The Thread Where We Debate About Healthcare in America

[DancingOutlaw]

Risk their health how? By being covered?

I don't want my children to be left out to dry later in life because you fear "big government." This article shows how people get screwed over because of a crappy healthcare system.

Wall Street Journal Profiles Women With Lupus To Highlight Difficulties in U.S. Health System | Kaiser Health News

I had a view of no government healthcare before taking courses and actually learned from these courses. Stick to landscaping because you won't accept any views except your own.

What courses did you take that convinced you government healthcare was good? And where do you take these courses?

And I don’t know why you put “big government” in quotes. Government run healthcare is most definitely big government.

 

[theFallGuy]

Risk their health how? By being covered?

I don't want my children to be left out to dry later in life because you fear "big government."

I had a view of no government healthcare before taking courses and actually learned from these courses. Stick to landscaping because you won't accept any views except your own.

Quite frankly we should all fear "big government". It's also no surprise that college courses are teaching how great "big government" is.

 

[rjd970]

Do we do ourselves and our descendants a favor by keeping people alive by treating incurable diseases/genetic defects allowing them to pass that disease to the next generation?

Interesting. Do we abort 9 month fetuses with known incurable genetic conditions?

 

[Vol_Doc]

There seems to be no middle of the road. They either make a ton or not very much. It’s the family practice guys who are struggling. On the contrary the ER guys are killing it.

Primary care gets screwed, relatively. Most specialists do well. The millionaires are those docs who bust their asses and have no lives or those in cash basis practices. They are the ones I'd consider rich.

 

[Vol_Doc]

Do we do ourselves and our descendants a favor by keeping people alive by treating incurable diseases/genetic defects allowing them to pass that disease to the next generation?

Yeah, that's a sticky wicket. Getting into eugenics territory there.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Interesting. Do we abort 9 month fetuses with known incurable genetic conditions?

Those things are determined way before 9 months. They can do genetic/sex testing way before 12 weeks now.

 

[hog88]

Interesting. Do we abort 9 month fetuses with known incurable genetic conditions?

I don't know, I would guess some do. Should we?

It's a simple question. We have advanced so far medically that we are able to keep people alive with treatments (not cures), allowing them to spread diseases on their children. So should we be doing this?

 

[hog88]

Yeah, that's a sticky wicket. Getting into eugenics territory there.

It is. But I think it's a question we need to start asking.

 

[rjd970]

Those things are determined way before 9 months. They can do genetic/sex testing way before 12 weeks now.

From the pro-life crowd I suspect it doesn't matter. A 5-minute old fertilized egg and the moment just before birth are the same.

Just trying to gauge implications of the genetic disorder statement that was made.

 

[rjd970]

I don't know, I would guess some do. Should we?

It's a simple question. We have advanced so far medically that we are able to keep people alive with treatments (not cures), allowing them to spread diseases on their children. So should we be doing this?

If you are anywhere even approaching the pro-life stance on abortion the answer should be Yes on anything that keeps people alive.

 

[LouderVol]

Do we do ourselves and our descendants a favor by keeping people alive by treating incurable diseases/genetic defects allowing them to pass that disease to the next generation?

this is a very heavy question.

 

[Vol8188]

People used to be able to afford to go to the doctor. What changed?

Government

 

[landscapingvol]

Risk their health how? By being covered?

I don't want my children to be left out to dry later in life because you fear "big government." This article shows how people get screwed over because of a crappy healthcare system.

Wall Street Journal Profiles Women With Lupus To Highlight Difficulties in U.S. Health System | Kaiser Health News

I had a view of no government healthcare before taking courses and actually learned from these courses. Stick to landscaping because you won't accept any views except your own.

No, on the contrary I accept most views that are serious not reactionaries who clamor for government run healthcare. Yep we have a crappy healthcare system yet US survival rates for cancer, treatments for cardiovascular disease, and medical innovations are leading the World. Does the US have a doctor shortage? Yes it does, which is what limits access. Are you going to fix the doctor shortages by capping pay and providing more government oversight? No. The only way you are going to fix doctor shortages is by reducing the expense of education and by rewarding those who choose to become a physician with opportunity to achieve high wages. What you and many others who share your views fail to acknowledge is that rising costs in education are largely due to government control of student loans. Colleges know that the government has a spending problem and can raise rates indiscriminately. These rates didn’t spike until the government took over the private loan industry. You also fail to acknowledge the US government’s abject failures in running most things. Does the US healthcare system need improvements? Yes. Are they going to be solved by hiring thousands more government employees and a complex new government department? No.


