There WILL be death panels.

[RandomPhantom700]

basic healthcare I would have no problem making a right, but advanced treatments, replacements, etc are not a right but a luxury.
over the counter health care, and things like antibiotics, etc is basic health care in my opinion... cancer treatment, organ replacement, and other forms of advanced medical care is a luxury.

So wait a sec.....OTC meds like tylenol are a basic right, but cancer treatment is something that should be available only to those who can afford it? In my mind, the former is a luxury, the latter is a life-or-death necessity. So let the poor die of cancer, but we all deserve pain relief?

I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, but that prioritization comes across that way.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Under those criteria, you may as well say living is a luxury. That's what rubs me the wrong way, taking away the right to life.

nobody is taking away the right to life.
but what is the limit to keeping someone alive?
you can spend tens of millions ir not hundreds of millions of dollars keeping an old person alive, exhausting all measures, and leaving no stones unturned. So where do you call it a stop, where do you draw the line?
lets say that every Canadian over 70 years old decides they want to become as healthy as possible and go in and demand MRIs and Catscans and full blood workups, and find problems and start requiring that those problems be fixed... including many old livers, and kidneys etc to be replaced... and when they start having issues keeping up with healing want all measures taken to keep them alive... the best drugs used.. how long do you think the system would last?
so where do you draw the line?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

So wait a sec.....OTC meds like tylenol are a basic right, but cancer treatment is something that should be available only to those who can afford it? In my mind, the former is a luxury, the latter is a life-or-death necessity. So let the poor die of cancer, but we all deserve pain relief?

I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, but that prioritization comes across that way.

no cancer is something you buy health insurance for, something you do not expect to happen but if it does you want health insurance to cover.
problem is most people look at the cost of coverage and not what is covered.. so instead of paying 700 dollars a month for top insurance to cover these issues they opt for the 89 dollar plan, then get pissed when its not covered and expect to be treated with the top medicines, in the top hospitals, by the top doctors same as the person who opted for the 700 dollar insurance plan.

everyone deserves to live, but who said we have the right to live forever? for a hundred years? for 50 years? for 1 year? where is there a implied right to the most technologically advanced medicine and treatments available for free?
in the bible?
in the constitution?
in your employee handbook?
in your insurance policy?
where?

 

[Scott T]

what is so hard about "take care of yourself and quit relying on the government"

That would be great! If... you cut out the insurance companies who hyper-inflate and overcharge and deal with the doctors directly.

I'd have no problem with it if you were guaranteed value for money under your system. You're not. The highest priority at this time is profit.

 

[Sensei Payne]

what is so hard about "take care of yourself and quit relying on the government"

So your saying that someone who has worked everyday of there adult life. Paying into the system with each and every paycheck they make for over 50 years...

They then get cancer and can't afford treatment.

Do they just not get treated and die?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

no cancer is something you buy health insurance for, something you do not expect to happen but if it does you want health insurance to cover.
problem is most people look at the cost of coverage and not what is covered.. so instead of paying 700 dollars a month for top insurance to cover these issues they opt for the 89 dollar plan, then get pissed when its not covered and expect to be treated with the top medicines, in the top hospitals, by the top doctors same as the person who opted for the 700 dollar insurance plan.

I agree with you insofar as we're talking about a privatized healthcare system, you get what you pay for.

everyone deserves to live, but who said we have the right to live forever? for a hundred years? for 50 years? for 1 year? where is there a implied right to the most technologically advanced medicine and treatments available for free?
in the bible?
in the constitution?
in your employee handbook?
in your insurance policy?
where?

Nobody did, but I dont think even the most liberal poster in the thread is saying that all citizens should get access to all healthcare for free. Even in the single-payer systems, taxpayers are still providing for the healthcare insurance through their tax money rather than paying directly to a private insurance company. So whether it's intended to be one or not, this whole "free ride" argument is really a distractor.

