Healthcare is a right? -

JosephStalin

Vozhd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The free market was corrupted by monopolies and kleptocrats. It has literally nothing to do with federal money. Federal money didn't give us Martin Shkreli.

Again, the problems with the US system are worse than in any other first world country. US healthcare is a joke, so my idea is to adopt a middle road system that is proven to work like Germany's. this isn't hypothetical debate hour, this is our system is fucked and theirs is significantly less fucked. If you have a better plan that doesn't involve letting the botton 50% of Americans die on the street I'll hear you out.

Would agree that the business/money aspect of US healthcare is screwed up, but as far as care and treatment goes the US is first-rate, at least downtown. This is from personal experience for my family and myself.
 

Gym Leader Elesa

Pog my champ hole and defend the Thots
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
What evidence did they present? A meaningless graph that shows spend?

That's not evidence of anything.

It's evidence that the current system is fucked and I'm sure we could get that spending down without implementation of a universal system. It's evidence at least that an alternative system is worth considering.
 

verissimus

kiwifarms.net
In the preamble to the Constitution it states We The People will "promote the general welfare." This is enshrined in public services like EMS, firefighters, and police. Pretty basic. I don't know why the government doesn't provide healthcare. This is especially prudent when the government, by it's own admission, supplies Medicare and Medicaid to old people and young people and pregnant moms. So apparently healthcare is a right, just, only a right for like 20% of the US? Only a right if you meet certain criteria?

A preamble is a preamble. It has no bearing whatsoever as to what the powers of a government are or should be. If that was the case then you don't need Article I Section 8 or any amendment otherwise stating what powers the government does or doesn't have.
 

Snow Fox

kiwifarms.net
Yes having your entire life ruined by a bad fall is good enough.

I don't understand why people astroturf for kleptocrats for free.
Because a lot of people have the mentality of, "While this corporation is treading on me, and abusing my rights, at least the gov't isn't doing it."
You already get your ass fucked by insurance conglomerates. They are basically taxing you to pay for your healthcare. Difference is they take a huge fucking cut. A middleman basically. I think a universal healthcare system could work, we just need to get our shit together.
If you take the amount of cash it would from the rich and middle classes to provide universal/unilateral healthcare for this country it'd bankrupt us and send us into a Venezuelan style shit-vortex of inescapable tumult. I'd rather not do that for a shitload of ungrateful assholes I'll never meet, thanks.
If you take the amount of cash it would from the rich and middle classes to provide full military funding for all five military branches to protect this country and threaten the sovereignty of other nations in the name of world peace and stability, it'd bankrupt us and send us into a Venezuelan style shit-vortex of inescapable tumult. I'd rather not do that for a shitload of ungrateful assholes I'll never meet, thanks.
 

SmileyTimeDayCare

This is pleasure!
kiwifarms.net
It's evidence that the current system is fucked and I'm sure we could get that spending down without implementation of a universal system. It's evidence at least that an alternative system is worth considering.

It is an unsourced graph.

My post was clipped by the character limit which is apparently 30k and change...I'm not attempting to condense that shit and let's face it no one was going to read it.

The answer is to remove the government's nearly unlimited funds from the equation. It killed the market. The government killed healthcare in this country--they aren't the answer to the issues.

I am a general surgeon with more than three decades in private clinical practice. And I am fed up. Since the late 1970s, I have witnessed remarkable technological revolutions in medicine, from CT scans to robot-assisted surgery. But I have also watched as medicine slowly evolved into the domain of technicians, bookkeepers, and clerks.

Government interventions over the past four decades have yielded a cascade of perverse incentives, bureaucratic diktats, and economic pressures that together are forcing doctors to sacrifice their independent professional medical judgment, and their integrity. The consequence is clear: Many doctors from my generation are exiting the field. Others are seeing their private practices threatened with bankruptcy, or are giving up their autonomy for the life of a shift-working hospital employee. Governments and hospital administrators hold all the power, while doctors—and worse still, patients—hold none.
The Coding Revolution
At first, the decay was subtle. In the 1980s, Medicare imposed price controls upon physicians who treated anyone over 65. Any provider wishing to get compensated was required to use International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to describe the service when submitting a bill. The designers of these systems believed that standardized classifications would lead to more accurate adjudication of Medicare claims.
What it actually did was force doctors to wedge their patients and their services into predetermined, ill-fitting categories. This approach resembled the command-and-control models used in the Soviet bloc and the People’s Republic of China, models that were already failing spectacularly by the end of the 1980s.


