Reform Healthcare and EMS

[eveningsky339]

Daedalus does have a point. America has excellent sick care, but very poor health care.

 

[PapaBear434]

...and the liberal fantasyland where money grows on trees and no one has any personal responsibility is even more amazing. Really, read through the constitution and tell me where you have the right to take everyone elses money to treat your poor choices?

I believe the part about taking taxes to defend and promote the "general wellness" of the United States. Besides, the Constitution was meant as a guideline, not a blood oath to the death. When it was written, medical care consisted of getting your leg cut off if you got a wound deeper than the subcutaneous and getting bled with leaches.

Times change, so should we. Health Care for all is not a "liberal fantasy." Every other industrialized nation in the world has figured it out, with better overall results than we have, so apparently we just aren't as smart.

As far as the argument of teaching people to eat such a healthier diet, that's fine and dandy. I'll even agree with that. But tell me where in the Constitution it says that the Government has the right to tell us how to eat, how to exercise, and how to live healthier lives.

Again, it's not a blood oath, it's a living, changing document that changes based on the times. And right now the times demand that we do something about the abuse being perpetrated by the insurance companies, which are profiteering far too much off human misery.

 

[eveningsky339]

I believe the part about taking taxes to defend and promote the "general wellness" of the United States. Besides, the Constitution was meant as a guideline, not a blood oath to the death. When it was written, medical care consisted of getting your leg cut off if you got a wound deeper than the subcutaneous and getting bled with leaches.

Times change, so should we. Health Care for all is not a "liberal fantasy." Every other industrialized nation in the world has figured it out, with better overall results than we have, so apparently we just aren't as smart.

As far as the argument of teaching people to eat such a healthier diet, that's fine and dandy. I'll even agree with that. But tell me where in the Constitution it says that the Government has the right to tell us how to eat, how to exercise, and how to live healthier lives.

Again, it's not a blood oath, it's a living, changing document that changes based on the times. And right now the times demand that we do something about the abuse being perpetrated by the insurance companies, which are profiteering far too much off human misery.

You forget that universal healthcare has not been amazing since it began, at least in some countries. Take the UK's ailing healthcare system, for example.

Also, there are several ways of putting such a system into effect. With the Brits/Canadians, everything is government run-- hospitals, doctors, etc. In the Netherlands (very successful universal system), the govt pays for it all, but the doctors are all private.

Obama wants to build off of the healthcare systems provided by employers. How he is going to do this is anyone's guess.

 

[JPINFV]

Papa:

...and every industrialized country is finding it extremely difficult to pay for it and have tons of issues with it. There's a reason why tens of thousands of patients in England have no dentist (despite 'free coverage'). There's a reason why thousands of Canadians come down to the US every year to private pay for procedures and tests.

Also, sorry, the Constitution is a fairly static document outside of the amendment process. What the legislature has done starting around the New Deal is completely ignore it or abuse the commerce clause. The 9th amendment meant what it meant in 1787 what it means today.

 

[daedalus]

I am disappointed Papa, it seems that you are the one letting politics interfere with your responsibilities to promote health as a future medical professional. It seems you would rather baby your patient who is coming in for his 3rd MI and tell him his eating habits are ok and he should eat how ever he wants, and that modern medicine will take care of the consequences, all to further your own political point. As a medical professional, it is your job to engage in patient education and counsel patients on the benefits of living healthy and quitting smoking. The biggest victory for a medical professional is preventing disease altogether through good patient education. If this is something you wish not to engage in, medicine is not for you.

Prevention is a far better strategy for patients than managing complications of disease. A doctor who gets a patient to stop smoking and thus prevents cancer has had the best outcome. I would rather my patients be told about progressive atherosclerosis than have to suffer through open heart surgery later in life. Knowledge is power and you have the power papa, in your hand, to prevent suffering. Use it.

You passion for universal health care is a good thing, but you are twisting what I and JP say way out of context. You must realize that money is actually an issue here. I have not offered an opinion on any public health policy as of yet in this thread, but I will tell you now that I am very left leaning. Even I realize that at the end of the day, we have to pay for all of this. I will not be made to pay for other people's poor lifestyles. However, as a medical provider, I will treat when challenged and prevent when possible. It is my job, liberal or conservative, black or white, poor or rich, it is my duty to give my patients the knowledge they need to avoid suffering.

 

[Akulahawk]

I am disappointed Papa, it seems that you are the one letting politics interfere with your responsibilities to promote health as a future medical professional. It seems you would rather baby your patient who is coming in for his 3rd MI and tell him his eating habits are ok and he should eat how ever he wants, and that modern medicine will take care of the consequences, all to further your own political point. As a medical professional, it is your job to engage in patient education and counsel patients on the benefits of living healthy and quitting smoking. The biggest victory for a medical professional is preventing disease altogether through good patient education. If this is something you wish not to engage in, medicine is not for you.

