Thread: Are We Incrementally Losing Our Freedom?

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

Well, none of that happens in reality.

First of all, Canada spends less than half as much on health care as we do, and they live longer.
Costs of Health Care Administration: U.S. vs. Canada - General Medicine

Canada is #11, and America is #38... right below Cuba. Speaking of Cuba, did you know some Americans have started going to Cuba for cheaper and better health care?
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second of all, just because they *could* go to the clinic for the sniffles doesn't mean they do. Why not? Because they know the doc can't do anything. When you feel crappy, and you know you'll just be told to drink fluids, why bother expending the effort? You're bypassing basic logic, here...

Have you actually looked into the way universal health care functions in coutries which have had it for decades? If you had, you would find that your scenario doesn't match up with reality.

My question was general - once again you are making it a personal attack by questioning my logic and grasp of reality. I find it demeaning and belittling for you to do so unprovoked my me. You have no cause to be condescending to me.

As I said in my post, I am taking the word of a poster who claims to live in a country with universal health care. Now maybe he exaggerated the case or misspoke, I don't know.

You state that "Well, none of that happens in reality." OK, now I could just take your word, or you might back that up with fact?
How do you know this? Have you ever practiced as a health care provider and dealt with malingerers, lonely people who feign illness just to have someone to talk to, prescription drug seekers, etc? People go to health centers with just the sniffles and more. Some for real health problems, some imagined.
I had a patient once with a file about 4 inches thick. She had been visiting this particular "free" clinic for approximately 20 years, once or twice a week. For her it was a just social visit more than anything else. Basic logic bypassed - but there she was none-the-less. I have talked with many docs with similar cases.

Sorry, but my reality just doesn't match with your scenario.

Originally Posted by honedright

My question was general - once again you are making it a personal attack by questioning my logic and grasp of reality. I find it demeaning and belittling for you to do so unprovoked my me.

As I said in my post, I am taking the word of a poster who claims to live in a country with universal health care. Now maybe he exaggerated the case or misspoke, I don't know.

You state that "Well, none of that happens in reality." OK, now I could just take your word, or you might back that up with fact?
How do you know this? Have you ever practiced as a health care provider and dealt with malingerers, lonely people who feign illness just to have someone to talk to, prescription drug seekers, etc?
I had a patient once with a file about 4 inches thick. She had been visiting this particular "free" clinic for approximately 20 years, once or twice a week. For her it was a just social visit more than anything else. Basic logic bypassed - but there she was none-the-less. I have talked with many docs with similar cases.

Sorry, but my reality just doesn't match with your scenario.

I apologize. I just fail to see how such scenarios, which apparently you don't even think are likely, further the discussion.

He didn't misspeak. You *could* go for the sniffles. But the fact that you could doesn't mean people do. It's only an exaggeration to assume anyone would.

If people went to the doctor for every cold, pimple, and headache, it would be reflected in the cost of maintaining the system, and surely, after nearly 50 years of having public health care, they'd have dealt with such abuses.

There will always by hypochondriacs, Münchhausen's (by proxy), drug abusers, and other anxiety-related mental disorders and addiction problems. But they certainly don't reflect the majority, or even a significant minority, of people.

People in America with such disorders have equally thick medical files, regardless of cost. I knew such a person who drove herself into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt due to her hypochondria. Whether health care is free or not has no effect on how people express mental disorders. Mental disorders, by their very nature, cause people to do things which are not logically sound.

I don't think we can deduce the patterns of the majority by the actions of a tiny minority.

Besides what MistressNomad said about hypochondriacs and people with recognized psychological disorders, I'll just mention that we already have overprescription of antibiotics, overprescription of Ritalin and various psychotropics for children, and far too many C-sections, to name a few examples, under our expensive system of for-profit health insurance. On a casual reading it may very well seem logical that cheaper and more readily available medical care would lead to overuse, but in fact the experience of countries that have such care (the entire developed world except us) doesn't appear to bear that out.

~Rich

Without quoting a lot of the points folks are making, I'll just say what I dislike about what I know about this bill (granted it's but a little) - in the end, these really are impingements on mine and my family's freedom.

The financial aspects of this bill that will impose strict penalties on certain households depending on their own decisions regarding health care worry me most. Additional taxes for not purchasing health care, taxes for offering "Cadillac Plans" to your employees, etc. I should have a freedom from unnecessary, burdensome and unfair taxes for basic life decisions.