I am a general surgeon with more than three decades in private clinical practice. And I am fed up.

Before long, these codes were attached to a fee schedule based upon the amount of time a medical professional had to devote to each patient, a concept perilously close to another Marxist relic: the labor theory of value. Named the Resource-Based Relative Value System (RBRVS), each procedure code was assigned a specific value, by a panel of experts, based supposedly upon the amount of time and labor it required. It didn’t matter if an operation was being performed by a renowned surgical expert—perhaps the inventor of the procedure—or by a doctor just out of residency doing the operation for the first time. They both got paid the same.
Hospitals’ reimbursements for their Medicare-patient treatments were based on another coding system: the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG). Each diagnostic code is assigned a specific monetary value, and the hospital is paid based on one or a combination of diagnostic codes used to describe the reason for a patient’s hospitalization. If, say, the diagnosis is pneumonia, then the hospital is given a flat amount for that diagnosis, regardless of the amount of equipment, staffing, and days used to treat a particular patient.
As a result, the hospital is incentivized to attach as many adjunct diagnostic codes as possible to try to increase the Medicare payday. It is common for hospital coders to contact the attending physicians and try to coax them into adding a few more diagnoses into the hospital record.
Medicare has used these two price-setting systems (RBRVS for doctors, DRG for hospitals) to maintain its price control system for more than 20 years. Doctors and their advocacy associations cooperated, trading their professional latitude for the lure of maintaining monopoly control of the ICD and CPT codes that determine their payday. The goal of setting their own prices has proved elusive, though—every year the industry’s biggest trade group, the American Medical Association, squabbles with various medical specialty associations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) over fees.
As goes Medicare, so goes the private insurance industry. Insurers, starting in the late 1980s, began the practice of using the Medicare fee schedule to serve as the basis for negotiation of compensation with the doctors and hospitals on their preferred provider lists. An insurance company might offer a hospital 130 percent of Medicare’s reimbursement for a specific procedure code, for instance.
The coding system was supposed to improve the accuracy of adjudicating claims submitted by doctors and hospitals to Medicare, and later to non-Medicare insurance companies. Instead, it gave doctors and hospitals an incentive to find ways of describing procedures and services with the cluster of codes that would yield the biggest payment. Sometimes this required the assistance of consulting firms. A cottage industry of fee-maximizing advisors and seminars bloomed.
I recall more than one occasion when I discovered at such a seminar that I was “undercoding” for procedures I routinely perform; a small tweak meant a bigger check for me. That fact encouraged me to keep one eye on the codes at all times, leaving less attention for my patients. Today, most doctors in private practice employ coding specialists, a relatively new occupation, to oversee their billing departments.
Another goal of the coding system was to provide Medicare, regulatory agencies, research organizations, and insurance companies with a standardized method of collecting epidemiological data—the information medical professionals use to track ailments across different regions and populations. However, the developers of the coding system did not anticipate the unintended consequence of linking the laudable goal of epidemiologic data mining with a system of financial reward.
This coding system leads inevitably to distortions in epidemiological data. Because doctors are required to come up with a diagnostic code on each bill submitted in order to get paid, they pick the code that comes closest to describing the patient’s problem while yielding maximum remuneration. The same process plays out when it comes to submitting procedure codes on bills. As a result, the accuracy of the data collected since the advent of compensation coding is suspect.
Command and Control
Coding was one of the earliest manifestations of the cancer consuming the medical profession, but the disease is much more broad-based and systemic. The root of the problem is that patients are not payers. Through myriad tax and regulatory policies adopted on the federal and state level, the system rarely sees a direct interaction between a consumer and a provider of a health care good or service. Instead, a third party—either a private insurance company or a government payer, such as Medicare or Medicaid—covers almost all the costs. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, on average, the consumer pays only 12 percent of the total health care bill directly out of pocket. There is no incentive, through a market system with transparent prices, for either the provider or the consumer to be cost-effective.
