicine development. <hr></blockquote>
<b>Democratic</b> governments <i>should</i> pay for what the people elect to pay for. I imagine social medicine is not desired by the masses in this country. Either that or the masses don't vote. I think the majority of America is relatively healthy and they'd choose <b>not</b> to pay additional taxes for the benefit of other people. Funny how many of the people that think social medicine would be great are the people that would benefit from it!
<b>Democratic</b> governments <i>should</i> pay for what the people elect to pay for. I imagine social medicine is not desired by the masses in this country. Either that or the masses don't vote. I think the majority of America is relatively healthy and they'd choose <b>not</b> to pay additional taxes for the benefit of other people. Funny how many of the people that think social medicine would be great are the people that would benefit from it!
Emily65Roses
New member
Sick people are not the only ones that think it's a good idea. It's used in many other countries, and is an all around good idea. What kind of bonehead are you to specifically come on a CF board and say something like this:
"Funny how many of the people that think social medicine would be great are the people that would benefit from it!"
"Funny how many of the people that think social medicine would be great are the people that would benefit from it!"
Emily, it might sound boneheaded, but I think there's some brutal truth to it. Most people are happy to shell out for a program -- especially an expensive one -- only if they believe it directly benefits them somehow. That makes sense. The bizarro part is the near-sightedness of average ppl who think our present system isn't robbing them already. How much of the cost of a Chevy, for instance, goes to pay for the health-care of GM employees? How much is it costing each individual to sustain a system in which the ER is so many ppl's primary health-care provider? And forget about these immediate costs. Who in his right mind is foolish enough to assume that whatever private insurance he and his loved ones presently have will cover them all straight to the grave? Yeah, we ill crazies are probably more aware of the current crisis because half of us, who are flat broke over it, hear that our friends in other countries are provided with everything down to Scandi shakes and <i>air conditioners!</i> (Did I read that in one of these posts?) But even a healthy person should see the writing on the wall, shouldn't he? I chuckled to see Newt Gingrich powwowing with Hilary Clinton about ways to get health care off <i>big business's</i> back!
Q
Q
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Anonymous</b></i><br><blockquote>Quote
<hr>Government should pay for healthcare and subsidize medicine development. <hr></blockquote>
I imagine social medicine is not desired by the masses in this country.<hr></blockquote>
You'd be surprised how many of the masses who <i>don't</i> get a whopping load of misconceptions from Faux News, and actually know a thing or two about socialized medicine vs. laissez-faire "medicine," would agree with it.
<hr>Government should pay for healthcare and subsidize medicine development. <hr></blockquote>
I imagine social medicine is not desired by the masses in this country.<hr></blockquote>
You'd be surprised how many of the masses who <i>don't</i> get a whopping load of misconceptions from Faux News, and actually know a thing or two about socialized medicine vs. laissez-faire "medicine," would agree with it.
Emily65Roses
New member
Hey I've got an interesting little question for everyone to ponder:
How come our government won't pay for healthcare for people who need it and can't afford it? Medicine, hospitalization, surgery...
But we provide lawyers for suspected rapists and murderers? "...If you can't afford one, one will be provided for you."
Yeah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.
How come our government won't pay for healthcare for people who need it and can't afford it? Medicine, hospitalization, surgery...
But we provide lawyers for suspected rapists and murderers? "...If you can't afford one, one will be provided for you."
Yeah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.
The right to an attorney is a constitutional freedom and a just one at that, at least on the federal level. For state offenses an attorney does not have to be appointed to the defense case. There are innocent people who are charged with crimes who do deserve an attorney. Even the guilty deserve an attorney. Health care and the Justice system are two totally different things.
Emily65Roses
New member
I didn't say lawyers being appointed didn't make sense. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense that we provide lawyers for anyone who needs it, so that they can get justice... When we won't provide healthcare for anyone who needs it, so they can live. Last I checked, living was pretty important.
I see Emily's point here. Why should BTK or some of those terrible people get representation paid for by taxpayers when people w/ health issues that are doing the best they can w/ what they have & are not commiting any crimes not have some help paid for w/ taxpayers money?
I wonder how many taxpayers on this site (and in general) would rather have their money used for court costs vs. healthcare?
