Thread: The purpose of government

Originally Posted by majurey

Well, in that case nothing in life is free right? So what are we saying here?

What I meant was to draw a comparison between the excellent state healthcare I get which I get irrespective of whether it's a cold or triple bypass surgery (and I don't pay more tax depending on treatment) and medical insurance which varies depending on how much of a risk I pose to the insurers. There's no concept of risk with the NHS unlike a commercial business like an insurer which will always try to wriggle out of any claim you make. It has to make a profit after all. With state healthcare the driving force is not profit, the driving force is your individual welfare.

But I digress. My own personal opinion is those very valid points above (namely I'll choose what services I want, government keep their beaks out of it) is a very individualistic stance. You see, I might not be in a position to help friends and family financially if they require some big medical outlay. They'll just die I guess. But I'm OK Jack, because I choose what to spend my money on. With a state healthcare system funded through taxes my kith and kin are also looked after equally well.

I guess that's why I believe in the state.

This passage I find interesting as I had just recently heard it reported that A larger percentage of people do not survive such operation in Canada and the UK than in the USA! and that was based on the patients who actually made it to the front of the line before keeling over!

Originally Posted by JMS

This passage I find interesting as I had just recently heard it reported that A larger percentage of people do not survive such operation in Canada and the UK than in the USA! and that was based on the patients who actually made it to the front of the line before keeling over!

Hey, all I wrote was "excellent healthcare", not "the best healthcare in the world" or "healthcare that's better than in America". I'm sure the US has a good record for triple bypass. Excellent news for those who can afford the procedure, for sure! Of course, I don't have to 'afford' my healthcare -- it's there if I'm coining it in and paying taxes, and it's there if I happen to be jobless and therefore paying no taxes. Whatever life throws at me in my career/work does not affect my right to treatment. I find that very comforting and worth some taxes.

As an aside, I'm sure the stats did not include those who were uninsured or without means to even discover they needed bypass surgery? With a national health system, I can call on the full resource of the hospitals whether it turns out to be angina, heartburn, or a dodgy ticker, even if I were jobless with no med insurance. Give me a queue (and for conditions like bypass it's pretty short over here) any day over the hopeless situation I'd be in if I found myself without the NHS or insurance.

Whichever way you dice it, I'd rather live in a governed state than the wild west. But I do appreciate that's not for everyone.

Originally Posted by majurey

Hey, all I wrote was "excellent healthcare", not "the best healthcare in the world" or "healthcare that's better than in America". I'm sure the US has a good record for triple bypass. Excellent news for those who can afford the procedure, for sure! Of course, I don't have to 'afford' my healthcare -- it's there if I'm coining it in and paying taxes, and it's there if I happen to be jobless and therefore paying no taxes. Whatever life throws at me in my career/work does not affect my right to treatment. I find that very comforting and worth some taxes.

As an aside, I'm sure the stats did not include those who were uninsured or without means to even discover they needed bypass surgery? With a national health system, I can call on the full resource of the hospitals whether it turns out to be angina, heartburn, or a dodgy ticker, even if I were jobless with no med insurance. Give me a queue (and for conditions like bypass it's pretty short over here) any day over the hopeless situation I'd be in if I found myself without the NHS or insurance.

Whichever way you dice it, I'd rather live in a governed state than the wild west. But I do appreciate that's not for everyone.

That's the funniest thing I've heard so far ---- I guess I like the wild west.

Justin

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

That's the funniest thing I've heard so far ---- I guess I like the wild west.

Justin

Oops, in no way did I mean to insinuate the US is like the wild west! I was trying to draw a comparison between a governed state and one with fewer restrictions.

Originally Posted by majurey

Oops, in no way did I mean to insinuate the US is like the wild west! I was trying to draw a comparison between a governed state and one with fewer restrictions.

No I wasn't insulted ---- I really do like the wild west ---- I wish we could be a little bit more wild and I figured a good proper British chap as yourself might like a well governed state ----- I just thought how you said it was funny ----- No problem.


