Ethical question

[actsnoblemartin]

what is wrong with having socialized medicine like canada does?

and if its not the right answer what is?

[Little-Acorn]

what is wrong with having socialized medicine like canada does?

Ask the Canadians who keep streaming across the border to get health care in the U.S. They even pay for it. Better than waiting in endless lines for necessary operations, and/or getting told they can't have such-and-such a cosmetic procedure at all, at any price.

[midcan5]

Funny you should ask, my wife who is pretty much apolitical mentioned that just yesterday, that the one thing she thinks everyone should have is free access to medical care, just makes sense.

From a moral or ethical pov, I think if a society is to consider itself just and fair and right, medical care should be available to all.

The piece on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago on free medical service in rural America was just amazing.

http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-60-minutes-tonight-march-2-tennessee.html

[actsnoblemartin]

have any proof?


Ask the Canadians who keep streaming across the border to get health care in the U.S. They even pay for it. Better than waiting in endless lines for necessary operations, and/or getting told they can't have such-and-such a cosmetic procedure at all, at any price.

[actsnoblemartin]

question for you

why does not one other country, not ONE industrialized country, opt for anything remotely resembling what the US has.


Ask the Canadians who keep streaming across the border to get health care in the U.S. They even pay for it. Better than waiting in endless lines for necessary operations, and/or getting told they can't have such-and-such a cosmetic procedure at all, at any price.

[retiredman]

question for you

why does not one other country, not ONE industrialized country, opt for anything remotely resembling what the US has.


what does your conservative mindset tell you is the answer to that?

[Little-Acorn]

From a moral or ethical pov, I think if a society is to consider itself just and fair and right, medical care should be available to all.

Really?

So if doctors in a certain area are full up and can't take any more patients, you favor forcing them to drop some of their present patients when new ones show up?

[retiredman]

Really?

So if doctors in a certain area are full up and can't take any more patients, you favor forcing them to drop some of their present patients when new ones show up?

silly question. the process would not be instantaneous.

[OCA]

what is wrong with having socialized medicine like canada does?

and if its not the right answer what is?

Oh for chrissakes!:pee:

What? You don't already know Mr. Intelligence? And just what in the fuck is so ethical about this topic?

[actsnoblemartin]

Im not looking at this question from a conservative point of view, im trying to look at it from a, is this a good idea point of view, is this the right thing to do point of view.

Conservatism in my judgment doesnt mean you have to agree with everything conservative says.


what does your conservative mindset tell you is the answer to that?

[Little-Acorn]

silly question. the process would not be instantaneous.

Highly relevant question. And it doesn't matter how soon it happens.

A law "giving" everybody the "right" to "free" medical care, in reality is a law coercing doctors into providing it.

Do you favor such coercion upon doctors?

[Kathianne]

http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/247756


Private medicine: the future of health care

Published Monday March 24th, 2008
Appeared on page D7

With more than 3,500 Nova Scotians queued-up for orthopedic surgery, some for as long as three years, and another 7,000 reportedly waiting to have their health issues evaluated by an orthopedic surgeon, the provincial government announced last week it will spend $1 million to subcontract about 500 surgeries to a private surgical clinic to ease the backlog.

This sort of public/private partnership makes eminent good sense, is long-overdue, and points to the future and possibly the salvation of health care in Canada. Nova Scotia is spending nearly 50 percent of its provincial budget on health care with expenditures increasing eight to 10 per cent annually compared with a 2.7 percent annual increase as recently as 2003.

If the current trend-line continues, the province will be spending 60 per cent of total revenues on health care by 2015 (and a bizarre 83 per cent by 2026). Something has to give, and incorporating a degree of privatization, a strategy that has been hugely successful in Europe, has to be an important part of any viable solution to the health-care crisis, not only in Nova Scotia but across Canada.

A substantial shift to privatization of health care delivery (while maintaining public funding for treatment) will be the most effective way to diminish the extortionary power of health care unions and get health care spending back under some semblance of control. It is absolutely imperative that we contain the cancer-like growth of health care spending and attempt to reduce it, at least proportionately....