I wonder how many taxpayers on this site (and in general) would rather have their money used for court costs vs. healthcare?
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Emily65Roses</b></i><br>Sick people are not the only ones that think it's a good idea. It's used in many other countries, and is an all around good idea. What kind of bonehead are you to specifically come on a CF board and say something like this:
"Funny how many of the people that think social medicine would be great are the people that would benefit from it!"<hr></blockquote>
You are funny, Emily. I am the above "bonehead" and I too think socialized medicine is a great idea. Heck, I think everyone that flies on airplanes should pay a little extra so I don't have to pay $200 for in flight oxygen (I have cf). Think they'd all agree? The majority of people in the US don't see how socialized medicine would benefit the masses (because it doesn't benefit the masses - only the people that need it - like me and you!).
I don't think anything is an "all around good idea". Everything has pros and cons. Charging everyone for something only some of the people use is going to be argued by some. Usually by the people that can't see how it would benefit them. People usually need a personal connection to something before believing in it. Do you think Boomer Esiason would have started a foundation for Cf had his son not had it? Lance Armstrong? (Most) Healthy people wouldn't vote for an increase in taxes to fund something they don't need. There are exceptions but not enough yet to vote in such a change.
"Funny how many of the people that think social medicine would be great are the people that would benefit from it!"<hr></blockquote>
You are funny, Emily. I am the above "bonehead" and I too think socialized medicine is a great idea. Heck, I think everyone that flies on airplanes should pay a little extra so I don't have to pay $200 for in flight oxygen (I have cf). Think they'd all agree? The majority of people in the US don't see how socialized medicine would benefit the masses (because it doesn't benefit the masses - only the people that need it - like me and you!).
I don't think anything is an "all around good idea". Everything has pros and cons. Charging everyone for something only some of the people use is going to be argued by some. Usually by the people that can't see how it would benefit them. People usually need a personal connection to something before believing in it. Do you think Boomer Esiason would have started a foundation for Cf had his son not had it? Lance Armstrong? (Most) Healthy people wouldn't vote for an increase in taxes to fund something they don't need. There are exceptions but not enough yet to vote in such a change.
I just had to reply: Actually, Boomer Esiason was involved with CF fundraising even BEFORE his son was born and then diagnosed with CF. How's that for ironic? And I don't truly believe that socialized medicine would only benefit those with chronic illnesses, like us. What about the people who are uninsured with no major medical problems who need to see a doctor for something routine and end up going to the ER because that is the only way they can get medical care? If medical care was provided for everyone then you and I would not be subsidizing people's ER visits by higher insurance premiums and copays. Either way, we are paying for it one way or another. I think it is the only fair thing to do: provide the same health care coverage for everyone, regardless if they are healthy, sick, rich or poor. There is no excuse: the US is the wealthiest country in the world, why is it that we are the ONLY developed country to NOT provide health care coverage for each one of its citizens?
Kim
40 w/cf
Kim
40 w/cf
Emily....You rock girl<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> You are absolutely right....they give criminals the right to free lawyer but poor sick people are not taken care of...thst is digusting.
I am Canadian. I have a son w/cf and thank god meds/hospital care is NEVER an issue....all covered ...But Canadians are not rich like Americans...not even close. Up to about 50,000$ salary a year we pay about 35% of that in income tax. Then any dollar we make over 50,000 at tax time we pay half....yes HALF in income tax. And everytime I purchase anything I pay another 15% in sale tax.... But we are not rich here by any means...but most of us live comfortably in middle class and I am OK with never really being rich. The human race MUST insist we take care of each other CF or not EVERYONE ends up in the hospital for something in their life and we all know someone who has a serious medical condition or life threatning illness ( cancer/stoke/ect...)
As Americans you should really stand up for this....demand it. You are such a wealthy country it is unimagineable to me that you are not taken care of. Shame on Bush....