Why The US Has Better Cancer Survival Rates Than The Rest Of The World

 

[LouderVol]

If you are anywhere even approaching the pro-life stance on abortion the answer should be Yes on anything that keeps people alive.

keeping a sick person alive to spread disease, or allowing a sick baby to be born? different territory imo.

in one you are actively keeping someone alive, good thing. in the other you are actively killing someone, definitely a bad thing. how bad? most people who argue it try to change the object of discussion from a person to a thing.

 

[hog88]

If you are anywhere even approaching the pro-life stance on abortion the answer should be Yes on anything that keeps people alive.

Just so we understand each other and this doesn't devolve into a debate about abortion. I am pro-life but oppose outlawing abortion.

I completely disagree with your statement. One does not have anything to do with the other.

 

[LouderVol]

Risk their health how? By being covered?

I don't want my children to be left out to dry later in life because you fear "big government." This article shows how people get screwed over because of a crappy healthcare system.

Wall Street Journal Profiles Women With Lupus To Highlight Difficulties in U.S. Health System | Kaiser Health News

I had a view of no government healthcare before taking courses and actually learned from these courses. Stick to landscaping because you won't accept any views except your own.

real world is quiet different than a college course. and of course you have ignored the articles about the governments refusing service to at risk patients. they are already operating at triage levels, that is certainly putting people at risk. and funnily enough is counter productive to why people are arguing for it.

 

[hog88]

this is a very heavy question.

Yes it is, but it's one that should be discussed when discussing healthcare and it's cost.

 

[LouderVol]

Yes it is, but it's one that should be discussed when discussing healthcare and it's cost.

to me its why the government should never be involved.

when its up to the individual there is absolutely zero way this ever happens. no way for me to influence what happens to you.

but when its in the government's hands? We have already seen them make this choice on the side of letting people die.

If I have 30 million dollars, I will spend all 30 million trying to save my kid. the government won't even give you the option to decide. eff that with a stick. thats when it becomes open season.

 

[rjd970]

keeping a sick person alive to spread disease, or allowing a sick baby to be born? different territory imo.

in one you are actively keeping someone alive, good thing. in the other you are actively killing someone, definitely a bad thing. how bad? most people who argue it try to change the object of discussion from a person to a thing.

I don't know...is letting someone die the same as killing them if you have the ability to keep them alive? Who has more rights in this scenario? A sick fetus or a sick person?

A philosophical question would be who is suffering more? Should we let the baby be born only to let it suffer and die? Or should we not help the person who we know is suffering here and now?

Maybe I misunderstood, but the notion I got was we should let the person die, but protect the fetus/baby.

 

[tumscalcium]

From the pro-life crowd I suspect it doesn't matter. A 5-minute old fertilized egg and the moment just before birth are the same.

Just trying to gauge implications of the genetic disorder statement that was made.

You do understand the pro-death crowd believe a 5-minute old fertilized egg and the moment just before birth are also the same......

You I derstand that. Right?

 

[rjd970]

Just so we understand each other and this doesn't devolve into a debate about abortion. I am pro-life but oppose outlawing abortion.

I completely disagree with your statement. One does not have anything to do with the other.

Of course it does. We are talking about life. Both are alive. Both of those lives matter or they don't.

 

[rjd970]

You do understand the pro-death crowd believe a 5-minute old fertilized egg and the moment just before birth are also the same......

You I derstand that. Right?

There are extremes on both sides, sure, I understand that.

I care not what the position is, I care what the consistency is. If one is all for letting a terminal sick person die, but protecting a terminal sick fetus until birth, then something needs to be recalibrated.

 

[hog88]

to me its why the government should never be involved.

when its up to the individual there is absolutely zero way this ever happens. no way for me to influence what happens to you.

but when its in the government's hands? We have already seen them make this choice on the side of letting people die.

If I have 30 million dollars, I will spend all 30 million trying to save my kid. the government won't even give you the option to decide. eff that with a stick. thats when it becomes open season.

I have no problem with the bold, your money do with it as you please.

You touched on government involvement, I don't want the government involved at all. I don't want them barring treatment for those that can afford it and I don't want them mandating insurance companies pay for it.

 

[hog88]

Of course it does. We are talking about life. Both are alive. Both of those lives matter or they don't.

No we're talking about medical expenses.

 

[LouderVol]

I don't know...is letting someone die the same as killing them if you have the ability to keep them alive? Who has more rights in this scenario? A sick fetus or a sick person?

A philosophical question would be who is suffering more? Should we let the baby be born only to let it suffer and die? Or should we not help the person who we know is suffering here and now?

Maybe I misunderstood, but the notion I got was we should let the person die, but protect the fetus/baby.

I am going to respect Hogs point and not turn this into an abortion argument.