England having problems educating and attracting doctors:

http://www.hospitalhealthcare.com/default.asp?title=Moreconsultantsurgentlyneeded&page=article.display&article.id=9907


More consultants urgently needed

Wednesday 9th April 2008
Bone surgery
Many more hospital consultants are needed across the UK to maintain and improve the quality of care in the NHS, the British Medical Association (BMA) says in a report, "Enhancing quality: promoting consultant expansion across the NHS", published today.

The BMA has called on the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, to support its campaign for more consultants.

The BMA's consultants' committee has collected data from medical royal colleges and specialist societies showing a shortfall in the number of consultants required in many specialties including surgery, paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology, and cardiology. There is also mounting clinical evidence that in many areas of medical practice, there is a need to increase the number of consultants over and above the expansion that has already taken place in recent years, in order to ensure that patients receive the highest possible level of care, and that the NHS delivers its services in the most cost-effective way.

Based on the current figures, consultant expansion is most needed in the following specialties: Emergency medicine; Trauma; Intensive care; Acute medicine; Paediatrics; Obstetrics.

The BMA report cites a number of recent influential publications that show a clear link between consultant care and quality, and which demonstrate a need for more consultants in order to ensure patients receive the best possible care. Recent financial pressures and short-term planning have forced many NHS trusts to artificially freeze consultant recruitment and this is now beginning to impede improvements in the quality of care, the report says...

http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/39Shutdowns-at-maternity-unit-prove.3922848.jp


'Shutdowns at maternity unit prove our case'

View Gallery
By Annemarie Field
The maternity unit at Eastbourne DGH was forced to turn away dozens of women in labour because it had no room, figures show.
The unit at the Kings Drive hospital was forced to shut 31 times in 2007.

And the maternity unit at the Conquest Hospital in Hastings was also forced to close its doors to pregnant women on 41 occasions over the same 12-month period while the Crowborough Birthing Centre had to close once.

Mums-to-be requiring their services during the closures were sent to other hospitals in the south east....

[Hobbit]

The problem with viewing health care as a right to be enforced rather than a product to be paid for is this: With all natural rights, such as those outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (life, liberty, property, bearing arms, speech, etc.), to enjoy those rights only requires that others not violate them. As long as nobody interferes with those rights, I have them. To violate my freedom of speech, somebody has to silence me. To violate my right to bear arms, somebody must take my arms. To violate my right to life, somebody must kill me. However, to grant a 'right' to health care to another person involves confiscating, by force of law, the time, labor, and resources from one person (the doctor/hospital) and giving the fruits of those things to someone who has not earned them. The 'right' to free health care and the right to private property are incompatible, as providing health care involves an expenditure of privately owned resources, which must be forcibly seized by the government before being distributed.

Oh, and the only reason any foreign country gets to provide cheap drugs is because their governments blackmail drug companies into severely low balling their prices by threatening to revoke the patent. This means that we in the United States eat the FULL cost of research for new drugs that the entire world benefits from.

Another reason this is a bad idea is seen by how criminal aliens treat health care. Since the emergency room isn't allowed to turn anyone away and since illegals are near impossible to track down to bill them, they go to the emergency room for everything from a hangnail to nausea. If you don't have to pay for health care, you'll abuse it.

The final reason is because 'nationalized' or 'universal' or whatever you want to call it means it will be run by the government. This has two implications. First off, it means politicians will own you, rather than the other way around. Once they have control of your health care, congress will effectively own your body for the rest of your life. Second off, the government sucks at everything it even tries to do. Do you really want our hospitals to be run the same way as post offices or government schools? Look at the Walter Reid fiasco. That's what the WHOLE nation is going to look like with government running the medical system.

[Little-Acorn]

VERY well said. Bravo!


Look at the Walter Reid fiasco. That's what the WHOLE nation is going to look like with government running the medical system.

Not quite.

1.) When Wather Ried went to hell, people were shocked because it was so much worse than other places. So they raised a ruckus and the govt fixed it, eventually. But when the govt runs everything, people will (eventually) get used to Walter-Reid-type degradation and won't raise such a ruckus. The entire program will eventually slide into sloth, with quality dictated by the care and concern of bureaucrats and government drones (HA!)