As the third party payment system led health care costs to escalate, the people footing the bill have attempted to rein in costs with yet more command-and-control solutions. In the 1990s, private insurance carriers did this through a form of health plan called a health maintenance organization, or HMO. Strict oversight, rationing, and practice protocols were imposed on both physicians and patients. Both groups protested loudly. Eventually, most of these top-down regulations were set aside, and many HMOs were watered down into little more than expensive prepaid health plans.
Then, as the 1990s gave way to the 21st century, demographic reality caught up with Medicare and Medicaid, the two principal drivers of federal health care spending.
Twenty years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, protocols and regimentation were imposed on America’s physicians through a centralized bureaucracy. Using so-called “evidence-based medicine,” algorithms and protocols were based on statistically generalized, rather than individualized, outcomes in large population groups.
While all physicians appreciate the development of general approaches to the work-up and treatment of various illnesses and disorders, we also realize that everyone is an individual—that every protocol or algorithm is based on the average, typical case. We want to be able to use our knowledge, years of experience, and sometimes even our intuition to deal with each patient as a unique person while bearing in mind what the data and research reveal.
Being pressured into following a pre-determined set of protocols inhibits clinical judgment, especially when it comes to atypical problems. Some medical educators are concerned that excessive reliance on these protocols could make students less likely to recognize and deal with complicated clinical presentations that don’t follow standard patterns. It is easy to standardize treatment protocols. But it is difficult to standardize patients.
What began as guidelines eventually grew into requirements. In order for hospitals to maintain their Medicare certification, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began to require their medical staff to follow these protocols or face financial retribution.
Once again, the medical profession cooperated. The American College of Surgeons helped develop Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) protocols, directing surgeons as to what antibiotics they may use and the day-to-day post-operative decisions they must make. If a surgeon deviates from the guidelines, he is usually required to document in the medical record an acceptable justification for that decision.
These requirements have consequences. On more than one occasion I have seen patients develop dramatic postoperative bruising and bleeding because of protocol-mandated therapies aimed at preventing the development of blood clots in the legs after surgery. Had these therapies been left up to the clinical judgment of the surgeon, many of these patients might not have had the complication.
Operating room and endoscopy suites now must follow protocols developed by the global World Health Organization—an even more remote agency. There are protocols for cardiac catheterization, stenting, and respirator management, just to name a few.
Patients should worry about doctors trying to make symptoms fit into a standardized clinical model and ignoring the vital nuances of their complaints. Even more, they should be alarmed that the protocols being used don’t provide any measurable health benefits. Most were designed and implemented before any objective evidence existed as to their effectiveness.
A large Veterans Administration study released in March 2011 showed that SCIP protocols led to no improvement in surgical-site infection rate. If past is prologue, we should not expect the SCIP protocols to be repealed, just “improved”—or expanded, adding to the already existing glut.
These rules are being bred into the system. Young doctors and medical students are being trained to follow protocol. To them, command and control is normal. But to older physicians who have lived through the decline of medical culture, this only contributes to our angst.
One of my colleagues, a noted pulmonologist with over 30 years’ experience, fears that teaching young physicians to follow guidelines and practice protocols discourages creative medical thinking and may lead to a decrease in diagnostic and therapeutic excellence. He laments that “ ‘evidence-based’ means you are not interested in listening to anyone.” Another colleague, a North Phoenix orthopedist of many years, decries the “cookie-cutter” approach mandated by protocols.
A noted gastroenterologist who has practiced more than 35 years has a more cynical take on things. He believes that the increased regimentation and regularization of medicine is a prelude to the replacement of physicians by nurse practitioners and physician-assistants, and that these people will be even more likely to follow the directives proclaimed by regulatory bureaus. It is true that, in many cases, routine medical problems can be handled more cheaply and efficiently by paraprofessionals. But these practitioners are also limited by depth of knowledge, understanding, and experience. Patients should be able to decide for themselves if they want to be seen by a doctor. It is increasingly rare that patients are given a choice about such things.
The partners in my practice all believe that protocols and guidelines will accomplish nothing more than giving us more work to do and more rules to comply with. But they implore me to keep my mouth shut—rather than risk angering hospital administrators, insurance company executives, and the other powerful entities that control our fates.
