Health care

Started by Vell, April 01, 2012, 12:07:39 am

Previous topic - Next topic

Vell

Forewarning: This topic runs quite dangerously close to political debate. If you find yourself feeling too emotional or heated about the discussion calmly excuse yourself from the topic until you can bring yourself to properly represent your case. Thank you, enjoy the argument.

Health care. Specifically, American Healthcare. As a documentary released in 2007, Sicko, demonstrates, the american health system is - or was - very close to barbaric. American filmmaker and political activist Michael Moore, who has released a number of documentaries of the same nature in the past, produced the film. During it he details how enemy combatants are given better healthcare than the majority of american citizens. He highlights the fact that we have a number of socialised systems in America - libraries, police. Why, then, not medicine? He asks this. America's answers seem rather lacking. But this is not a debate about Sicko. Whether Moore is honest or not in his documentary, it is often cited in a debate of this subject.

However, since Obama has come to power in the White House, he's made it his mission to combat the very things that Sicko brings to light. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandates individuals to have some minimal form of health care and also helps mitigate the loopholes private health insurance companies would use to deny healthcare. A particularly glaring one that is specifically targeted is the "pre-existing condition" denial. Often a company would deny someone acceptance into the plan based on a pre-existing condition. Too skinny? You could be denied. Too fat? You could be denied. I'm not going fully into the act.

Since it was passed - and it was only barely passed - more conservative minds in washington have been trying to get it repealed. It certainly goes a long way to providing america with a more universal healthcare system.

winkio

The biggest problem with health care is that it costs a lot of money.  The US is definitely overpaying medical specialists (specialists can make 4-5x the amount of a general care doctor) and procedures right now, but even if they were paying a fair price, the cost would still be a burden.

The old solution to this problem, as documented in Sicko, was just to screw the sickest people over and drop them from the insurance pool as soon as they tried to cash in on their dues, eliminating a large chunk of the financial burden on the rest of society.  It should also be noted that insurance companies would end up setting their rates unreasonably high for the implementation of this strategy, resulting in a large suction of money into the companies.

The new solution to this problem with recent legislation is to try to force everybody into the insurance market, ensuring that the costs of healthcare are equally distributed.  This is resisted because it means that insurance companies will have to raise their rates across the board to account for the increased risk of payout from the sick people they used to screw over.

There are a lot of opinions about quality of care changing, ease of access, etc. if the US goes towards a more universal system, but I think the central question is all about money:

Should 10 working class tax payers be forced to pay for an operation that will only postpone the death of a child by a few years?  Should healthy people be forced to pay the bill for drug users and people that don't live a healthy lifestyle?

Should the strong be forced to support the weak?

The answer is usually "no" if you are in the strong group (18-30, active, hard working, no major health problems), and yes if you are in the weak group (40-80, working less, more serious health problems).  In reality, it's not such a clean cut question, as the support has to be managed to make sure it is not being abused or ignored by either side.

King_Ooga_TonTon

I live in Canada, and the whole public health care thing is far from complacency. I haven't heard anyone in favour of getting rid of the system, but it adds a whole new layer to Canadian politics. I love it, I'm proud of the system, as are many others, however it definitely isn't something you can implement on a whim. I don't want to sound like I'm bashing Americans, but I just don't really think they'd be "ready," for it; especially with the taxes and all. Public health care is not so much a feature as much as it is a foundation.

ForeverZer0

Quote from: Vell on April 01, 2012, 12:07:39 am
Health care. Specifically, American Healthcare. As a documentary released in 2007, Sicko, demonstrates, the american health system is - or was - very close to barbaric.


It is a little difficult having an "intelligent" debate when we are basing the argument under the assumption that Micheal Moore portrayed the American health care system in its true light.  It is no secret, even to fellow liberals, that the facts he portrays are skewed to the extreme, and that is an understatement.

Government health care is not going to solve any problems, nor has it in the countries that have implemented. Take a look at England's health care system, it is worse off than the current American system. I can't quite figure out why it is called "Obama Care". Obama is not paying for, taxpayers are. As a taxpayer, I don't feel it is my responsibility to pay for the health care of everyone else, especially when I do not want government health care, I pay for my own insurance. Certain people love to call that greedy, but who is more greedy: me wanted to pay for my own, or you wanted to take what is mine? If the option to opt out of paying it if I chose not to use it existed, I may feel different about it, but that is not the case.