2.) Patients at Walter Reid could be transferred to other, better facilities. Just as patients today who don't like one hospital, can usually go to another. But when the govt runs things, (a) they will decide where you go, you won't, and (b) there won't BE any better ones to go to, see point (1) above.

[midcan5]

Healthcare should be a right in the same way highways, flood control, municipal services, law, public transportation, product safety, financial regulations are, someday it will be one. Consider that this is the first election when it has become an element of conversation and debate. Progress comes slowly as everyone who even glances at history knows. What form it takes only matters that the current administration has nothing to do with it. And the negative statistics mean little, ask the same people if they would like a waiting list - assuming much of this is true - or nothing, not hard to answer that.

And I agree with Actsnoblemartin it is a moral issue as the ramifications of not having it were too evident in the 60 minutes piece and these are working Americans. We can create a society in the image we want and if we want to continue down the road to a social darwinist third world country, we will have it, if we want a progressive modern state where workers have more freedom and flexibility, we can have that too.

[Said1]

Ask the Canadians who keep streaming across the border to get health care in the U.S. They even pay for it. Better than waiting in endless lines for necessary operations, and/or getting told they can't have such-and-such a cosmetic procedure at all, at any price.

Huh? What cosmetic procedure? In any case, surely there are cosmetic procedures that are prohibitedin the USA due to dangers?

[Kathianne]

Healthcare should be a right in the same way highways, flood control, municipal services, law, public transportation, product safety, financial regulations are, someday it will be one. Consider that this is the first election when it has become an element of conversation and debate. Progress comes slowly as everyone who even glances at history knows. What form it takes only matters that the current administration has nothing to do with it. And the negative statistics mean little, ask the same people if they would like a waiting list - assuming much of this is true - or nothing, not hard to answer that.

And I agree with Actsnoblemartin it is a moral issue as the ramifications of not having it were too evident in the 60 minutes piece and these are working Americans. We can create a society in the image we want and if we want to continue down the road to a social darwinist third world country, we will have it, if we want a progressive modern state where workers have more freedom and flexibility, we can have that too.

So what is more important, the individual or 'the public'? Are you for writing off personal rights, not to mention responsibilities?

[actsnoblemartin]

personal responsibilities, or irresponsibility shouldnt pre-clude someone from health care I mean.

do we want cigarette smokers, alcoholics and drug addicts to be told, too bad so sad.

I think thats disgraceful, and easy when you dont have a friend or family member with one of those issues.

I do believe health care is a right.

Because, god gave us life... and we are supposed to love your neighbor as you love yourself, not let them suffer horribly and not care.

Sometimes individual rights are less important then group rights.

Let me also say, you have my immense respect ms. kathianne


So what is more important, the individual or 'the public'? Are you for writing off personal rights, not to mention responsibilities?

[Dilloduck]

Healthcare should be a right in the same way highways, flood control, municipal services, law, public transportation, product safety, financial regulations are, someday it will be one. Consider that this is the first election when it has become an element of conversation and debate. Progress comes slowly as everyone who even glances at history knows. What form it takes only matters that the current administration has nothing to do with it. And the negative statistics mean little, ask the same people if they would like a waiting list - assuming much of this is true - or nothing, not hard to answer that.

And I agree with Actsnoblemartin it is a moral issue as the ramifications of not having it were too evident in the 60 minutes piece and these are working Americans. We can create a society in the image we want and if we want to continue down the road to a social darwinist third world country, we will have it, if we want a progressive modern state where workers have more freedom and flexibility, we can have that too.

I think it's immoral to demand the government take care of someone instead of taking care of them yourself.

[midcan5]

I think it's immoral to demand the government take care of someone instead of taking care of them yourself.

Your assumption is government is a thing and not us acting together to make life better for all of us.

[Kathianne]

personal responsibilities, or irresponsibility shouldnt pre-clude someone from health care I mean.

do we want cigarette smokers, alcoholics and drug addicts to be told, too bad so sad.

I think thats disgraceful, and easy when you dont have a friend or family member with one of those issues.