Prevention is a far better strategy for patients than managing complications of disease. A doctor who gets a patient to stop smoking and thus prevents cancer has had the best outcome. I would rather my patients be told about progressive atherosclerosis than have to suffer through open heart surgery later in life. Knowledge is power and you have the power papa, in your hand, to prevent suffering. Use it.

You passion for universal health care is a good thing, but you are twisting what I and JP say way out of context. You must realize that money is actually an issue here. I have not offered an opinion on any public health policy as of yet in this thread, but I will tell you now that I am very left leaning. Even I realize that at the end of the day, we have to pay for all of this. I will not be made to pay for other people's poor lifestyles. However, as a medical provider, I will treat when challenged and prevent when possible. It is my job, liberal or conservative, black or white, poor or rich, it is my duty to give my patients the knowledge they need to avoid suffering.

So how do you propose to deal with the people who are told by their doctor about progressive atherosclerosis, and they still choose to ignore that... right into their 3rd or 4th MI? The reason I say this is that while you say that PapaBear will have the power to prevent suffering, it's entirely predicated on whether or not the person being talked to actually listens and takes that advice. Are you proposing to force people to conform to that advice, even against their will?

 

[PapaBear434]

Obama wants to build off of the healthcare systems provided by employers. How he is going to do this is anyone's guess.

And this is the part where rational people stop listening to you.

 

[daedalus]

So how do you propose to deal with the people who are told by their doctor about progressive atherosclerosis, and they still choose to ignore that... right into their 3rd or 4th MI? The reason I say this is that while you say that PapaBear will have the power to prevent suffering, it's entirely predicated on whether or not the person being talked to actually listens and takes that advice. Are you proposing to force people to conform to that advice, even against their will?

No, absolutley not. In fact, my ideology is really anti "nanny-state". I do not think anything I have said thus far should be public policy, or if it is somehow made into public policy, it should by done by people far older and wiser than myself.

For me, it is all about giving the patient the power to make informed decisions. For me, one patient I get to quit smoking is a victory. Not for me or for the health care system, but a victory for that patient and his/her family. I can tell a patient that cutting out the big mac will allow them to spend more time with grandchildren, but it is the paitent's right to use that information as they will. For me it is all about people.

My argument is that any reasonable health care professional will strive to prevent disease.

 

[JPINFV]

And this is the part where rational people stop listening to you.

2008, beginning of an error. You know what's ironic. No one would accept car insurance either provided to everyone by the government or being tied into work. No one would accept life insurance to be provided by the government. No one would accept home insurance, outside of extremely specific types that are generally mandated to the chagrin of home owners, being provided through work or by the government. Why is it that health insurance is tied to work instead of the free market (like auto insurance)?

 

[akflightmedic]

2008, beginning of an error.

Interesting points and I don't know the answer, however you can not use this quote as it was circulating during the Bush error...

 

[PapaBear434]

2008, beginning of an error. You know what's ironic. No one would accept car insurance either provided to everyone by the government or being tied into work. No one would accept life insurance to be provided by the government. No one would accept home insurance, outside of extremely specific types that are generally mandated to the chagrin of home owners, being provided through work or by the government. Why is it that health insurance is tied to work instead of the free market (like auto insurance)?

You can live without car insurance. You can take a bus or walk. You can live without life insurance, just keep your bills paid and don't have a funeral. But health insurance is a necessity. You WILL need it some day, no matter how healthy you imagine yourself to be. And right now, even the people that have it are getting cheated.

Furthermore, the lies of the horrible health care that such third world countries such as the UK and Canada are getting old. Have you ever talked to a Canadian? They revere the guy that is responsible for universal health care (Keifer Sutherland's Grandfather, incidentally) in the same way that we revere Lincoln or Washington. Have you even BEEN to Canada? Or better yet, have you ever used their health care system? I have, and my relatives have, and it's pretty much the same thing we see here. With the one minor difference in that EVERYONE IS COVERED.

Their life expectancy is higher than ours, their infant mortality rate is lower, their overall quality of health is better (strange that regular doctor visits, which encourages preventive medicine and promotes healthier lifestyles does exactly what you guys want to happen anyway), and they still manage to cover everyone. Their waiting times are no less than ours, and if you need an MRI immediately then you'll get one, same as here. You may have to wait a month or so if you are low priority, same as you do here. But again, THEY COVER EVERYONE.

Their system is not bankrupt, as so many like to say. It's not GOING bankrupt. They are not making a profit, and yes, their taxes are higher. I'm willing to live with that, and I currently have a very good health care plan through the US Navy.

All of this is besides the point, of course, as not one bill being proposed is getting rid of anything currently in place besides the fact that people aren't going to get turned away for pre-existing conditions. We aren't making health care workers government employees. We aren't nationalizing hospitals or mandating their prices. All that's happening is trying to pass a set of rules to keep corporations from royally screwing their customers and allowing (and mandating) all Americans to have health care coverage.