Electronic Records and Financial Burdens
When Congress passed the stimulus, a.k.a. the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, it included a requirement that all physicians and hospitals convert to electronic medical records (EMR) by 2014 or face Medicare reimbursement penalties. There has never been a peer-reviewed study clearly demonstrating that requiring all doctors and hospitals to switch to electronic records will decrease error and increase efficiency, but that didn’t stop Washington policymakers from repeating that claim over and over again in advance of the stimulus.
Some institutions, such as Kaiser Permanente Health Systems, the Mayo Clinic, and the Veterans Administration Hospitals, have seen big benefits after going digital voluntarily. But if the same benefits could reasonably be expected to play out universally, government coercion would not be needed.
Instead, Congress made that business decision on behalf of thousands of doctors and hospitals, who must now spend huge sums on the purchase of EMR systems and take staff off other important jobs to task them with entering thousands of old-style paper medical records into the new database. For a period of weeks or months after the new system is in place, doctors must see fewer patients as they adapt to the demands of the technology.
The persistence of price controls has coincided with a steady ratcheting down of fees for doctors. As a result, private insurance payments, which are typically pegged to Medicare payment schedules, have been ratcheting down as well. Meanwhile, Medicare’s regulatory burdens on physician practices continue to increase, adding on compliance costs. Medicare continues to demand that specific coded services be redefined and subdivided into ever-increasing levels of complexity. Harsh penalties are imposed on providers who accidentally use the wrong level code to bill for a service. Sometimes—as in the case of John Natale of Arlington, Illinois, who began a 10-month sentence in November because he miscoded bills on five patients upon whom he repaired complicated abdominal aortic aneurysms—the penalty can even include prison.
For many physicians in private practice, the EMR requirement is the final straw. Doctors are increasingly selling their practices to hospitals, thus becoming hospital employees. This allows them to offload the high costs of regulatory compliance and converting to EMR.
As doctors become shift workers, they work less intensely and watch the clock much more than they did when they were in private practice. Additionally, the doctor-patient relationship is adversely affected as doctors come to increasingly view their customers as the hospitals’ patients rather than their own.
In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that fully 50 percent of the nation’s doctors had become employees—either of hospitals, corporations, insurance companies, or the government. Just six years earlier, in 2005, more than two-thirds of doctors were in private practice. As economic pressures on the sustainability of private clinical practice continue to mount, we can expect this trend to continue.
Accountable Care Organizations
For the next 19 years, an average of 10,000 Americans will turn 65 every day, increasing the fiscal strain on Medicare. Bureaucrats are trying to deal with this partly by reinstating an old concept under a new name: Accountable Care Organization, or ACO, which harkens back to the infamous HMO system of the early 1990s.
In a nutshell, hospitals, clinics, and health care providers have been given incentives to organize into teams that will get assigned groups of 5,000 or more Medicare patients. They will be expected to follow practice guidelines and protocols approved by Medicare. If they achieve certain benchmarks established by Medicare with respect to cost, length of hospital stay, re-admissions, and other measures, they will get to share a portion of Medicare’s savings. If the reverse happens, there will be economic penalties.
Naturally, private insurance companies are following suit with non-Medicare versions of the ACO, intended primarily for new markets created by ObamaCare. In this model, an ACO is given a lump sum, or bundled payment, by the insurance company. That chunk of money is intended to cover the cost of all the care for a large group of insurance beneficiaries. The private ACOs are expected to follow the same Medicare-approved practice protocols, but all of the financial risks are assumed by the ACOs. If the ACOs keep costs down, the team of providers and hospitals reap the financial reward: surplus from the lump sum payment. If they lose money, the providers and hospitals eat the loss.
In both the Medicare and non-Medicare varieties of the ACO, cost control and compliance with centrally planned practice guidelines are the primary goal.
ACOs are meant to replace a fee-for-service payment model that critics argue encourages providers to perform more services and procedures on patients than they otherwise would do. This assumes that all providers are unethical, motivated only by the desire for money. But the salaried and prepaid models of provider-reimbursement are also subject to unethical behavior in our current system. There is no reward for increased productivity with the salary model. With the prepaid model there is actually an incentive to maximize profit by withholding services.
