collapse. A link will be given but here is the essence of the
story on Yahoo. Primary care the basic medical car patients get
when visiting their doctors for routine physicals and minor problems,
could fall apart in the U.S. without immediate reforms, the
college of Physicians said today. Primary care is on the verge of
collapse said the organization which certifies internists.
Very few young physicians are going into primary care
and those already in practice are under such stress they are
looking for an exit strategy. Part of the problem is the reimbursement
policies of medicare and private insurers reward a 'JUST IN TIME"
approach instead of preventive care that would save both money
and lives. later in the article, The group warns that the U.S. health care
system is untenable. Especial since the wave of baby boomers,
is about to flood the medical system, as we are just turning 60.
I am a young boomer and I am 46 with some medical issues.
Surgery in two weeks.
We must face the music and begin the discussion for
universal health care for every one in this country.
Failure to move on this issue could cost the lives of thousands
in this country. We cannot hide our head in the sand anymore and
pretend all is well in this country. Without action, we risk the health of
future generations of americans. That would be most of you people.
I admit I laughed a lot when I saw that the country
that has the best overall health system performance
was that hated country, FRANCE. those frogs has a
far better health system then the U.S… The U.S.
wasn’t even in the top twenty. And yet we still spend far
more then anybody. Yah, go ahead, try to tell me the
system still works. I dare yah.
Hi, Peter. Certainly universal health care does seem attractive.
And yet it seems to me that underlying such a system must be the idea that redistribution of wealth - the forced confiscation by a third party (the government) of one person’s earnings to be handed to another person as health care - must be morally defensible.
Is there in fact an argument for the morality of such activity?
Jerry:Hi, Peter. Certainly universal health care does seem attractive.
And yet it seems to me that underlying such a system must be the idea that redistribution of wealth - the forced confiscation by a third party (the government) of one person’s earnings to be handed to another person as health care - must be morally defensible.
Is there in fact an argument for the morality of such activity?"
K: The fact of the matter is the system is failing.
Millions (45 million) don’t even have health care,
and still we spend more then every single industrial country on
health care. Decent health care would save lives and
that is your morality. The redistribution of wealth
pales in comparison to the lives we save by going to
a universal health care. Looking at the link provided by
Xunzian shows that the U.S. is last in infant mortality in
the industrial world. Last. This shows we have failed our future
by not taking care of the health system. If you try to justify
not changing the system with wealth redistribution idea’s,
then you have put money ahead of people.
An idea I will never accept.
Jerry: So it’s ends-justifies-means?
I just want to be sure I understand."
K: Ok, let us play 5 questions.
Is the U.S. health system near collapse?
If so, then would such a collapse cost an whole
lot more money to fix after it collapses?
Does the U.S. spent the most money in the industrial world on
health care?
Does the U.S. have the highest infant mortality rate in the
industrial world?
How many millions do not have health care in the U.S.?
It becomes a greater issue then just a simply the “end justifies the
means” problem. That would unfairly turn this issue into a sound bite.
We are talking about lives. People lives. It is not about the end game,
it is about finding a solution to a problem before it becomes a greater
problem. That is not an end justifies the mean, it becomes a pro-active,
search for solutions.
If you have a car and you think there is a problem, do you wait
until the car stops running before you check into it, or do you
try to fix the car before it need expensive repairs.
I think we must fix health care with universal health care,
without thinking in terms of such biased words such as the
“end justifies the mean”.
Well I’m not sure I see “end justifies the means†as “biased†words. I had asked for a moral argument for forced confiscation of a person’s property and you provided an ends-justifies-means one. I’m not sure how else you could rightly classify it.
I’m not saying that’s wrong. I just think we need to be careful when we start using such an argument to justify huge governmental interventions. I’m not sure where an argument like that stops. And so I was rather hoping for a better one.
If it was my car? I’d fix the car. If it was your car? I wouldn’t even presume to tell somebody else how to handle the affairs of their car. Nor would I suggest how individuals ought to handle the affairs of their health (let alone force my “solutions†upon them).