The very "worst" thing that may happen to the health insurance giants is the public option, which means they might actually have to bring their prices down to an acceptable level and stop this insane increase in profits we've seen in the last eight to ten years (400% increase in profits since 2001, last I heard) while continually giving less and less care to the people paying you. And even this is on the chopping block, since the corporate lackey Republicans and completely gutless Democrats (and corporate lackey to a slightly lesser degree, of course) are fighting it tooth and nail despite the 70% approval rating FOR a public option.

Everyone else has managed to pull this off. It's not imaginary. It's not impossible. All we are lacking in the will to do it. And no, it's not unconstitutional. If you honestly believe providing basic and preventive health care to everyone is some sort of tyranny, your perspective is so slanted it's not even worth debating with you anymore.

I'll debate the different ways to do it, because almost all the industrialized nations have a unique system unto themselves that works for them. Obviously, we need to work something out that is uniquely us. The Canadian plan, the German plan, or the UK plan may not work here. But I refuse to debate that it SHOULDN'T happen or that it CAN'T happen. It's an asinine position stemmed either out of greed ("I'm not paying for taxes on someone who drinks ranch dressing for dinner while popping out a million welfare kids!"), misinformation and lies ("I'll have to wait six months to get a cast on my broken arm! The government is going to sent my retarded baby to the FEMA death camps!") or backwards political ideology ("Reaganomics works! Never mind history! Trickle down works because the rich care about us!")

It's going to happen, one way or another. Might as well be on board and try to make it better than just digging in your heels and screaming about socialism and nanny states.

 

[eveningsky339]

And this is the part where rational people stop listening to you.

Rational people enjoy pure idealism and empty promises? Hmm. Count me out.

I am all for universal healthcare, but I find myself at odds with Mr. Hopechange. He likes to spend money which does not exist. Universal healthcare is a nationwide effort at the grassroots level... It's much too important to leave up to the greedy folks in congress.

 

[PapaBear434]

Rational people enjoy pure idealism and empty promises? Hmm. Count me out.

I am all for universal healthcare, but I find myself at odds with Mr. Hopechange. He likes to spend money which does not exist. Universal healthcare is a nationwide effort at the grassroots level... It's much too important to leave up to the greedy folks in congress.

And you missed the entire point of the comment... I'd rather leave this entire thing up to Obama ALONE than leave it into the hands of people that think name calling is the way to win an argument.

 

[firecoins]

Basically, it makes you look like Rush Limbaugh. I wouldn't with that on anyone.

the worst thing is to be like Rush Limbaugh??? Really??? I could think of alot worse.

 

[firecoins]

I'd rather leave this entire thing up to Obama ALONE than leave it into the hands of people that think name calling is the way to win an argument.

Being against name calling is one thing. Leaving everything up to the President alone is a dictatorship. Count me out.Whether Bush or Obama are president, let them have nothign to do with me.

 

[PapaBear434]

Being against name calling is one thing. Leaving everything up to the President alone is a dictatorship. Count me out.Whether Bush or Obama are president, let them have nothign to do with me.

I think you missed the part where I was joking about that. Not your fault, as I am not that great at expressing sarcasm in text. I thought "Poopy Head" would have done it...

Don't get me wrong, I have legitimate concerns and criticisms of Obama. He hasn't shut down Gitmo yet, he hasn't abandoned the wiretapping without a warrant program yet, he has proven completely ineffectual at combating nutjobs arguments bringing up anything and everything from secret plots involving his birth and nationalization of the countries car washes because he's so afraid to offend anyone.

And most of all, I don't think he and the Democrats are going nearly far ENOUGH with health care reform by dumping insurance companies altogether and just building a new single payer system. Even then, I'm willing to compromise so long as there is a public option to buy into. But he and the Democrats are again compromising and watering down their bill at the behest of the very people that have already publically and privately said they won't support any legislation that comes out for health care no matter what, because they consider this the way they are going to "break" Obama.

But I at least believe that he is a good man trying his damnedest to change this country for the better, despite his political weaknesses. At one time, I believed that about Bush too, but that was previous to... Well, almost everything after 9-11.

But that's a whole OTHER argument I'm not going to get into right now. My point is that there are legitimate concerns regarding Obama's performance, but they are all coming from the left. The people like me that think he has compromised far too much and hasn't taken the charge of this like he should have. The people on the Right are, instead, concentrating on imaginary transgressions (birth certificate, William Ayers connections, secret hateful religious leanings...) and unfounded fears of what he MIGHT do. Nothing about what he has (or HASN'T) done. They are just yelling about him being a messianic figure (no one on the Left has said anything about that, only the right), calling him NObama, Kenyan, Socialist, Fascist or any other number of names.