I am Canadian. I have a son w/cf and thank god meds/hospital care is NEVER an issue....all covered ...But Canadians are not rich like Americans...not even close. Up to about 50,000$ salary a year we pay about 35% of that in income tax. Then any dollar we make over 50,000 at tax time we pay half....yes HALF in income tax. And everytime I purchase anything I pay another 15% in sale tax.... But we are not rich here by any means...but most of us live comfortably in middle class and I am OK with never really being rich. The human race MUST insist we take care of each other CF or not EVERYONE ends up in the hospital for something in their life and we all know someone who has a serious medical condition or life threatning illness ( cancer/stoke/ect...)
As Americans you should really stand up for this....demand it. You are such a wealthy country it is unimagineable to me that you are not taken care of. Shame on Bush....
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Anonymous</b></i><br>What is it that many Americans say...? "You can't put a price on life."
So, could someone tell me how it is moral to put a price on prescription meds, hospital stays, ect.? Why is this acceptable to pay to get well. Shouldn't that be a basic human right? Is it not immoral to turn someone away at a hospital because they can't pay? How productive can one person be if they are too sick to work? Why would the United States allow for people to be ill, when it is more profitable to have a healthy working population?
Here's an idea for a constitutional ammendment: XXVIII: The right of all citizens of the United States, to have equal access to free healthcare, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.<hr></blockquote>
As i live in the UK, i've always found it strange that in america they make you pay for treatment! Surely healthcare is a basic right for anybody who pays even the smallest amount of tax...Or breathes for that matter!
So, could someone tell me how it is moral to put a price on prescription meds, hospital stays, ect.? Why is this acceptable to pay to get well. Shouldn't that be a basic human right? Is it not immoral to turn someone away at a hospital because they can't pay? How productive can one person be if they are too sick to work? Why would the United States allow for people to be ill, when it is more profitable to have a healthy working population?
Here's an idea for a constitutional ammendment: XXVIII: The right of all citizens of the United States, to have equal access to free healthcare, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.<hr></blockquote>
As i live in the UK, i've always found it strange that in america they make you pay for treatment! Surely healthcare is a basic right for anybody who pays even the smallest amount of tax...Or breathes for that matter!
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Anonymous</b></i><br>The majority of people in the US don't see how socialized medicine would benefit the masses (because it doesn't benefit the masses - only the people that need it - like me and you!).<hr></blockquote>
That's a truly ridiculous argument. Using the same logic, the police and fire departments "don't benefit the masses" because most people, most of the time, won't "need" them.
They do, however, benefit the masses by being on call, should the need arise. And by preventing a whole ton of nasty stuff, simply by virtue of their presence (i.e., wanton disregard for the law, or in the case of socialized medicine, people ignoring early warning symptoms of illness--at which point, it can still often be treated simply and more affordably--because they can't afford to waste money on an off-chance, and winding up having to deal with a full-blown disease once they can't put it off any longer).
The problem is more shortsighted greed (as it's really self-defeating, if you look at how much per capita other countries spend on healthcare than the US, with similar or even better results by criteria like long-term survival or overall health of citizens). We've realized this pursuit of temporary savings--at the cost of letting some of our most disadvantaged fall through the gaping cracks of a sociopathic free market that cares only for profit--doesn't make sense in the case of other things, like the military, but ironically enough, when it comes to SAVING people's lives as opposed to killing them, suddenly budget cuts are a big priority.
That's a truly ridiculous argument. Using the same logic, the police and fire departments "don't benefit the masses" because most people, most of the time, won't "need" them.
They do, however, benefit the masses by being on call, should the need arise. And by preventing a whole ton of nasty stuff, simply by virtue of their presence (i.e., wanton disregard for the law, or in the case of socialized medicine, people ignoring early warning symptoms of illness--at which point, it can still often be treated simply and more affordably--because they can't afford to waste money on an off-chance, and winding up having to deal with a full-blown disease once they can't put it off any longer).
The problem is more shortsighted greed (as it's really self-defeating, if you look at how much per capita other countries spend on healthcare than the US, with similar or even better results by criteria like long-term survival or overall health of citizens). We've realized this pursuit of temporary savings--at the cost of letting some of our most disadvantaged fall through the gaping cracks of a sociopathic free market that cares only for profit--doesn't make sense in the case of other things, like the military, but ironically enough, when it comes to SAVING people's lives as opposed to killing them, suddenly budget cuts are a big priority.