National Health Care

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is another thought I have been mulling over the weekend: The thing that I find the most disturbing about our current system is that there are thousands of poor Americans who die each year due to inability to pay for health care. I don't know what the ultimate solution should be, but this seems terribly wrong. And I can't help but wonder why it is that those who cry the loudest about the "sanctity of life" are often the same ones most adamantly opposed to universal health care. Why are we outraged at the loss of life in one case, but not the other?

[Archaea]

What evidence do you have that thousands or any number die due to inability to pay?

From most data which I've seen, I can't any credible numbers to support this concept. It comes from alarmist camps, but doesn't seem supportable.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What evidence do you have that thousands or any number die due to inability to pay?

From most data which I've seen, I can't any credible numbers to support this concept. It comes from alarmist camps, but doesn't seem supportable.

For starters, there were quite a few cases in Sicko that were profiled (and in the extras) where this happened. MM claims that 18000 people die per year, but I have no idea what the real number is.

In any case, it makes perfect sense. If someone can't afford health insurance and they get cancer, what do you think happens? The money for the treatment just magically appears? Where is a poor family going to get $100K? $200K? $300K?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Here is another thought I have been mulling over the weekend: The thing that I find the most disturbing about our current system ...

The part that I find odd is that most people just plain don't want to pay a tax to support the system, which is fine, except that they're already paying a fairly high tax (we all are) to cover the federal/state cost of writing off care for those who have no coverage.

[Archaea]

Do you that any system doesn't have gaps where people fall through the cracks?

Have you heard of the concept of "rationing" which occurs in ALL systems, despite what the omniscient MM says?

The important question is very central, does our system kill more people than other systems?

And a follow up, what can be modified without negatively affecting the overall system?

For example, I remember hearing somebody from a health care systems analyst, who asked the question, should society pay for a ninety-seven woman to have quadruple bypass?

And should so much money be invested by society to overcome cancer?

I had a friend and client, who had leukemia, and had enough money to save himself. He spend a lot of money going to UCLA and the chemotherapy killed him. Did the fact that he had money kill him faster than if he hadn't? In this case, it did. Should society be held responsible for killing those who pay for it and die faster?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What evidence do you have that thousands or any number die due to inability to pay?

From most data which I've seen, I can't any credible numbers to support this concept. It comes from alarmist camps, but doesn't seem supportable.

What data have you seen? Would you like me to put together a bibliography? What counts as an "alarmist" camp? May I assume the medical literature is acceptible?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do you that any system doesn't have gaps where people fall through the cracks?

No system is perfect. But while we save money (presumably) on health care (or taxes) in the US, the price we pay is in human lives. Nobody is dying in Canada due to lack of access.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Have you heard of the concept of "rationing" which occurs in ALL systems, despite what the omniscient MM says?

Forget about MM. Go back to my original question: If a poor person needs $100K for chemo, where does it come from?

Originally Posted by Archaea

The important question is very central, does our system kill more people than other systems?

And a follow up, what can be modified without negatively affecting the overall system?

For example, I remember hearing somebody from a health care systems analyst, who asked the question, should society pay for a ninety-seven woman to have quadruple bypass?

And should so much money be invested by society to overcome cancer?

I had a friend and client, who had leukemia, and had enough money to save himself. He spend a lot of money going to UCLA and the chemotherapy killed him. Did the fact that he had money kill him faster than if he hadn't? In this case, it did. Should society be held responsible for killing those who pay for it and die faster?

Your last part seems like a red herring. But to your first point, I will ask a question in response: Is there a dollar amount that you would be comfortable spending on cancer treatment per person? What is the value of a human life?

[BigFatMeanie]

Why do poor people tend to get sick more than rich people?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

People often try to make this analogy, but I find it a poor one.

Society made the determination that an educated workforce was more productive and better for the economy. If we promoted wellness, by virture of good health habits, that is something society should promote and look to subsidize. But we cannot afford unlimited health care consumption which public funded health care would become.

you can't work and be productive if you're sick half the time.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

you can't work and be productive if you're sick half the time.

It looks like the Archaean understood that. He's saying he would prefer to subsidize lifestyle changes as a vehicle to improve health, rather than a system that would result in excessive use of the medical system.