Without getting into a case by case basis, I do understand that unavoidable purchases in life are normally taxed, but should NON-purchases be taxed? And at what level will I meet my quota of mandated insurance? And at what price will that requirement be met? You tax my gas, but I don't need to buy a minimum. And if I choose to walk to work, I don't get penalized for NOT buying gas. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

There is a lot of talk about not being rejected for pre-existing conditions - as if rejection is the worst thing that could happen. What's worse would be being forced to purchase a plan with a medical condition that spikes my insurance rate, and either limits my choices for medical care to a list of doctors I wouldn't normally consider or is a waste because I choose an out-of-network provider that isn't covered. Or perhaps being forced to purchase a plan that just doesn't cover my doctor, without the grim bad luck of a serious condition. My current plan doesn't cover my doctor and it's ridiculously expensive!

I just found out yesterday that I have to submit a medical claim for a payment that won't be reimbursed so I can fulfill an annual deductible before my insurance begins to pay for covered services. Which basically means, after spending money on an insurance plan I have to prove I spent my own money before my insurance pays anything. And by the by, we're not talking about co-pays, because after I meet the deductible I'll have the good fortune of only paying co-pays. Not $20 - 10%. The deductible alone is much more than chump change. It's months of salary that must be spent out of pocket before insurance covers anything. I know, I know...

My stance: I've studied Rawls (pfft!), and I'm no utilitarian - I'm a selfish jerk who only cares about my family and myself. I could care less what's good for everyone, I just want what's best for me. Is that so wrong? It is? Well tell me friend, can you spare a few grand for my shrink bills?

I was listening to the radio while driving down the highway the other night, and the host of a talk radio show had a democratic guest (Dennis Kucinich) and a Republican one (some guy running for congress in Idaho, I think it was).

Anyway, I thought Kucinich was a lot more eloquent than his counterpart. First, he said he wasn't necessarily gung-ho about the new health care reform, since he wasn't sure exactly how well it was going to work (and I suppose no one is), but he seemed thoughtful about how when it came time to vote for this particular bill, it was up to him whether or not to kill it or not, and allowing it to survive ensured that it could at least be attempted rather than let it be disregarded for many years to come. And that's what politics is about -making room for new ideas and attempting them, rather than allowing partisan beliefs to rule you.

The guy hoping to be a congressman was a lot more knee-jerk in his stance. Emotional, too; yelling and obviously trying hard to let it go no further than that. He even went on to say that his mother has Lupus, and mounting health care bills that they're struggling to afford, and yet both he and she would rather have the for-profit health care competitors charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars than have a reasonable, structured health care system that all Americans can benefit from. He was unable to look at both sides, to reason. The only thing he could think about was how something was being taken from him. One of his "freedoms."

Frankly, I don't really care either way what the US does about this, but witnessing the ignorance from people is pretty spooky. A lot of people are acting like Dale Gribble on King of the Hill, wanting to stockpile weapons and ammunition for fear of the government coming to seize them...calling Obama the anti-Christ and suggesting that the seven seals are being broken one by one. There's not going to be a hammer and sickle on the flag. Just relax. Educate yourselves about the countries that have adopted similar health care systems and then realize that they're better than the pre-existing American one.

BingoBango, you've just made the best argument on this thread for what many of us hope will eventually become the law of the land: universal single payer healthcare.]

You're being dragged through a bunch of administrative hoo-hah to satisfy contractual requirements buried inside an insurance policy that is driven by NOTHING but the needs of the insurance company to generate profits.

Inurance corporations are, first and foremost, corporations. As a corporation, its only duty is to create a profit for its shareholders. You and your family's well-being are entirely irrelevant in the process.

There's a better way that does you know harm and offers much good. It's the same effective model that in use in civilized countries all over the globe.

Originally Posted by rastewart

Besides what MistressNomad said about hypochondriacs and people with recognized psychological disorders, I'll just mention that we already have overprescription of antibiotics, overprescription of Ritalin and various psychotropics for children, and far too many C-sections, to name a few examples, under our expensive system of for-profit health insurance. On a casual reading it may very well seem logical that cheaper and more readily available medical care would lead to overuse, but in fact the experience of countries that have such care (the entire developed world except us) doesn't appear to bear that out.

~Rich

You bring up a very good point about medications. Our medical system is so money-focused that we are drugging people when they don't need to be drugged, with medications that are not FDA approved for the way they're being used. It's abusive and insane.

On the C-section front, I was just reading the blog of a friend of mine the other day (American). She advised women who are pregnant, or want children, to have a "spokesperson" in the hospital when they're ready to give birth, because the hospital will likely try to force a C-section on her whether she needs it or not. That is also abusive and insane.