I do believe health care is a right.

Because, god gave us life... and we are supposed to love your neighbor as you love yourself, not let them suffer horribly and not care.

Sometimes individual rights are less important then group rights.

Let me also say, you have my immense respect ms. kathianne

Much more likely under a state sponsored health care act. BTW Martin, as I know that respect is a two way street, I assume you respect me and assume you know I respect you, thus you don't have to post that when disagreeing with me. ;)

[OCA]

personal responsibilities, or irresponsibility shouldnt pre-clude someone from health care I mean.

do we want cigarette smokers, alcoholics and drug addicts to be told, too bad so sad.

I think thats disgraceful, and easy when you dont have a friend or family member with one of those issues.

I do believe health care is a right.

Because, god gave us life... and we are supposed to love your neighbor as you love yourself, not let them suffer horribly and not care.

Sometimes individual rights are less important then group rights.

Let me also say, you have my immense respect ms. kathianne

Horseshit, show me Raymond where in the bill of rights healthcare is listed.

What you have in America is the ability to make enough money to pay for healthcare or to be gainfully employed and have healthcare provided for you by your employer. If you aren't employed or have the wherewithall to make a few bucks then you get saddled with massive healthcare bills when the time comes. Thats the way it should be.

Government should not be in the business of wiping the ass of its citizens.

Drug addicts, Alcoholics and cigarette smokers who.............made the choice to do those things should, if they don't have health insurance, bear the burden of the costs of treating them.......but they won't have to, i'll pick up the tab, the taxpayer.

[Dilloduck]

Your assumption is government is a thing and not us acting together to make life better for all of us.

It is a thing and it is NOT us working together--not even close.

[OCA]

Your assumption is government is a thing and not us acting together to make life better for all of us.

LMFAO!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Government and the people who have run it for the better part of the last 50 yrs have given less than a rip about the citizenry and have given 100% care to lining their pockets with gold.

Really I see no reason for government anymore other than providing a national defense, government has NEVER made anything better in and of itself....ever.

[Kathianne]

Your assumption is government is a thing and not us acting together to make life better for all of us.

So are you going to answer the question or not?

[gabosaurus]

Ask my best friend Beth, who lives in England. If you don't have a medical emergency, you could wait months for a doctors appointment.

One Canadian practice we should have: A ban on the advertising of prescription drugs. Close to half the price of U.S. drugs goes to support their advertising to potential patients and medical professionals.

[Hobbit]

personal responsibilities, or irresponsibility shouldnt pre-clude someone from health care I mean.

do we want cigarette smokers, alcoholics and drug addicts to be told, too bad so sad.

I think thats disgraceful, and easy when you dont have a friend or family member with one of those issues.

I do believe health care is a right.

Because, god gave us life... and we are supposed to love your neighbor as you love yourself, not let them suffer horribly and not care.

Sometimes individual rights are less important then group rights.

Let me also say, you have my immense respect ms. kathianne

And I think it's a wonderful thing when a citizen who has worked hard and has the means takes his hard-earned money and uses it to pay the medical bill of someone who can't afford to. That is charity, and that is what Jesus asked us to do. If that's what you want to do, go for it. It would make me proud.

What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is not that you, personally, provide others with health care. What you advocate is that the government use the power of law to forcefully confiscate wealth from those who have earned it and give that wealth to those who have not. It stops being charity when you're using somebody else's money, and if you think your argument should hold up, show me one place in the Bible where Jesus or the Christian church FORCEFULLY CONFISCATED wealth from anybody so they could give it to the poor. You can't, because all the stuff they gave to the poor was given to them freely, without coercion.


Your assumption is government is a thing and not us acting together to make life better for all of us.

What a government is is a group of people that is, itself, ungoverned, the majority of whom would abuse every grain of power they could lay their greedy palms on in order to gain more power such as, I don't know, the power of life and death over the entire citizenry.

I wouldn't trust those apes on Capitol Hill with my stash of candy, much less my life.

[Hobbit]

Ask my best friend Beth, who lives in England. If you don't have a medical emergency, you could wait months for a doctors appointment.

