Universal Health Care

surferdude · February 2007

prism wrote:

what makes you think that wait times are so much less in the US? fact is they're just as long except when it comes to a very few non-emergent services.
it's the same deal if you move to another city inthe US, there are many areas of the US where it's impossible to get a family physican, especially in rural areas. these doctor shortages are fueled by the insurance companys that are stripping the DR.s ability to run a practice after paying the outrageous malpratice insurance premiums.

In the US the individual is always given the opportunity to buy the level of care they desire. They may not be able to afford it but the opportunity is still there. In Canada it is against the law to buy your healthcare. The opportunity to provide yourself your desired level of healthcare is outlawed. It makes you a criminal for wanting to look after yourself and your family.

farfromglorified · February 2007

RainDog wrote:

The purity of your ideals is so crystal, it's almost blinding.

But you missed one bit. This man doesn't need anything. He always has the option to die.

He does have that option. Perhaps I could advocate for "Universal Death", since everyone here seems to be in the business of dictating "solutions" for people. I guess the only question left is which sector of society I'll force to be executioners.

RainDog · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

He does have that option. Perhaps I could advocate for "Universal Death", since everyone here seems to be in the business of dictating "solutions" for people.

No need to advocate for Universal Death, as death is already universal.

farfromglorified wrote:

I guess the only question left is which sector of society I'll force to be executioners.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you don't currently have that right. Start a petition, or a vote drive. Maybe you could get some politicians on your side, get a law passed, you know.

Me? I'll be advocating Universal Healthcare. Chances are neither of us will get what we want. But if I were a betting man, I'd place it on me.

cincybearcat · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Let me tell you what needs to be done. The man needs cancer treatment. That's what needs to be done, for him.

Now, you can either give him that treatment, you can deny him that treatment, or you can force someone else to do it for you.

Which do you choose?

Didn't know it was up to me entirely...he gets treatment...you pay for it.

Problem solved.

miller8966 · February 2007

what kind of cancer is it?

farfromglorified · February 2007

RainDog wrote:

No need to advocate for Universal Death, as death is already universal.

I suppose it is, yes. Perhaps "Universal Murder" would have been the better wording. But that probably won't fly with the voters. How about "Universal Temporal Liberation"???

Chances are neither of us will get what we want. But if I were a betting man, I'd place it on me.

Me too. Universal health care will be in place here within the next 15 years.

farfromglorified · February 2007

cincybearcat wrote:

Didn't know it was up to me entirely...he gets treatment...you pay for it.

Problem solved.

Hehe...finally some straight talk on this issue.

hippiemom · February 2007

miller8966 wrote:

what kind of cancer is it?

_______________________

nick1977 wrote:

I had a client come into my office today. It is a couple, in their 50's. The man is a self employed truck driver, making very little money (and even less since he started going through cancer treatments). The woman makes $125 per week as a receptionist. They own a small house, and he inherited 60 acres of land from his father. They cannot afford health insurance, even though both are good, hard working people. The man has been diagnosed with colon cancer, and need extensive treatment that he cannot pay for.

prism · February 2007

surferdude wrote:

In the US the individual is always given the opportunity to buy the level of care they desire. They may not be able to afford it but the opportunity is still there. In Canada it is against the law to buy your healthcare. The opportunity to provide yourself your desired level of healthcare is outlawed. It makes you a criminal for wanting to look after yourself and your family.

so according to you the rich deserve better health care because they can afford it. how is the opportunity still there if one can't pay for it?

nick1977 · February 2007

miller8966 wrote:

what kind of cancer is it?

Colon cancer

miller8966 · February 2007

nick1977 wrote:

Colon cancer

Hey its sad..but he chose to be self employed right?

And how does one get colon cancer anyway? Usually bad diet? Should i be taxed because of it?

Kann · February 2007

miller8966 wrote:

Hey its sad..but he chose to be self employed right?

And how does one get colon cancer anyway? Usually bad diet? Should i be taxed because of it?