This article focused a lot on issues outside of the control of a country that primarily offers private health care. A proper comparison would compare only those that have health care. After all, the numbers will be skewed because The U.S. is “the only country in the developed world, except for South Africa, that does not provide health care for all its citizens.”*
From the article itself: “It depends on what we mean by best,” says W. Allen Schaffer, MD, senior vice president and chief medical officer of Cigna Healthcare. “If a person is fortunate enough to be part of an employer-sponsored health plan, he or she may have access to the best health care technology in the world. But the fact that we have so many uninsured in this country is a national disgrace.”
(1) If you can get the health care, it’s among the best in the world. If you can’t get it, don’t expect me to pay for it. Expecting me to pay for it is liberal propaganda.
(2) I like the fact this comes from “Managed Care” magazine and that it thoroughly repeated the results from WHO.
Good point, Thirst. And what gets lost here, of course, is the idea that health insurance becomes a choice. Those who bandy about the numbers of uninsured (I’ve seen the number range from 15 million to 45 million or more - it’s impossible to quantify) do not discriminate between those who sincerely cannot afford it, and those who choose to spend their money elsewhere, voluntarily foregoing heath insurance.
‘Frogs’? What have you actually got against France? It’s a lovely country, possibly the best language I’ve ever come across, has terrific engineers, radical philosophers, race riots and some of the best cheese and wine one could ask for…
Of course the French have a better health system than the US, they actually have a health system…
This has got to be one of the most divisive issues facing America today. While I have strong reservations about the efficiency of any government run system - including fixing my car, Peter’s observations aren’t necessarily wrong. The argument that we shouldn’t coerce people in supporting adequate health care is a bit specious. Some will argue this on principle, but most will play the “screw you. I’ve got mine, you get yours” game. Regardless disputed numbers, the fact that there are many people without adequate health coverage through no fault of their own is obvious. In many cases, there may be some form of coverage, but still not adequate to the needs. In the U.S., the lack of medical care falls disportionally on the young and the elderly. OK, screw the elderly. How long should they hang around anyway? But what of the suceeding generations? It is obvious to most people that what we’re doing isn’t working very well except for the ‘in’ groups.
Some things to consider:
Health insurance costs are the largest single insurance ‘ticket’ of all insurance needs.
Each year, costs rise while coverage is lessened.
Only in America do bankruptcy laws allow a special ‘medical bankruptcy’ in recognition that the cost of health care can wipe out everything you’ve conservatively worked for all your life.
A catastrophic illness can easily pass the quarter million dollar mark and do so in a couple of weeks. A day in ICU can surpass 5000 dollars.
There is something wrong in a system where the only people who can pay the tab is drug dealers and politicians on the take.
I don’t have any answers to the complexity involved, but to those who would suggest that everything is hunky-dory: Don’t stand there pissing on my shoes and calling it rain. We’re better than what we’re doing.
Yes that is inconsistent, eh Delboy? I wouldn’t worry. Soon we will have universal health care. And since food and shelter are as important (more so really) it won’t be long until we have universal food distribution where everybody gets the same access to the same amounts of food, as well as universal housing where everybody get the same access to the same size home.
I’m not seeing what’s specious about this. Coercion is exactly what it is. What else could it be called when, if I don’t surrender a part of my earnings to pay for a health care program I may in fact not be in favor of, I am sent to jail?
There are a variety of reasons to go in on Universal Health Care, they are:
Universal Health care is pro-business. The Ford company recently relocated its factory to Canada. It was considering either a southern US state because of the tax breaks, or Canada because of the Universal Health Care. The Universal Health Care eliminated the cost of providing health insurance for workers and saved the company more money than the tax breaks.
Universal Health Care is cheaper. A small percentage of your income, integrated across the entire US population really isn’t that big a deal. Particularly if it allows you to have maintanance check-ups, which most HMOs don’t cover. Catching disease early is better than finding a more advanced form of it. Preventative medicine is good.
Universal Health Care is better. See the statistics. People, on average, are healthier in countries with Universal Medicine.
Universal Health Care is just. As what point did it become OK to let those less fortunate die, merely because of who their parents were? Given the infant/child mortality rate in the US is higher than elsewhere, that is what is happening. If you want to argue that adults had a choice, I disagree but respect that line of reasoning . . . but children?