Each of these models has its pros and cons. In a true market-based system, where competition rewards positive results, the consumer would be free to choose among the various competing compensation arrangements.
With increasing numbers of health care providers becoming salaried employees of hospitals, that’s not likely. Instead, we’ll see greater bureaucratization. Hospitals might be able to get ACOs to work better than their ancestor HMOs, because hospital administrators will have more control over their medical staff. If doctors don’t follow the protocols and guidelines, and desired outcomes are not reached, hospitals can replace the “problem” doctors.
Doctors Going Galt?
Once free to be creative and innovative in their own practices, doctors are becoming more like assembly-line workers, constrained by rules and regulations aimed to systemize their craft. It’s no surprise that retirement is starting to look more attractive. The advent of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, which put the medical profession’s already bad trajectory on steroids, has for many doctors become the straw that broke the camel’s back.
A June 2012 survey of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice by the Doctors and Patients Medical Association found 90 percent of doctors believe the medical system is “on the wrong track” and 83 percent are thinking about quitting. Another 85 percent said “the medical profession is in a tailspin.” 65 percent say that “government involvement is most to blame for current problems.” In addition, 2 out of 3 physicians surveyed in private clinical practice stated they were “just squeaking by or in the red financially.”
A separate survey of 2,218 physicians, conducted online by the national health care recruiter Jackson Healthcare, found that 34 percent of physicians plan to leave the field over the next decade. What’s more, 16 percent said they would retire or move to part-time in 2012. “Of those physicians who said they plan to retire or leave medicine this year,” the study noted, “56% cited economic factors and 51% cited health reform as among the major factors. Of those physicians who said they are strongly considering leaving medicine in 2012, 55% or 97 physicians, were under age 55.”
Interestingly, these surveys were completed two years after a pre-ObamaCare survey reported in The New England Journal of Medicine found 46.3 percent of primary care physicians stated passage of the new health law would “either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.”
It has certainly affected my plans. Starting in 2012, I cut back on my general surgery practice. As co-founder of my private group surgical practice in 1986, I reached an arrangement with my partners freeing me from taking night calls, weekend calls, or emergency daytime calls. I now work 40 hours per week, down from 60 or 70. While I had originally planned to practice at least another 12 to 14 years, I am now heading for an exit—and a career change—in the next four years. I didn’t sign up for the kind of medical profession that awaits me a few years from now.
Many of my generational peers in medicine have made similar arrangements, taken early retirement, or quit practice and gone to work for hospitals or as consultants to insurance companies. Some of my colleagues who practice primary care are starting cash-only “concierge” medical practices, in which they accept no Medicare, Medicaid, or any private insurance.
As old-school independent-thinking doctors leave, they are replaced by protocol-followers. Medicine in just one generation is transforming from a craft to just another rote occupation.
Medicine in the Future
In the not-too-distant future, a small but healthy market will arise for cash-only, personalized, private care. For those who can afford it, there will always be competitive, market-driven clinics, hospitals, surgicenters, and other arrangements—including “medical tourism,” whereby health care packages are offered at competitive rates in overseas medical centers. Similar healthy markets already exist in areas such as Lasik eye surgery and cosmetic procedures. The medical profession will survive and even thrive in these small private niches.
In other words, we’re about to experience the two-tiered system that already exists in most parts of the world that provide “universal coverage.” Those who have the financial means will still be able to get prompt, courteous, personalized, state-of-the-art health care from providers who consider themselves professionals. But the majority can expect long lines, mediocre and impersonal care from shift-working providers, subtle but definite rationing, and slowly deteriorating outcomes.
We already see this in Canada, where cash-only clinics are beginning to spring up, and the United Kingdom, where a small but healthy private system exists side-by-side with the National Health Service, providing high-end, fee-for-service, private health care, with little or no waiting.
Ayn Rand’s philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged describes a dystopian near-future America. One of its characters is Dr. Thomas Hendricks, a prominent and innovative neurosurgeon who one day just disappears. He could no longer be a part of a medical system that denied him autonomy and dignity. Dr. Hendricks’ warning deserves repeating:
“Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”