Yes, but you can also live a very healthy life and get cancer just out of bad luck. It's like smokers, they have it coming but they don't have the monopoly on lung cancer. Cancer is unfair.

farfromglorified wrote:

There is no injustice in a sick man not receiving treatment. No human being owes a sick man treatment, by default.

You speak of "duty" as if you can simply define it for everyone. That is the height of arrogance and injustice. You have no right to tell me what my "duty" is unless you're willing to grant that same right to me.

Both of those points are pure logic. But not really human, it's hard to deny treatment on a sickness like cancer (wich is extremely painful) because of money when the patient lives in a society where money is everywhere.
And no a doctor on his own can't act out of charity to cure that patient because it takes more than the will of just one doctor to cure such a sickness.
I understand the logic behind your points and letting people die and/or suffer may seem logical but it is not human.
If your country were to have a referendum on universal healthcare stating at a majority your fellow citizens wish to have that would you still feel ripped off?

Jeanwah · February 2007

It's so easy to have a judgement about this issue without knowing what it's really like when you need medical attention and have no insurance. I know that if I was suddenly out of work, and came down with cancer or a debilitating disease, I'd want to be treated....regardless of having the luxery of having insurance. And that's what the people who are against universal healthcare are conveniently ignoring; the "what ifs" of something happening to them at the most inopportune time.

My sister works in public healthcare. She sees the brunt of sick people that she cannot treat because they don't have enough insurance. It's enough to make one sick that nothing can be done. But it also takes the attribute of actually caring for other people, and not just yourself, to see that this is a huge problem that's not being taken care of by our government.

tooferz · February 2007

if his drive to live is strong enough, he will give up the land. i agree it's not fair. i've lied, cheated and did illegal things to pay for treatment and still be able to raise my daughter. you do what you have to do. luckily, cincinnati has many hospitals and organizations that do help.

as for not planning for something like this...you usually can't plan for cancer. most of you can't even fathom how expensive cancer drugs are, even without doctors, nurses, surgeries, tests, etc. my chemo is $16,000.00 a month. 192k a year! just for chemo! add in scans, surgeries, etc. who in the hell can plan for THAT before they are 30? even 40? as a result a lot of people are put in this man's position everyday.

there is no easy solution for this problem. one step would be to stop the shady practices of pharmaceutical companies. another would be stop or cap frivolous malpractice suits so doctors aren't scared to practice and can afford to. as a result, insurance companies aren't paying out large medical claims and malpractice settlements. maybe that would help to bring medical costs under control a little

hippiemom · February 2007

miller8966 wrote:

Hey its sad..but he chose to be self employed right?

And how does one get colon cancer anyway? Usually bad diet? Should i be taxed because of it?

You can almost never know why someone got cancer. There's no simple equation. Even the most well-known causes with the highest degree of correlation, like asbestos or smoking, it's not possible to link the disease with a definite cause. We all know people who smoked all their lives and never got cancer, and I work with a woman who never smoked, never lived with a smoker, and she's fighting stage 3 lung cancer in her early 50s. I am in none of the risk groups for ovarian cancer, and here I am with stage 3 at a ridiculously young age (most women who get this are 60+).

Statistics can tell you that a certain type of cancer is more likely to occur in a certain group of people, but it can rarely pinpoint why a given person has cancer ... i.e., it's almost impossible to say "If only you'd done this, or not done that, you wouldn't have cancer." Don't blame sick people for being sick.

angelica · February 2007

Kann wrote:

Both of those points are pure logic. But not really human, it's hard to deny treatment on a sickness like cancer (wich is extremely painful) because of money when the patient lives in a society where money is everywhere.
And no a doctor on his own can't act out of charity to cure that patient because it takes more than the will of just one doctor to cure such a sickness.
I understand the logic behind your points and letting people die and/or suffer may seem logical but it is not human.

True. I like that you notice the validity of the logic, while also realizing there is more to it than just logic. I agree.