Universal Health Care helps curb over-litigation. Since health care is so expensive in the US, some people go to extremes to pay their bills. This leads to a culture of over-litigation, a phenomenon that is singular to the US. While US culture plays a large role in this, I’d wager fewer people would sue Doctors if they didn’t have such crippling bills to pay. Which brings me to my next point . . .
Captialism-driven Health Care leads to an uneven distribution of Doctors. Right now there has been a huge increase in M.D.s specializing in Plastic Surgery, coupled with a decrease in Obstertics. Why? Rhinoplasty makes the most $$$, while Obstertrics gets sued the most. Great if you want a new nose, bad if you want to have a baby.
Probably since the dawn of life… Think natural selection.
That’s an issue of (medical) jurisprudence. It will not go away just because access is universal. In fact, it would increase. The issue of lawsuits is a separate issue that requires it be addressed separately. A quick note is that our legal system protects the weak and not the strong. In California there is a law known as the “Sue Your Boss Law” for the smallest of issues.
The beautiful thing about arguing for a universal health care is that we conveniently forget all the other massive social systems that the U.S. has to gripe over: welfare (a widely abused system that promotes stagnation & dishonesty), social security (a poorly executed program), unemployment (a system that promotes stagnation + dishonesty). But I can see that adding another one will not hurt our resources… I am sure that program will run very effectively. After all, the U.S. government has a long history of running these social programs with high efficiency…
While you complain about inefficiency, I don’t see that in most European countries with socialized health care as well as a better welfare-system. Yes, abuses happen; however the net gain is more than the net loss (in crime particularly). You also don’t observe over-litigation in European nations, so I disagree with your assertion that socialized health care will increase, not decrease the problem. And if you are advocating a return-to-nature philosophy, why a health-care system at all? I fail to see how the suffering of humans can be presented as an acceptable situation.
Well, if you put it that way, there is no other answer. But the argument is won by locking up the conclusion in the definition -ie- any monies collected by any governmental authority for purposes I don’t like is coercion.
This argument has been made over and over again each time our representatives to government vote for a new tax to cover societal costs. Do you like paying income taxes so some congressman can blow a few hundred million for some pork barrel project in his district? I don’t.
The number of things that we pay for that we don’t like is prolly a pretty high number.
The issue isn’t whether we’re paying for lunch, but the cost and is everyone being fed?
Jerry:Well I’m not sure I see “end justifies the means†as “biased†words. I had asked for a moral argument for forced confiscation of a person’s property and you provided an ends-justifies-means one. I’m not sure how else you could rightly classify it.
I’m not saying that’s wrong. I just think we need to be careful when we start using such an argument to justify huge governmental interventions. I’m not sure where an argument like that stops. And so I was rather hoping for a better one.
If you have a car and you think there is a problem, do you wait
until the car stops running before you check into it, or do you
try to fix the car before it need expensive repairs.
If it was my car? I’d fix the car. If it was your car? I wouldn’t even presume to tell somebody else how to handle the affairs of their car. Nor would I suggest how individuals ought to handle the affairs of their health (let alone force my “solutions†upon them)."
K: The car I refer to, is all our car. We all have a stake
in keeping this car running. Now you used bias words such as
“a moral argument for the FORCED CONFISCATION of a person
property” and “Huge governmental interventions” whereas I see
people dying from a failure in health care. You are worried about money
and I am worried about people’s lives. A solution must be found
for a problem you fail to see.
Health care takes up about 17%
of the entire U.S. economy and is failing to do the job as shown
by the highest infant mortality rate in the industrial world.
As shown by the 45 million people without health care.
Now a bogus argument has been presented that health care
is a choice and people willingly choose not to take health care.
Bull shit. No one is that stupid. I am hard press to even imagine
anyone turning down health care without a reason such as
they won’t be able to eat food if they take the health care and
that is not a choice.
Now you may wish to continue to hide your head in the sand
and deny anything is wrong. It is standard operating procedure
for conservatives. However until you understand that when doctors
who deal with this problem every single day say there is a real
possibility of a health care collapse, you must take them seriously.
If the health care system collapses, it will cost billions upon
billions to fix and risk the health of every single American citizen.