This is what happens when you turn people's lives into a money game. Health comes second. Actually, not even that. Money first, lawsuit coverage second, then health.

Well I come from a country with socialised healthcare, and I can tell you plainly, I wouldn't go to the doctor with the sniffles or a headache, because firstly I wouldn't want to waste his time and secondly he would kindly and pssibly politely inform me I was wasting his time and to go home.

However, I also know that there are people out there who suffer mental issues which cause them to believe they need medical attention, and a number of these are recognised mental conditions, and in such cases patients would generally be recommended for phsychiatric treatment here, which incidentally is also free.

In my general doctors surgery it is much preferred to make an appointment, however if I was injured or suddenly taken ill, I know I could go to my doctors surgery and be treated straight away.

In fact the only time I ever find myself waiting generally is at an ER, and well that's because it's busy, and I generally have went when I have injured a leg or an arm or taken a knock to the head but am still lucid, if however I went to the ER losing blood or unconcious or injured and not in a lucid state I would be treated immediately.

So my point being in response ot a previous post, yes there are people who go to a doctor feining illness to get unnecessary treatment, however these folks if they are suffering from a mental issue are treated, and this is in my mind a good use of healthcare, if however they are plainly "extracting the urine" then in my experience they are treated politely but generally made aware they have wasted the doctors time.

Geek

Oh incidentally on edit

We pay for medication here in the UK, however we all pay the same, it's like litterally a few pounds we pay for a prescription. Unless you are earning practically nothing in which case income assessment means you pay nothing for medication.

Also as far as I recall, in a NHS hospital a C-Section will generally only be performed if it is necessary.

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

Frankly, I don't really care either way what the US does about this, but witnessing the ignorance from people is pretty spooky. A lot of people are acting like Dale Gribble on King of the Hill, wanting to stockpile weapons and ammunition for fear of the government coming to seize them...calling Obama the anti-Christ and suggesting that the seven seals are being broken one by one. There's not going to be a hammer and sickle on the flag. Just relax. Educate yourselves about the countries that have adopted similar health care systems and then realize that they're better than the pre-existing American one.

We have no argument here...whats the saying...wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something...

Believe me, these types are the smallest of factions of the population, but, because of their disfunction, they always talk the loudest and the most, consequently, you are always hearing them or about them. Then we have the media, as I alluded to earlier...hyping for copy or agenda...would have you thinking the world is about to end...so stay tuned.

A great example...in the early 90's, my line of work was public service lets say...and in the particular part of the country where I worked, we had a bout for a few months with The Militia...as they are sometimes called. This received national coverage...long standing national coverage. Though they were idiots...paranoids...whatever, I'm telling you they amounted to a handful of incompetents and gave up the cause when we knocked at the door, so to speak. I'm sure the folks in New York thought we were holding the line until the tanks got to us. Again, not much to worry about.

Like someone in government said recentlyt, "never waste a crisis and if you don't have one, create one...."

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

The only concept I have seen being bantered about will do nothing but drive prices up. It does not limit amounts, it just makes people pay for higher amounts. The people who pay are the energy consumers, not the energy producers.

Cap and trade will drive prices up, but the entire increase will not be passed on to the consumer. Simple economics dictates that the supply curve will shift, and the demand curve will stay the same. Thus, the producers will split the cost with the consumers. To what extent is dependent upon the amount and cost of energy credits.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

And industry has put clean water where there was none, has turned millions of acres of infertile land, fertile. Has used those acres to feed millions of city dwellers that have no other means of substinance, making "civilized life" possible. Has built pipelines and canals, built railroads,tractor trailers, and airplanes bringing products from the far reaches of the earth to your neighborhood store. Has provided employment for millions of people, allowing them to work for income, to provide for responsibilities and purchase their wants. Has taken the standard of living from a one room house, to where the poor need to decide between which tv to watch. Which has basically given us a world in which we have the spare time to sit around and invent problems.

I travel to places (most of them on indian reservations) where the water is unsafe to drink, and will be for several years due to pollutants from industry. There are some industries that have done a fantastic job of replenishing natural resources, and in many cases more so than what they've consumed. But, it shouldn't be overlooked that other industries have destroyed the environment around them. As a market capitalist, this cannot be overlooked. There is no means for the market itself to regulate that. I don't want to see strict government oversight. I also don't want to see taxes that cripple industry. But, I do believe that industry should bear the burden of it's environmental consequences.