Abookamongstthemany · February 2007

Kann wrote:

Yes, but you can also live a very healthy life and get cancer just out of bad luck. It's like smokers, they have it coming but they don't have the monopoly on lung cancer. Cancer is unfair.

Both of those points are pure logic. But not really human, it's hard to deny treatment on a sickness like cancer (wich is extremely painful) because of money when the patient lives in a society where money is everywhere.
And no a doctor on his own can't act out of charity to cure that patient because it takes more than the will of just one doctor to cure such a sickness.
I understand the logic behind your points and letting people die and/or suffer may seem logical but it is not human.
If your country were to have a referendum on universal healthcare stating at a majority your fellow citizens wish to have that would you still feel ripped off?

Putting value of one's possessions first before the needs of fellow human beings has been the leading cause of dehumanization of our species.

I don't like being told what to do with my money...true enough. But I hate much worse to see a sick or needy person go without.

ThumbingMyWay32 · February 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Putting value of one's possessions first before the needs of fellow human beings has been the leading cause of dehumanization of our species.

I don't like being told what to do with my money...true enough. But I hate much worse to see a sick or needy person go without.

Then give them your money and help them out if you feel the need to. There's no one for the worse just because you feel they aren't charitable enough. And it certainly isn't leading to the dehumanization of our species? What the hell? I'll be the judge of how much my own possessions are worth.

mookie blaylock 10 · February 2007

nick1977 wrote:

I had a client come into my office today. It is a couple, in their 50's. The man is a self employed truck driver, making very little money (and even less since he started going through cancer treatments). The woman makes $125 per week as a receptionist. They own a small house, and he inherited 60 acres of land from his father. They cannot afford health insurance, even though both are good, hard working people. The man has been diagnosed with colon cancer, and need extensive treatment that he cannot pay for.

They told me that the land is the only thing they have, and were planning on living on it when they retire. Now they are afraid that they must sell it to pay for his cancer treatment.

He can only qualify for Medicaid assistance after selling the land and using the proceeds to pay for his treatment.

This is wrong. Cancer can hit any one of us. It is not right for some people to have to use all of their assets to pay for treatment because they do not have the money to pay for health insurance. If I got cancer, I could keep my life savings because my health insurance would pay for my treatments.

This is just wrong. I don't know what the solution is, but there is a double standard.....we make the lower income bracket who cannot afford health insurance sell all they have to pay for their health care for life threatning problems, while middle inocme and up, who are covered by health insurance, can keep their life savings because their insurance will pay for their care.

This is not right. I believe everyone should have health coverage for catestrophic life threatning injuries (I'm not talking about routine medical procedures). Cancer can hit any one of us at any time. I think society has a duty to take care of those people. If one cannot afford health insurance, the government should pick up the tab.

I don't know what the solution is, but I just recognize that this is unjust, and is not right in a society where we have abundant resources.

completely unjust. i agree. my brother in law recently went through treatment for his colon cancer...chemo, radiation, then surgery. both my sister and him make about 200$ - $250 a week. no way they could have gone through this last year without the health programs we have here. all of his lodging, meals, and meds were paid for and so were his treatments. his loss of income while he was sick was the only big loss they had to endure, and that was helped out by employment insurance benefits. i'm happy to say he appears to be cancer free now and has been gradually getting back into doing some work.

it's very sad that there are so many people in the scenario you described. as you said, it's just not right.

mookie blaylock 10 · February 2007

i made my reply to the original post before reading some of the responses in the thread. given that this is the train wreck, i'm not entirely surprised...but wow, are there some callous, cold-hearted people out there. :( some people obviously have a difficult time putting themselves in someone else's shoes. i hope that you never have to experience something like what the original poster spoke of, what hippiemom has had to go through, or what my brother-in-law went through.

you would think that people would be in favour of helping out other human beings, but i guess there are those out there who are selfish enough to be so cold as to blame someone for getting sick or imply that wouldn't help out a fellow human being in need. sad. :(

Universal Health Care

Comments

Categories