Jeffrey Singer practices general surgery in Phoenix, Arizona, writes for Arizona Medicine, the journal of the Arizona Medical Association, is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and is treasurer of the U.S. Health Freedom Coalition.


And just to close I'm open to suggestions for improvements that don't involve Germany's multi-tax system.

The employee pays a government determined tax and a so does the employer.

I'm also not confident the German system/economy will hold up to the influx of migrants and an aging population.
 

neverendingmidi

it just goes on and on and on and on...
kiwifarms.net
My mom is stuck in the """""""""Affordable""""""" Healthcare Marketplace" because she works for a small company. Her insurance payment per month is over $700. That's the """"""affordable""""" price for someone making $15/hr at her age.

All going to government controlled healthcare would mean is that everybody has their taxes hiked by that amount at a minimum, rather than paying it to insurance. Because, gosh, the government is going to need to expand the everloving fuck out of its bureaucracy in order to deal with that. They'll hire in 300K (being optimistic) people who are going to be earning $160K/year to do busy work with filing! And every one of them will be public union employees, which are always known for being efficient. And they will of course need a brand new 600 million dollar "Department of Health" building in every state for all of these people to work in. Doctors and nurses will be the tiniest fraction of a percent of the people who will be paid in this, and likely will have their pay slashed everytime someone talks about cutting costs, as the bloated bureaucracy continues to expand like a cancerous tumor. And since the cost of education to become a doctor will also continue to skyrocket, no one with any sense will be a doctor in the public sector, as that's pretty much setting yourself up as an indentured worker for the rest of your life as you desperately try to get out from under debts.

Or in other words, I don't want the same people who have completely fucked up education beyond the point of recovery in charge of deciding whether or not I get surgery.
 
Last edited:

GrotesqueBushes

Null yeeted my spaghetti dog avatar
kiwifarms.net
As for the core question you cunts evade - I believe rights pertain to a person and cannot force third parties into action. Hence right to free speech, belief or association are to me perfectly clear and sensible. If you look at 'healthcare is a right' in the same context, that is "healthcare is a right and thus you cannot be prevented from seeking healthcare assistance from third parties" - I fully agree. If you look at it in the context of "healthcare is a right, therefore you must provide me with healthcare" then you radically shift the context from, for instance, the right to free speech and free association. In the latter two it's 'I have the right to go to my friend Steve's house and talk about niggers' and not 'I have the right to go to my friend Steve's house and talk about niggers, therefore you have to pay for my bus fare'.

And speaking as someone living in a country with universal healthcare - I buy my healthcare services from private third parties either way, because the wait times are shit. Every month I drop a significant amount of cash in taxes on the public healthcare system, and I dish out extra cash on a private plan. When I have an issue I want to see the doctor within a day or two, not in 4 to 24 months in the future. If I've had the option of opting out from universal healthcare or subtracting my private plan fees from the taxed amount, in exchange from being barred from non-emergency services, I'd gladly do it.
 

Mike R

Benefits from White privilege
kiwifarms.net
Technically the gov doesn't have to tax you to fund itself at the fed level, its just preferable that you pay for it in taxes to the alternative of the gov just printing money and never recalling it back.

There is much to discuss in regards to the fed, taxes, the treasury, debt based monetary system VS the gold standard, etc... But I digress, this will be another thread.

You misunderstand my disdain for government as a support for government.
Though if you want to fight about it then I'd invite you to look at the situation in the US involving obesity and heart disease before volunteering all resources and supplies to a careless population under the guise of "human rights."

Entirely too many people are completely responsible for their own lot in life and expect someone else I.E. the Government to take care of them. You can't smoke 3 packs of cigs a day, eat Arby's for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks because they have the meats and expect your quality of life to be unaffected. 'I am fat because I have a glandular issue' No, you're fat because you are a slob and don't take care of yourself. Your poor choices do not become everyone else's responsibility.

It's evidence that the current system is fucked and I'm sure we could get that spending down without implementation of a universal system. It's evidence at least that an alternative system is worth considering.

Yes, any system is worth considering, provided that the health care we are discussing is paid by the individual and not the Government. I call the bureaucracy of the entire Government into question, not just the socialist program leanings of late.