In most if not all advanced nations, healthcare is dealt with in some form or another. Privatized or nationalized, by insurance company or government, it's still dealt with. The key question, I think, is whether there's any reason for the U.S. to maintain its current privatized system instead of incorporating or adopting a public healthcare system.

 

[Twin Fist]

they should have gotten insurance

 

[Sensei Payne]

they should have gotten insurance

What if insurence doesn't cover it?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

AMERICANS never go to europe for treatment or canada, just some go to mexico cuz there are no rules down there, the so called doctors there will inject you with shark piss if you ask them too..lol

What?

We Americans go to Canada to get drugs and Lasik eye surgery.

We go to India and Thailand and other countries as 'medical tourists' to get expensive medical procedures at 1/10 the cost of the same surgeries in the USA. Sometimes US insurance companies even pay for them. It's outsourcing medicine - they even did a 60 Minutes segment on it recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/21/60minutes/main689998.shtml

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

So your saying that someone who has worked everyday of there adult life. Paying into the system with each and every paycheck they make for over 50 years...

They then get cancer and can't afford treatment.

Do they just not get treated and die?

what does paying into the system mean?
if they are paying for proper health insurance to cover the medical care then they get treated.

so you are talking about a 68 year old person from your example..
you have to be 65 and able to recieve social security to qualify for medicare, so if the person in question worked every day for 50 years of his adult life, and does not have his own insurance, and is an American, and qualifies then yes he will have access to cancer treatment.. medicare is to complicated for me to remember everything about it offhand, so you can look up the specifics for whatever case you want online and decide how much treatment that person will get.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

they should have gotten insurance

Pretty sure that Sensei was talking about someone who was paying insurance via an employer. Thus the 'portion of each paycheck' part. I could be wrong though.

 

[Sensei Payne]

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bu...hy-people-go-bankrupt?mod=bb-checking_savings

Fun article, pretaining to this issue...my favorite part was the TOP reason why people file for Bankrupsy

1. Medical Expenses
A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured.
Rare or serious diseases or injuries can easily result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills - bills that can quickly wipe out savings and retirement accounts, college education funds and home equity. Once these have been exhausted, bankruptcy may be the only shelter left, regardless of whether the patient or his or her family was able to apply health coverage to a portion of the bill or not.

 

[Twin Fist]

Pretty sure that Sensei was talking about someone who was paying insurance via an employer. Thus the 'portion of each paycheck' part. I could be wrong though.

then they would be covered

 

[Scott T]

nobody is taking away the right to life.
but what is the limit to keeping someone alive?
you can spend tens of millions ir not hundreds of millions of dollars keeping an old person alive, exhausting all measures, and leaving no stones unturned. So where do you call it a stop, where do you draw the line?
lets say that every Canadian over 70 years old decides they want to become as healthy as possible and go in and demand MRIs and Catscans and full blood workups, and find problems and start requiring that those problems be fixed... including many old livers, and kidneys etc to be replaced... and when they start having issues keeping up with healing want all measures taken to keep them alive... the best drugs used.. how long do you think the system would last?
so where do you draw the line?

As it is, the highest priority goes to those the most in need (the sickest, etc.) regardless of age, as it should be. Terminal patients are given what they need up to a point, such as what happened with Shawna and no second kidney transplant.

If it's hopeless it's not gonna happen, but the patients still get treated for symptoms to try to give them a better quality of life for the time they have left.

As for your hypothetical 70 year olds? They'll kick off before they get through the line-ups. One problem we do have is the backlog.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I agree with you insofar as we're talking about a privatized healthcare system, you get what you pay for.



Nobody did, but I dont think even the most liberal poster in the thread is saying that all citizens should get access to all healthcare for free. Even in the single-payer systems, taxpayers are still providing for the healthcare insurance through their tax money rather than paying directly to a private insurance company. So whether it's intended to be one or not, this whole "free ride" argument is really a distractor.