One Canadian practice we should have: A ban on the advertising of prescription drugs. Close to half the price of U.S. drugs goes to support their advertising to potential patients and medical professionals.

As hesitant as I am about government regulations, I think I could swallow this one, especially if done at the state rather than the federal level. It would lower the cost of prescription drugs considerably (like what happened to cigarettes when we banned advertising on those) and would eliminate self-diagnosed pill-poppers from running to their doctors every other week, complaining about 'restless leg syndrome.'

I think it might even be a better, less infringing idea to ban the advertisement of specific drugs. You could advertise the brand name, as well as anything over-the-counter they sell, but not specific prescription drugs.

P.S. I'm pretty confident 'restless leg syndrome' is some kind of real disorder, but the symptoms, as listed in the drug ads, are so vague that pretty much anybody could have it.

[gabosaurus]

My dad works in public relations. The company he works for loses a hellacious amount of potential revenue by refusing to work with the alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug industries.
There was a trade survey done around the end of last year that estimated if drug manufacturers were banned from advertising, it would cost their costs in half. In many cases, drug companies spend more to promote their product than they do to develop or test them.

[DragonStryk72]

what is wrong with having socialized medicine like canada does?

and if its not the right answer what is?

Um, dude, do you remember Walter Reed, or when it took them 5 days to get water to the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? This is not the government to be trying to pull off socialized medicine.

As well, where do we get the money for it? We're already overextending budget-wise, so where does the new money for this come from?

[Yurt]

=midcan5;234270]Healthcare should be a right in the same way highways, flood control, municipal services, law, public transportation, product safety, financial regulations are, someday it will be one.

these are all not rights, many are only privileges. in fact, i would say that if any were considered a "right" it might be law, access to at least, the others are not rights.


Consider that this is the first election when it has become an element of conversation and debate.

i don't believe this is true, clinton made it an issue.

universal health care is, IMO, not a moral issue, it is an economical issue.

[actsnoblemartin]

what i dont get is why canada can do it, and were too stupid (government is) to do it.

[Yurt]

what i dont get is why canada can do it, and were too stupid (government is) to do it.

did you read hobbits posts

[actsnoblemartin]

excellent points, and i should clarify while I like the idea of socialized medicine in principle, the very eloquent reasons you posted are why it wont work.

we need a solution, of some kind.


And I think it's a wonderful thing when a citizen who has worked hard and has the means takes his hard-earned money and uses it to pay the medical bill of someone who can't afford to. That is charity, and that is what Jesus asked us to do. If that's what you want to do, go for it. It would make me proud.

What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is not that you, personally, provide others with health care. What you advocate is that the government use the power of law to forcefully confiscate wealth from those who have earned it and give that wealth to those who have not. It stops being charity when you're using somebody else's money, and if you think your argument should hold up, show me one place in the Bible where Jesus or the Christian church FORCEFULLY CONFISCATED wealth from anybody so they could give it to the poor. You can't, because all the stuff they gave to the poor was given to them freely, without coercion.



What a government is is a group of people that is, itself, ungoverned, the majority of whom would abuse every grain of power they could lay their greedy palms on in order to gain more power such as, I don't know, the power of life and death over the entire citizenry.

I wouldn't trust those apes on Capitol Hill with my stash of candy, much less my life.

[actsnoblemartin]

Let me clarify im sympathetic to the idea of socialized medicine, but i know in my heart it wont work

:(

we need a long term sustainable solution


Um, dude, do you remember Walter Reed, or when it took them 5 days to get water to the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? This is not the government to be trying to pull off socialized medicine.

As well, where do we get the money for it? We're already overextending budget-wise, so where does the new money for this come from?

[midcan5]

So are you going to answer the question or not?

What's the question?

[Kathianne]

What's the question?


http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=234272&postcount=17


Originally Posted by midcan5 View Post
Healthcare should be a right in the same way highways, flood control, municipal services, law, public transportation, product safety, financial regulations are, someday it will be one. Consider that this is the first election when it has become an element of conversation and debate. Progress comes slowly as everyone who even glances at history knows. What form it takes only matters that the current administration has nothing to do with it. And the negative statistics mean little, ask the same people if they would like a waiting list - assuming much of this is true - or nothing, not hard to answer that.