Justin

Originally Posted by majurey

Hey, all I wrote was "excellent healthcare", not "the best healthcare in the world" or "healthcare that's better than in America". I'm sure the US has a good record for triple bypass. Excellent news for those who can afford the procedure, for sure! Of course, I don't have to 'afford' my healthcare -- it's there if I'm coining it in and paying taxes, and it's there if I happen to be jobless and therefore paying no taxes. Whatever life throws at me in my career/work does not affect my right to treatment. I find that very comforting and worth some taxes.

As an aside, I'm sure the stats did not include those who were uninsured or without means to even discover they needed bypass surgery? With a national health system, I can call on the full resource of the hospitals whether it turns out to be angina, heartburn, or a dodgy ticker, even if I were jobless with no med insurance. Give me a queue (and for conditions like bypass it's pretty short over here) any day over the hopeless situation I'd be in if I found myself without the NHS or insurance.

Whichever way you dice it, I'd rather live in a governed state than the wild west. But I do appreciate that's not for everyone.

If I didn't know better, based on your post I would think people were dying all over America in the streets and back alleys because they couldn't afford health care! Nothing could be further from the truth!

Originally Posted by JMS

If I didn't know better, based on your post I would think people were dying all over America in the streets and back alleys because they couldn't afford health care! Nothing could be further from the truth!

Nahh, that's not what I meant. Let me put it another way... in a state where there's a national health system, the number of people who can't afford life-saving treatment is zero.

Originally Posted by JMS

If I didn't know better, based on your post I would think people were dying all over America in the streets and back alleys because they couldn't afford health care! Nothing could be further from the truth!

Which part isn't true... the streets and back alleys, or the all over America?

I believe people are dying all over America (regardless of venue) because they can't afford healthcare at all or they can't afford sufficient healthcare.

Hardly a day goes by that there isn't a story in the news about someone who can't get treatment because they're uninsured, because their insurance won't cover the procedures, becasue they can't afford the drugs they need to treat the illness, because their insurance has reached a "lifetime limit", etc.

I agree that if you have a broken arm and no insurance you can go to a hospital and they most likely will treat you pro bono. But if you go needing an organ transplant, cancer treatment, a major operation, some costly medication, etc. I don't think you're likely to get the treatments you need. YMMV

Originally Posted by azjoe

Which part isn't true... the streets and back alleys, or the all over America?

I believe people are dying all over America (regardless of venue) because they can't afford healthcare at all or they can't afford sufficient healthcare.

Hardly a day goes by that there isn't a story in the news about someone who can't get treatment because they're uninsured, because their insurance won't cover the procedures, becasue they can't afford the drugs they need to treat the illness, because their insurance has reached a "lifetime limit", etc.

I agree that if you have a broken arm and no insurance you can go to a hospital and they most likely will treat you pro bono. But if you go needing an organ transplant, cancer treatment, a major operation, some costly medication, etc. I don't think you're likely to get the treatments you need. YMMV

I assume you mean the media thats in the back pocket of the liberals ? The same media that you just recently complained so bitterly about? The same media that depends on the worst stories to get an audience? The same media that every other story is " Hot breaking news"? Or is there another news media that I am unaware of?

I know I am opening a gigantic can of worms but I guess I will. This is a question that will ultimately face all of us on either side of the Socialized Medicine dilemma.

The question is: Is Free (Tax Supported) Medical Care a Natural Right of Citizenship (God help us ensure that it's for citizens!!! But that is another story. And no, I absolutely do not hate immigrants - I embrace immigration as a natural right.) If medical care is a natural right, is there a limit to the time or money that will be spent on treatment using taxpayers' money? Does rarity of ailment preclude some from be treated at all? If one would rather seek private treatment instead of waiting in line for the public clinic, is it legal to do so?

As we know, many countries have answered those questions by saying it is illegal to receive private treatment - forcing their own citizens to wait or leave the country (if they are financially able) to buy their treatment in another country. If it's a natural right, how can it be limited by mere cost.

If it is provided by the state for free (presumably not for profit) where do the drug companies and doctors find incentives to produce new and top notch technology to continue to offer the best treatments and services?

Finally, haven't we already seen this concept fail miserably everywhere it has been tried? (Right now, I believe that the Socialized Medicine countries are benefitting from the ingenuity of free-er market countries' technology - but I could be wrong.)

Thoughts?