I believe that this country already gives more to people freely than it should. Not that I have anything against giving to others, but that is not the responsibility of a government, not what it was founded to do. I could go on for pages about the utter stupidity of a government-run health care system, siting 100 different reasons, but I won't rant. There is no real point. Most Americans did not want the health care bill to pass, but it got pushed through by a corrupt congress with its own agenda. This is the very issue that began the decline of Obama's popularity.

Just remember: the government cannot give to anybody without first taking it from someone else. That doesn't sound so bad to someone sitting in their parents basement, but to the guy who is trying to pay his own way instead of asking for government handouts and trying to pay the rent, its a whole different story.  And unless someone actually supports themselves, and is not living under the care of their parents still, its awfully hard to act like you know what you are talking about. That is not an insult to anyone who still does, I am just making a point.
I am done scripting for RMXP. I will likely not offer support for even my own scripts anymore, but feel free to ask on the forum, there are plenty of other talented scripters that can help you.

Ryex

April 01, 2012, 04:40:07 am #4 Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 04:47:13 am by Ryex
The question of health care in America is a very difficult one because we Americans as a society are fundamentally different form the countries that have public healthcare implemented. for one thing we have a fundamentally different economy in the sector one that is founded on the convention of the insurance market. this of course clashes with the basis of medicine's foundation "first, do no harm"

we have a clash between the communal principles of Medical practice "Help everyone as much as possible regardless of position" and out societal principles of "you get what you earn"

I'm just making points that I feel are fundamental to the argument. if disagree on this clash of interests in the current american system then we disagree on the nature of the problem

the best way to explain the naure of our societ IMHO is thus:

Quote"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"


note the emphasis: our society in general holds the belief that at birth we are equal but there after we make our selves with our actions and not all actions are equal in their worth.

This applies to the Health Care question as it explains the nature of the society that birth the current system and why we are resistant to the Public Health care modal. 
Our current system is flawed true, but it also fit's us. it can be improved but I doubt that there is one big over arcing change that will work. We just have to keep tweaking the system, it's just a shame that the process for tweaking it is such a slow one.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

winkio

Post-by-post:

@King_Ooga_TonTon
Spoiler: ShowHide

I agree public health care is quite different than the system currently in place in the US, but I'm wondering what you mean by saying:

Quote from: King_Ooga_TonTon on April 01, 2012, 02:39:46 am
I just don't really think they'd be "ready," for it; especially with the taxes and all.



@F0
Spoiler: ShowHide

I completely understand where you are coming from.  However, your view is slightly self-contradicting.

When you (or your employer) pay for health insurance, you pay the company more money than you expect to get back from them on a monthly basis.  You are paying that extra money to cover the costs of other people in your insurance group who are stricken with illness.  The benefit of this system is that if you suddenly need heart surgery, the insurance company will take extra money from the rest of the group and give it to you, meaning that you don't have to have a ton of money set aside for the risk of developing a serious health condition.

So everyone who buys health insurance pays other people's health bills.  The question at stake is not whether or not you should give money people, but whether or not the healthiest people should pay more for health insurance in order to add more sick people into their insurance pool.  The only 'freebie' here is allowing people that you know will cost more than they pay into the insurance pool.


@Ryex
Spoiler: ShowHide

The first points you make are very good.  While it would be ideal to help everyone, there are not enough doctors, medicine, technology, funds, or time to do so.  I pretty much agree with you, in that money has a purpose in the US economy, and decisions have to be made that align with the economy.

ForeverZer0

@winkio:

The point is that it is MY choice. I can CHOOSE not to pay for it, or I can CHOOSE to pay for it. That was the point.
I am done scripting for RMXP. I will likely not offer support for even my own scripts anymore, but feel free to ask on the forum, there are plenty of other talented scripters that can help you.

winkio

April 01, 2012, 04:28:53 pm #7 Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 04:30:27 pm by winkio
I get that the choice is fundamentally important, however the current system has shown that most people will choose to join insurance pools to lower their risk for having to pay for an accidental or sudden health condition.  Insurance is naturally chosen for all large risks because humans are largely risk averse.  So while the choice is still important, there is a large majority of the population that will choose insurance regardless, and the changes on the system will have an effect on both groups.