In most if not all advanced nations, healthcare is dealt with in some form or another. Privatized or nationalized, by insurance company or government, it's still dealt with. The key question, I think, is whether there's any reason for the U.S. to maintain its current privatized system instead of incorporating or adopting a public healthcare system.

ok so where is the line drawn then? or is there one?
do we pull out all the stops no matter what for all people, or are there lines where we say the cost is to much?
the argument seems to always be generic... that everyone should get treatment no matter what, thats its a right to treatment, but nobody who makes that argument ever really hits on the costs of some these high end medical procedures.. so I ask those that believe its a right, is it a right that should have a limit, or an unlimited right, use every means necessary until the person is gone? and then spend every means possible to bring them back up the point of cryogenically freezing them for a possible future cure or treatment?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

As it is, the highest priority goes to those the most in need (the sickest, etc.) regardless of age, as it should be. Terminal patients are given what they need up to a point, such as what happened with Shawna and no second kidney transplant.

If it's hopeless it's not gonna happen, but the patients still get treated for symptoms to try to give them a better quality of life for the time they have left.

As for your hypothetical 70 year olds? They'll kick off before they get through the line-ups. One problem we do have is the backlog.

ok so you are saying the limit is based on priority, so money is not a limitation just who is the closest to dying?

I refuse to use your sister as an example, its classless and will only instigate poor feelings and fighting..

but lets say a man has cancer in his liver... close to dying they give him a transplant... the cancer is found to spread to his kidney so they give him a new kidney... his other kidney get cancer, so they remove it or replace it... now it goes to his heart, so they replace that.... then it goes to eye, so they remove that... then his tongue... do you just keep working on the person and treating them no matter the cost, or at some point do you say ok we have to move on? and if you do move on what is the factor? that he was not savable, or that it costs to much money?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

ok so where is the line drawn then? or is there one?
do we pull out all the stops no matter what for all people, or are there lines where we say the cost is to much?
the argument seems to always be generic... that everyone should get treatment no matter what, thats its a right to treatment, but nobody who makes that argument ever really hits on the costs of some these high end medical procedures.. so I ask those that believe its a right, is it a right that should have a limit, or an unlimited right, use every means necessary until the person is gone? and then spend every means possible to bring them back up the point of cryogenically freezing them for a possible future cure or treatment?

All perfectly valid questions to ask, and honestly, I do not know the exact answers. I am neither a docotr nor an insurance expert or a legislator. I know that whatever scheme is adopted will have to address these questions, so hammering it out will take serious deliberation. We could, of course, look to how Canada or Great Brittain or other advanced Western nations deal with them, and then see if those answers would work for our own nation. But in short, you're right, I do not know.

I would like to point out, however, that in our current privatized system, the deciding factor in all those questions is "where it's profitable for the insurance company." Twin Fist seems perfectly fine with that being the measure. I and many others seem to have a problem with it.

 

[Scott T]

ok so you are saying the limit is based on priority, so money is not a limitation just who is the closest to dying?

I refuse to use your sister as an example, its classless and will only instigate poor feelings and fighting..

but lets say a man has cancer in his liver... close to dying they give him a transplant... the cancer is found to spread to his kidney so they give him a new kidney... his other kidney get cancer, so they remove it or replace it... now it goes to his heart, so they replace that.... then it goes to eye, so they remove that... then his tongue... do you just keep working on the person and treating them no matter the cost, or at some point do you say ok we have to move on? and if you do move on what is the factor? that he was not savable, or that it costs to much money?

Now you're dipping into the 'hopeless' area. If the cancer has spread that much, If the chemotherapy didn't stop it, he's terminal. He'll basically be advised to make peace with whatever god he believes in, because while they can stop the pain up to a point, they're not going to be able to stop him from dying.

The most he'll be able to hope for is a breakthrough or remission.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

then they would be covered

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just remember, in the US, a person on death row, must be given all possible aid, until the date of his execution comes up.

Also, viagra for prisoners.

What a country.