ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
Which still defeats your point.
You have no basis for your healthcare arguement.
I'm not claiming anything outside the fact that you may be wrong because you aren't actually basing your belief on anything.
|
Healthy people are more productive.
|
Only when all other things are equal. Which would be untrue in a situation in which socalized healthcare took over vs non socialized healthcare.
Afterall, when you have socialzed healthcare, and are "bankrolled" by the government... you don't really need your job as much.
The hardest working and most productive person I know doesn't have healthcare... and often times isn't healthy.
Yet they came in just last week... and worked 60 hours because they needed their money and their job, and they were more productive then just about everyone else in their workplace who had other people to depend on should they lose their jobs.
|
Are you suggesting that fear of death or the fear of the death of a loved one from illness is a viable path that society can take to make the workforce more productive? The same argument could be made for the high productivity of concentration camps and gulags.
|
Not at all. I'm saying when you need money... you are more productive. When you think "Well if i don't have my job i'll have to move in with someone" is more of a motivating factor then "Well if I don't have my job, the government will give me a place to live."
It's not like people in the US just die if they don't have a job. People do get healthcare and they do get money from the government. The difference is, it's only enough to get people back on their feet. It's not seen as a right.
Besides concentration camps and golougs are very inefficent. Outside of a cost ratio analysis anyway i'm sure.
Fun ending to that story, everyone except for the few hardworking people there lost their jobs at the end of last week.
While she was promoted and became a supervisor.
|
I' m not advocating that the governent give everybody a place to live, pay their electric bill, and keep their fridge full. I'm saying that healthcare should be provided by the government. Reasons being that: Preventative medicine is cheaper than waiting for an illness to worsen and then be treated, healthy workers are more productive than unhealthy workers, and a personal belief that people should have a right to live regardless of their economic situation.
|
I wouldn't argue with that. But i'd argue you'd have to do it in a smart way... and a fair way.
There are two problems with the way other countries do it is that they place no emphasis on the individual.
1) There is less motivation to take care of yoruself. Copays for healthcare should be increased if you take part in unhealthy activites like smoking and the like.
2) It's easier to reconcile company's discrimitory actions then governments.
Government run healthcare means that the government either runs itself knee deep in debt or it makes a decision when to stop trying to save someones life. If a surgery will let an old lady live 6 more months... often times the government will not do it because it will cost too much money. As health costs rise, benefits shrink when you get sick matters.
It's easy to reconcile this as a buisness. Buisnesses are supposed to make money. When the government is doing stuff like like people in the UK and France... it's hard to reconcile.
Furthermore since these councils do things on a district by district basis... it turns into a postcard lottery system, to where if your sick in London... your much more likely to be treated then you are in Scotland... etc.
Furthermore, quality of care vastly changes... etc.
Someone in New York is going to get more and better treatment then someone in Kentucky who makes the same amount of money... or even more money. It becomes... arbitrary who gets better treatments and who gets what treatments... etc.
|
I agree that certain measures could be taken to punish those who would misuse or abuse the system. Such things like higher co-pays for smokers or increasing tobacco taxes are good ways to go about this.
Problems I have with your argument is that you said the government will let people die. On the contrary, atleast in the United States, the government tries to keep you alive for as long as you can regardless of your ability to pay. From personal experience, this is true with the public hospitals I am familiar with.
I dont think businesses should be allowed to let people die or mistreat people because they are trying to make money. They shouldnt turn people down for medical treatments nor should they use abuses such as child labor.
Concening the lack of doctors that you mentioned, the United Kingdom pays three times less for healthcare than the United States. If the UK increased their funding to make it resemble what we pay for it in America, they could easily make supply fit demand.
|
That is where the government is different then the UK i suppose. In the United Kingdom councils actually do refuse treatements because people are two old or because the drugs aren't cost effective.
I just read a story a few weeks ago where a woman had all her funding for her chemotherapy pulled because she paid for a pill the government wouldn't pay for that would add 6 months on to her life.
That was twice they decided she wasn't worth healing.
I never said it was ok that companies let people die. I said it was more understandable. You sign the bottom line when you pay, and there are certain guidlines and possibilties you agree too.
With the government you just pay a bunch of money against your will and if you get something rather rare, or at a certain time in your life or a certain place they'll just say "sorry."
In my opinion government run healthcare should be obligated to keep you alive. Even if your 88, the medicine costs 100,000 dollars for a months dose and the drug is likely to keep you alive only a month more.
If we can find a way to pull that off I'm all for it and i'm sure Europe would love to see how we do it.
As for the UK thing... it's not really a shortage of Doctors. It's a quality of doctors issue. Right now in the US the best Doctors go where they can make the most money. That's why places like Cleveland have a really good heart clinic.
With socialized medicine this would change, and you would end up like the UK where the best doctors are in English proper and places like Scotland get screwed...
Scotland has a Life expectancy that is much much lower then England. Which is hard for me to reconcile in a system that provides "universal" coverage. The difference between Scotland and England is greater then the difference between our best and worst states... Hawaii and Mississippi.
This has nothing to do with local talent either... since Scotland is home to the number one medical school in the country. Dundee.
Scotlands life expectancy is even below ours... which actually is less then a year off the UKs. France is about two years better. It seems like a lot for a negligble gain that leads to descrimination unless we find a way to do it better.