And I agree with Actsnoblemartin it is a moral issue as the ramifications of not having it were too evident in the 60 minutes piece and these are working Americans. We can create a society in the image we want and if we want to continue down the road to a social darwinist third world country, we will have it, if we want a progressive modern state where workers have more freedom and flexibility, we can have that too.



So what is more important, the individual or 'the public'? Are you for writing off personal rights, not to mention responsibilities?

[MtnBiker]

Funny you should ask, my wife who is pretty much apolitical mentioned that just yesterday, that the one thing she thinks everyone should have is free access to medical care, just makes sense.




What an absurd statement. No healthcare is free. There may be some who do not pay for their own healthcare, however somebody is paying for it.


If the government made something "free" it would cause unlimited demand. The health care system could not support an ulimited demand so restrictions would be force on people seeking health care, now we have put the government in control of who and how they recieve health care.

[Hobbit]

What an absurd statement. No healthcare is free. There may be some who do not pay for their own healthcare, however somebody is paying for it.


If the government made something "free" it would cause unlimited demand. The health care system could not support an ulimited demand so restrictions would be force on people seeking health care, now we have put the government in control of who and how they recieve health care.

Not only that, but it still won't be 'free.' It's just that you'll have no choice except to pay for it.

[diuretic]

What an absurd statement. No healthcare is free. There may be some who do not pay for their own healthcare, however somebody is paying for it.


If the government made something "free" it would cause unlimited demand. The health care system could not support an ulimited demand so restrictions would be force on people seeking health care, now we have put the government in control of who and how they recieve health care.

Quite right, everything has a cost and some things have a price. The best healthcare systems are the ones where cost is transparent and is purchased at a fair price by government as required by citizens.

And at that point I have to disagree with your argument that somehow if health care was "free" (as you've pointed out, it isn't "free" it has a cost and a price) that there would be unlimited demand. How many of us would request a surgical procedure when one wasn't necessary, particularly when we know that any surgical procedure has a risk attached to it?

"Need" and "demand" are not the same things.

[diuretic]

Not only that, but it still won't be 'free.' It's just that you'll have no choice except to pay for it.

That goes against the whole point of universal health care. Taxes pay for it.

[Hobbit]

That goes against the whole point of universal health care. Taxes pay for it.

And who pays taxes?

[DragonStryk72]

Let me clarify im sympathetic to the idea of socialized medicine, but i know in my heart it wont work

:(

we need a long term sustainable solution

Okay, but then there is no ethical question to it.

I mean, no matter how it breaks down, the american people will all be paying for socialized health care, since the businesses that would get hit with the tax will simply amp up their price to cover the new taxation, thus passing it on to us again in the way of increased cost. I don't see anything ethical or unethical in that setup. Certainly foolish, but it's not a matter of ethics.

[MtnBiker]

Quite right, everything has a cost and some things have a price. The best healthcare systems are the ones where cost is transparent and is purchased at a fair price by government as required by citizens.

And at that point I have to disagree with your argument that somehow if health care was "free" (as you've pointed out, it isn't "free" it has a cost and a price) that there would be unlimited demand. How many of us would request a surgical procedure when one wasn't necessary, particularly when we know that any surgical procedure has a risk attached to it?

"Need" and "demand" are not the same things.


My reference to "free" is only in response to midcan5's post;


Funny you should ask, my wife who is pretty much apolitical mentioned that just yesterday, that the one thing she thinks everyone should have is free access to medical care, just makes sense.



You see there would be a perception by some people that their healthcare is "free" (and that may indeed be the case for some).

There is plenty of healthcare services that do not envolve extensive surgery that people would want to take advantage of because it is "free". Have a head cold, go to the emergency room. It is simple economics, make a commodity or service cost little or nothing and the demand will increase.

[diuretic]

And who pays taxes?

Er - taxpayers, usually citizens who work and also corporations, depending n how the tax laws are structured in any given jurisdiction.

[diuretic]

Okay, but then there is no ethical question to it.