As for the core question you cunts evade - I believe rights pertain to a person and cannot force third parties into action. Hence right to free speech, belief or association are to me perfectly clear and sensible. If you look at 'healthcare is a right' in the same context, that is "healthcare is a right and thus you cannot be prevented from seeking healthcare assistance from third parties" - I fully agree. If you look at it in the context of "healthcare is a right, therefore you must provide me with healthcare" then you radically shift the context from, for instance, the right to free speech and free association. In the latter two it's 'I have the right to go to my friend Steve's house and talk about niggers' and not 'I have the right to go to my friend Steve's house and talk about niggers, therefore you have to pay for my bus fare'.

And speaking as someone living in a country with universal healthcare - I buy my healthcare services from private third parties either way, because the wait times are shit. Every month I drop a significant amount of cash in taxes on the public healthcare system, and I dish out extra cash on a private plan. When I have an issue I want to see the doctor within a day or two, not in 4 to 24 months in the future. If I've had the option of opting out from universal healthcare or subtracting my private plan fees from the taxed amount, in exchange from being barred from non-emergency services, I'd gladly do it.

Everyone I speak with outside the US brings up this same point. That universal healthcare is shit and in order to get any kind of punctuality in service whatsoever, one must supplement their plan with a private insurance plan.
 

TendieGremlin

monke appreciator
kiwifarms.net
293qju.jpg

oc steal please
 

Pitere pit

Has man gone insane?
kiwifarms.net
I live in a country with public healthcare, sure is sometimes shitty, but is very handy most of the time.
Here we have a kinda federal system where every region has their own healthcare, so if you are from region A you can't get healthcare from region B, it costs a shitton that it should be. However, is still cheap and it covers almost everything, except teeth and eyes. Also, taxes on tobacco or alcohol help to fill our arks, for every fag you smoke, almost 80% goes to the public arks, the same with booze, and right now we are testing on soda.
Is not about public or private healthcare, but how is managed. If you start creating a lot of healthcare systems on one country, then is going to be more expensive that it should, if you have a lot of admins who don't do nothing, the price is going up too.
Is about management, you can have good private or public healthcare, but if reetards run it, you are screwed.
 

The Final Troondown

Yo Mama Gave Me Informed Consent
kiwifarms.net
In the preamble to the Constitution it states We The People will "promote the general welfare." This is enshrined in public services like EMS, firefighters, and police. Pretty basic. I don't know why the government doesn't provide healthcare. This is especially prudent when the government, by it's own admission, supplies Medicare and Medicaid to old people and young people and pregnant moms. So apparently healthcare is a right, just, only a right for like 20% of the US? Only a right if you meet certain criteria?

Do you know what the Public Health Service is? It's a uniformed branch of the government that was originally a part of the Navy. The PHS was originally tasked with containing outbreaks of disease in port cities. They would go in and provide containment and medical assistance to the local authorities and populace. USPHS was created in 1798. So the US government, at some level, from as far back as 1798, has observed that healthcare is a right. It is literally nothing but fat cat capitalists and kleptocrats and their revisionist cronies that keep middle class Americans believing for some reason that not having access to medical care is somehow better than having it.

Universal healthcare actually worsena general welfare though
It imposes a tax burden and then grows that tax burden by keeping alive the sickest, oldest and most crippled who cannot work to pay back society and who will need more treatment by being alive;

Dementia patients, autoimmune sufferers, the retarded etc
Also by keeping them alive it gives them more chances to pass on their faulty genes meaning another generation of freeloaders

And god forbid you rule out the next million pound treatment that adds three months to a terminal patients shitty life; youll face a firestorm of criticism

Public healthcare is a logarithmic feedback cycle of ill health and entitlement
 

Manwithn0n0men

kiwifarms.net
Yes having your entire life ruined by a bad fall is good enough.

I don't understand why people astroturf for kleptocrats for free.

You have your headlines wrong

MOST of the money isnt consumed by "a bad fall" or other sudden and acute incidents. Its basic bread and butter stuff like "I got high blood pressure" that you dont actually NEED a doctor for 9/10
 

Unog

My political affiliation is "rétard"
kiwifarms.net
These aren't arguments

I didn't know the esteemed Mr. Molyneux browsed the farms.