And a lot of them are also referring to themselves proudly as "teabaggers," which makes my inner second grader giggle.

I just wish we had an actual liberal party. The problem is that the Right has gone so FAR right, that they have dragged the Democrats into the center. So now we have a center-left party and a "I think my hair is talking to me, and it's a Communist!" level crazy party on the right. No one really suits my beliefs out of the major two parties, and our third party "options" look about as appealing as a three day old Big Mac.

 

[JPINFV]

You can live without car insurance. You can take a bus or walk. You can live without life insurance, just keep your bills paid and don't have a funeral. But health insurance is a necessity. You WILL need it some day, no matter how healthy you imagine yourself to be. And right now, even the people that have it are getting cheated.

Oh, please come out to Southern California and try to walk the several miles to work or use the bus. I mapped out the bus route once and it took me twice as long as driving to work. So, please, come out here and walk to work.

Furthermore, the lies of the horrible health care that such third world countries such as the UK and Canada are getting old. Have you ever talked to a Canadian? They revere the guy that is responsible for universal health care (Keifer Sutherland's Grandfather, incidentally) in the same way that we revere Lincoln or Washington. Have you even BEEN to Canada? Or better yet, have you ever used their health care system? I have, and my relatives have, and it's pretty much the same thing we see here. With the one minor difference in that EVERYONE IS COVERED.

Oh, yea, it's all a lie. Apparently concerns about wait times in Canada is just a lie lead by the media.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/01/16/financialcosts-healthcare.html

Article on England and dentistry:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508496/Seven-million-patients-dentist-NHS-years.html

Yea, I guess I'm making this all up as a part of some vast right wing conspiracy, right?

Their life expectancy is higher than ours, their infant mortality rate is lower, their overall quality of health is better (strange that regular doctor visits, which encourages preventive medicine and promotes healthier lifestyles does exactly what you guys want to happen anyway), and they still manage to cover everyone. Their waiting times are no less than ours, and if you need an MRI immediately then you'll get one, same as here. You may have to wait a month or so if you are low priority, same as you do here. But again, THEY COVER EVERYONE.

Life expectancy and infant mortality are poor standards to follow anyways.

Life Expectancy

Life expectancy is a poor statistic for determining the efficacy of a health care system because it fails the first criterion of assuming interaction with the health care system. For example, open any newspaper and, chances are, there are stories about people who die "in their sleep," in a car accident or of some medical ailment before an ambulance ever arrives. If an individual dies with no interaction with the health care system, then his death tells us little about the quality of a health care system. Yet all such deaths are computed into the life expectancy statistic.

Life expectancy also largely violates the second criterion - a health care system has, at most, minimal impact on longevity. One way to see this is to reexamine the table constructed by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The interpretation that the Center for Economic and Policy Research wants readers to derive from Table 1 is that the United States would be better off with a system of universal health care. However, a careful examination of that table yields a more accurate interpretation: There is no relationship between life expectancy and spending on health care. Greece, the country that spends the least per capita on health care, has higher life expectancy than seven other countries, including Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. Spain, which spends the second least per capita on health care, has higher life expectancy than ten other countries that spend more.

But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think. The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations. The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age."16 While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not. Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."17 This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure.

Switzerland is far from the only nation to have peculiarities in its measure. Italy has at least three different definitions for infant deaths in different regions of the nation.18 The United Nations Statistics Division notes many other differences.19 Japan counts only births to Japanese nationals living in Japan, not abroad. Finland, France and Norway, by contrast, do count births to nationals living outside of the country. Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium. Finally, Canada counts births to Canadians living in the U.S., but not Americans living in Canada. In short, many nations count births that are in no way an indication of the efficacy of their own health care systems.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

Their system is not bankrupt, as so many like to say. It's not GOING bankrupt. They are not making a profit, and yes, their taxes are higher. I'm willing to live with that, and I currently have a very good health care plan through the US Navy.

Of course it's easy to say it's not going bankrupt when all they need to do is hike taxes around to make it solvent. If tax dollars are going to support something that can be managed via other means, then it's going bankrupt. It's like saying Amtrak doesn't have any financial troubles, after the government throws more tax dollars at it.

All of this is besides the point, of course, as not one bill being proposed is getting rid of anything currently in place besides the fact that people aren't going to get turned away for pre-existing conditions. We aren't making health care workers government employees. We aren't nationalizing hospitals or mandating their prices. All that's happening is trying to pass a set of rules to keep corporations from royally screwing their customers and allowing (and mandating) all Americans to have health care coverage.

When an organization that can literally print money is competing (i.e. public option) with private corporations, then it won't take long to put other plans out of business.

 

[ffemt8978]

What part of ZERO TOLERANCE for name calling are people having difficulty understanding?

This thread is now closed because of it.