I mean, no matter how it breaks down, the american people will all be paying for socialized health care, since the businesses that would get hit with the tax will simply amp up their price to cover the new taxation, thus passing it on to us again in the way of increased cost. I don't see anything ethical or unethical in that setup. Certainly foolish, but it's not a matter of ethics.

I thought US businesses did that now? Apparently GM's healthcare benefits burden was big enough to threaten its viability at one point. I would have thought they factored in that cost in the price of their products.

And as for the "new taxation". Why can't it be funded by a slight increase in personal income tax?

[diuretic]

My reference to "free" is only in response to midcan5's post;



You see there would be a perception by some people that their healthcare is "free" (and that may indeed be the case for some).

There is plenty of healthcare services that do not envolve extensive surgery that people would want to take advantage of because it is "free". Have a head cold, go to the emergency room. It is simple economics, make a commodity or service cost little or nothing and the demand will increase.

Oh okay, but I think it should be "free" as well, in the sense that the individual who needs treatment shouldn't have to pull out their credit card.

I still question your assertion that "free" health care would of itself create a huge demand. I won't say that some individuals - probably those with anxiety disorders (I'm serious) - would present at every available opportunity, but they could be managed. I'm no economist but I do know that economists look at more than graphs, they look at human behaviour as well. I doubt if people who weren't unwell would want to sit and wait in a doctor's rooms for an appointment at which they would be told they had wasted their time and the doctor's time. We're not talking about free apples, this is a lot more complex.

[midcan5]

[url]So what is more important, the individual or 'the public'? Are you for writing off personal rights, not to mention responsibilities?


Both are important and not at all, because someone can get health care does not remove any responsibility nor does it keep the rich person from 5 face lifts if they like.

free access was a way of saying access to healthcare. Diuretic answered you all eloquently.

[MtnBiker]

I still question your assertion that "free" health care would of itself create a huge demand.

an example;



Ministry reports 58 per cent increase in hospital users

Saturday, April 12, 2008

THE Ministry of Health is reporting a 58 per cent increase in accident and emergency (A&E) registration since the removal of user fees in public health facilities on April 1.

"The number of patients registered increased from 2,694 patients on April 1, 2008 to 4,261 on April 2008," said the ministry in a release Thursday. "During the one week period, April 1-7, 2008, approximately 17,73 patients were registered in the A&E departments."

Additionally, the ministry said a total of 27,757 patients were seen at 21 hospital with Lionel Town, Kingston Public Hospital (KPH) and Mandeville hospitals among the facilities seeing the largest increase in patient load.

In particular, the ministry said the Lionel Town Hospital experienced a 125 per cent increase with its patient load jumping from 65 to 146 on April 7........


link (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20080411T200000-0500_134437_OBS_MINISTRY_REPORTS____PER_CENT_INCRE ASE_IN_HOSPITAL_USERS.asp)

and another;


Overcrowding causes chaos in A&E
Mary O\'Connor

“Absolutely chaotic” is how a nursing spokesperson described the overcrowding situation at University Hospital Galway’s A&E department earlier this week.

Some 40 patients were on trolleys on Tuesday morning, the highest number ever, according to Noreen Muldoon, the Irish Nurses’ Organisation’s industrial relations officer in the west.

She says the situation was so bad part of the public waiting area in A&E had to be cordoned off to accommodate six patients on trolleys.

“There were patients on every corridor, in every space with the result that it was impossible to move around. They [the hospital authorities] ended up not having enough trolleys. Around 10.30am a decision was made not to put the emergency plan - the major disaster plan - into action but they took aspects of it. Part of that was some patients were transferred to the physiotherapy unit to relieve the overflow..........


There was no “particular reason” for the influx of patients, she says. “There were different types of patients. You couldn’t say it was a run of bugs or flus. It was not like that.”


link (http://www.galwayadvertiser.ie/content/index.php?aid=11548)

[diuretic]

an example;



link (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20080411T200000-0500_134437_OBS_MINISTRY_REPORTS____PER_CENT_INCRE ASE_IN_HOSPITAL_USERS.asp)

and another;



link (http://www.galwayadvertiser.ie/content/index.php?aid=11548)

In the Jamaica example - how many were not actually unwell? Hopefully this will go a long way to ensuring better public health if people who actually need treatment can get it regardless of their ability or inability to pay.

