Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

I'll assume by your response that you don't have an answer to the question. If the term Obamacare offends you so much, I will attempt to use Pelosicare in the future, if that is accurate enough for you?

 

Of course I have an answer. Like I said, when you are willing to be serious, I'll be more than willing to give it to you. And I'm not offended, Snook. I think you are a good guy and I have nothing but respect for you. I'm just not up to wasting time on meaningless banter.

 

I live in my country, you know, and I don't know about waiting lists for necessary surgery. I know a girl that goes to dialysis twice a week, into a private practice specialising on that treatment, which is paid for by public health insurance. No waiting. When my dad needed his heart bypasses they treated him within a week (a week because he couldn't be treated earlier due to his condition) after his heart attack, public clinic, paid for by public health insurance. No waiting. Appendectomies are emergency operations, and I haven't heard of any waiting lines there either. A colleague of mine has diabetes since he was a child, and he now has a permanent access for his insulin shots, and he never encountered any problems in his treatment either.

Has it ever occurred to you that the silence in the article is perhaps because there is nothing to speak about and that those country's health care systems are just as good as the article describes them?

 

No, what they mean are surgeries that are necessary but not essential for survival. The lines usually form in procedures like hip surgeries, eye surgeries and the like which are not essential for survival but quite necessary for the person to continue a normal good life. Lines almost never form with hear bypass surgeries and dialysis or cancer removals since they are prioritized highly. So I'll have to agree with Ragusa and say that the reason they chose elective surgeries is because with emergency surgeries and highly prioritized surgeries there are not significant differences.

 

Morgoroth, both the US and the UK have long lines for dialysis. The US prioritizes them by severity of need I believe, while the UK does so by projected benefit (wherein age factors). If Germany doesn't have lines for dialysis, I'm shocked. The machines are expensive, in constant use, not easy to repair, and the operators aren't cheap, either.

Ragusa, the UK doesn't have long lines for those things, either, so long as you're young and healthy. They prioritize by projected benefit (again, age being the biggest factor), so the young and otherwise healthy get first dibs. The elderly, however, can wait decades for surgeries they need to function properly. They even had a law for a while that you couldn't get cataract surgery until one cataract was so bad that you were completely blind in that eye. The elderly all but rioted, and that one got repealed, but it's an indication of the system they use.

I wonder, what kind of system does Germany use?

 

The US is a private, for profit system. So profits are the biggest factor, which means controling labor costs and material costs. Old people get pretty good care here, because private companies know they can stick the government with just about anything (including fraud), so old people are "prime clients" here. As long as they don't have to go to the emergency rooms they are OK. The rest of us are at the mercy of the private insurance companies and what they are willing to pay for.

I did want to add that the government has started cracking down on some of these guys and is investigating some of the costs that are handed it by these providers.

 

Corruption and greed run rampant in any large, established system. The difference is the manner of prioritizing. In the US we do it by pay: if you can afford it, you can get it. In the UK they do it by projected benefit: resources go to those who will have the most chance to benefit society. Both systems make some sense, as the poor are those proven to not benefit society as much as the wealty, and the elderly are those least likely to benefit society for the long future. And yes, both are cruel and heartless systems, but distributing too few resources to too many people always is.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I have yet to see anything to say that we won't just be trading one mixed bag for a different mixed bag if we follow universal coverage system.

 

Especially when the "resource" in question is money.

It's not reassuring that ethics and morals are so easily sold out. And neither "makes sense" to me.

They have the same "benefit," IMO, and certainly of equal value as human beings.

I was also curious as if you are still pro-life, NOG, since you seem to have abandon the "right to life" principle here. And I'm not being sarcastic in anyway in asking this. But it seems there has been a shift in your fundamental thinking in your more recent posts, especially this one.

 

Chandos, I'm not arguing that they're good, but from a realistic sense, when you don't have the resources (and yes, one of them is money, few people do things, make things, or give things for free) to provide everything for everyone, you have to decide who goes without and by how much. That's what modern medicine is faced with, in all the cases I've heard. They can't provide everything for everyone, so they have to find some way to ration care and medicine.

And I'm not saying that either the poor or the elderly have any less value as people, or any less right to life, just that they don't contribute as much to society. The homeless aren't known for great inventions, wonders of art, or diplomatic breakthroughs, and the elderly have probably already given what they can.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that the situation is one of: three people are dying, and you can only save two of them. One is old and weak, and probably won't live more than a few more years even if you save him. The second is a homeless bum who's schizophrenic and likes it that way. The last is a young, otherwise healthy, recent college graduate with a promising career. Who do you save?

And yes, I'm still pro-life. The problem that arises isn't one person's right to life conflicting with another's right to comfort, but rather two people's rights to life conflicting with each other.

 

So if the mother's life is in danger, we can choose between them based on a particular set of benchmarks?

 

To be honest I know very little of dialysis lines in general around here so I was just guessing there, I know no one who would have actaully needed dialysis so you might be right there. Still otherwise the point stands.

Interesting that you mentioned the cataract case. I was of course not aware that the UK was so severe in this regard but in these surgeries there are generally lines and it might take some time until an elderly person will get the surgery they'd need. They don't need to be blind here though. My grandmother had to wait for quite a while until she got to the surgery but her sight never got so bad that she could not manage living alone and do her daily errands without too much trouble. I can't say exactly how long she had to wait since it was some years ago and I have no idea when she applied for the surgery.

 

If the situation forces a choice between the mother's life and the child's, and there's no direction from either the mother or someone with medical power of attorney, then yes, I would. What would you prefer, rolling the dice? drawing straws?

 

NOG, I hate to point out the obvious to you (alright, I don't really hate it) but the fetus has no rights until it draws its first breath. Until that point -- which amazingly coincides with the moment many religions believe a spirit enters the body -- only the rights of the mother matter in the court of law.

 

In a court of law, yes, but then the court of law doesn't actually recognize a 'right to life'. If it did, capital punishment would be forbidden.

 

Nonsense.

The right to live is in the argument for the death penalty forfeited as a result of the deed. Forfeiture means the court does recognise the right to live, but holds that as a result of the deed, usually the murder of another person, the criminal loses it.

 

I'll take your word that that's accepted legal practice.

It's a moot point, though, since we aren't talking about a legal practice, but a philosophical idea.

 

Not really, as the legal argument for the death penalty is also a philosophical one.

 

Yes, but what matters is the legal opinion: i.e. the actual debate is in the court of law. So, unless people start sueing the gov't to pay all their medical bills on the grounds that not doing so is violating their right to life, our debate isn't in the courts. Because our debate, about healthcare, isn't in the courts (so far at least), it doesn't matter what the court's ruling on the right to life is.

Likewise, until the cases of "doctor performed abortion to save mother's life" end up in court, going to trial, with this being the deciding factor; it doesn't matter on that count, either.

 

The idea of forfeiture is one of retribution for neglect or failure to honour legal obligations. That is essentially a philosophical consideration about justice. Thus the credibility and plausibility of a legal opinion using the forfeiture argument is inextricably linked with it's inner logic that builds on the the underlying (legal philosophical) argument.

 

But we're not even talking about justice, but about prioritizing needs. When there aren't enough resources to meet all needs, how do you define 'justice'? Is it just or unjust to take away from one in order to provide enough for another? Does justice even come into the equation?