If you take the amount of cash it would from the rich and middle classes to provide full military funding for all five military branches to protect this country and threaten the sovereignty of other nations in the name of world peace and stability, it'd bankrupt us and send us into a Venezuelan style shit-vortex of inescapable tumult. I'd rather not do that for a shitload of ungrateful assholes I'll never meet, thanks.

I'm of the opinion actually that we could probably afford universal healthcare if we weren't trying to be the world's police force. But pretending that we can continue with the current budget the government has, and lay the titanic cost of universal healthcare on top of that as it currently is without ruinous effect, is ridiculous.
 

Tasty Tatty

kiwifarms.net
Depends on the country, the society, or perspective. What I see is the problem in USA is that you have a new generation of people who want everything for free, even when they can pay it and others who can't pay it due to the monopoly of certain corporations.

The "healthcare is a right" idea comes from the notion that if a person is sick, being poor shouldn't mean that person is condemned to die due to the lack of attention and that they shouldn't expect to depend on charity. In this country, you have to prove you're completely poor and with very little resources if you want to be attended for free. If you still have little money, the state provides the same care for a small fee as high as US$15 per month. It's not the best attention, but the alternative is having none. We pay $15 for each member of my family here (parents plus three kids) and we have pretty much everything covered, even funeral services. Why the state? A private one is more expensive and, in this way, we help other people who can get sick too by supporting the state-funded system.

OTOH, our system isn't like US system: obese patients aren't admitted, for example. And they have a lot of preventive programs because it's cheaper to keep a person from being sick than to cure them. Also, they just don't give you birth control. If you want it, you have to sign up for a preventive program as well. I can assure you that your average liberal feminist wouldn't like how "intrusive" they are about her sexual lives.

And don't use Venezuela or Cuba as an example. The rest of Latin American countries have state funded healthcare and they haven't bankrupted their economy. Like I said, it's not ideal, but it's not as bad either. Husband had a knee surgery with them and he's fine.

ETA: There are, of course, private alternatives as well. Some cheap, some very, very expensive. I've gone to private doctors because it's faster and the whole deal costed me no more than $50, including lab tests. The reason people also like state doctors is because they're often very good as they end up having A LOT of experience. There is where you can find the best professionals, tbh. It has some pros as it has some cons.
 

KingCoelacanth

Click here to change your title
kiwifarms.net
Having your tax dollars being spent on your neighbor's heart medicine is an affront on everything it means to be an american.
Spending millions of dollars on a single drone strike on some dirt farm in a north african country you couldn't find on a map is what real americans support
 

repentance

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I think that healthcare should be regarded as a right, but I also think that you need to be careful where you draw the line on what is covered.

We have single payer medical and universal hospital here, as well as private health insurance which is rarely worth the cost.

Our system was never intended to provide the level of care it provides today. Expectations have changed and we now have things like IVF and other reproductive technology procedures attracting substantial rebates and bariatric surgery being partly or wholly funded by the government.

The line between "necessary" medical care and non-essential medical care has blurred somewhat. Meanwhile, options for free/low cost dental care are extremely limited. We do preventative medicine extremely well, though.
 

soft kitty

1 like = 1 pet
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Healthcare is not a right. It's a product like any other. It's just as incoherent as saying smartphones are a human right. Every person in America has access to affordable healthcare in one way or another, whether you qualify for medicaid, an employee-sponsored health plan or tax credits from the ACA. If you want the price of healthcare to go down you need to drastically reduce regulations, break up existing mega health insurance corporations to ensure more competition which will lead to drastically superior healthcare at a fraction of the price it is now. One of the reasons healthcare in America is so expensive is that it's been ruined by socialism.

This is basic economics, to go back to my smartphone analogy; look at how fast and affordable smartphones are, wouldn't it be great if healthcare was like that? Well, it can be, but you're not going to get there with more socialism. Imagine how shitty smartphones would be if the entire market was monopolized by the American government. We'd all be still using first generation iPhones.

Take advantage of the system that we have, because it's not going to change any time soon. There are numerous options, especially for lower income individuals. And I know this because I have applied and have been approved for various forms of medical financial aid.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top