In the Galway example - GPs charge for a visits, the emergency department at the hospital doesn't. Maybe the Irish government should address that.

[Kathianne]

Both are important and not at all, because someone can get health care does not remove any responsibility nor does it keep the rich person from 5 face lifts if they like.

free access was a way of saying access to healthcare. Diuretic answered you all eloquently.

Interesting but a non-answer.

putting words in your mouth, the individual is important, but the collective is moreso. If the collective succeeds, so does the individual.

[MtnBiker]

In the Jamaica example - how many were not actually unwell? Hopefully this will go a long way to ensuring better public health if people who actually need treatment can get it regardless of their ability or inability to pay.

Fair question. There are numerous questions that could be asked. Such as, are people taking the best responsibility for their own preventative well being?


In the Galway example - GPs charge for a visits, the emergency department at the hospital doesn't. Maybe the Irish government should address that.



Could it be a possibility that people choose the emergency room rather than a GP visits because the emergency room does not charge? This would seem to support the idea that demand for "free" care is increased.

[DragonStryk72]

Both are important and not at all, because someone can get health care does not remove any responsibility nor does it keep the rich person from 5 face lifts if they like.

free access was a way of saying access to healthcare. Diuretic answered you all eloquently.

But how do we pay for it? with what money? If it comes from taxes, here is the exact chain of events: Taxes go up, businesses raise costs to compensate for the new taxes, prices go up, cost of living goes up, and more people become impoverished, system becomes overbalanced, quality of care drops.

Until you can answer that satisfactorily, your point is completely moot.

[diuretic]

But how do we pay for it? with what money? If it comes from taxes, here is the exact chain of events: Taxes go up, businesses raise costs to compensate for the new taxes, prices go up, cost of living goes up, and more people become impoverished, system becomes overbalanced, quality of care drops.

Until you can answer that satisfactorily, your point is completely moot.

Here's a model - http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/17482.htm

Usually about 1.5% of an individual's taxable income. It doesn't affect the broader economy. Since individuals and not corporations pay it there's no price rise effect by businesses.

[DragonStryk72]

Here's a model - http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/17482.htm

Usually about 1.5% of an individual's taxable income. It doesn't affect the broader economy. Since individuals and not corporations pay it there's no price rise effect by businesses.

Right, because if there's one thing that the American government has demonstrated in the past 10 years, it's the financial restraint that they have used.

Second, we are already broke, and 1.5% doesn't even begin to cover the jacked up expenses they'll come up with, that's assuming we don't just get another Walter Reed hospital scandal. But that's silly, because our government would never be the sort of government that would hire a company to build hospitals, and then not police them in any conceivable way.

Also, who does the tax come from? Everybody, but what about the people who already have insurance? Basically, they get to pay twice, isn't that so great.

Just because it works in other countries, does not mean it will work here.

[diuretic]

Right, because if there's one thing that the American government has demonstrated in the past 10 years, it's the financial restraint that they have used.

Second, we are already broke, and 1.5% doesn't even begin to cover the jacked up expenses they'll come up with, that's assuming we don't just get another Walter Reed hospital scandal. But that's silly, because our government would never be the sort of government that would hire a company to build hospitals, and then not police them in any conceivable way.

Also, who does the tax come from? Everybody, but what about the people who already have insurance? Basically, they get to pay twice, isn't that so great.

Just because it works in other countries, does not mean it will work here.

Lots of negative thinking there, let me see if I can help.

Funding. I reckon if you had a look at how much is being spent on health care right across the US you could probably work out a way of cutting the total amount but producing a better outcome. Al it takes is the will to have a look at it but if someone suggests it and all the politicians run around like chickens screaming "socialised medicine! socialised medicine!' it won't happen and the system will continue as is. I thought Americans were open to new ideas.

It won't work in America? Why not? Wait a minute, you're right, it won't, people are too scared to try it.

Well I did try.