Health Care: A Right or a Privilege?

by prophecor 401 Replies latest members politics

• 

  LDH

  You know, whilst we're propping up the Brit system as the model we should all look to, I'd like to get myself into real trouble here. All UK-ers and Anglophiles don't take this as a personal attack. It's an example.

  In the UK Health care is socialized. Dental care is not. I have never known one Brit (personally) not to have tooth problems and at the least, horrible dental hygiene.

  My sister's husband is a Brit and he's a PhD, very intelligent fellow. I asked him straight out when they were visiting in November, DUDE what is up with the bad teeth.

  It don't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Since the 'government' doesn't pay for it, it's not a priority to the citizens, and most don't pay for it on their own, nor obtain the insurance to provide for it.

  The result is general medical costs are greatly increased. Woo-hoo for feel good politics.

  http://www.eufic.org/en/quickfacts/dental_health.htm

  http://www.hcfama.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=342

  Here is just one snapshot of Scottish dental health:

  Adults

  • By middle age, the average Scottish adult has lost 8 adult teeth and has 10 teeth filled, and over half of 65 year olds have lost all their teeth.

  • 41% of dentate adults in Scotland reported having some dental pain in the previous 12 months.

  • Over 500 cases of oral cancer are diagnosed in Scotland annually, half of which will be fatal.

  Children

  • By the age of 3, over 60% of children from areas of deprivation have dental disease.

  • By the age of 5, over 56% of all children have dental disease.

  • By the age of 14, over 67% of children already have decay in their adult teeth.

  and this was taken from

  http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/11/18542/29108

  This is not the type of model I want to follow. UK citizens have, without realizing it, allowed the government to set their health priorities.

  Here is an article I read a while back in the New York Times. It breaks down the Actuarial function of insurance versus the Social function of insurance into common terms. The HSAs that President Bush authorized are mentioned in this article as well. (Remember I've referred to them two or three times by now--start planning.) It is in error with one regard. Most HSA compatible policies pay for a limited amount of routine and preventative health care without regard to the deductible. For instance, a $500 benefit for routine/preventative care prior to the $2400 deductible is most common.

  I hope anyone that is still reading this thread will take the time to read this article, it took me forever to find it.

  http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050829fa_fact "The Moral Hazard Myth"

  Lisa

  All my chompers, Class
• 

  Terry

  The level of your argument is just way too general to be useful:
  
  
  :: COMMUNISM advertises a kind of JUSTICE that allows nobody to excel __at the expense__of the group. Which is to say: forced sharing to create equality.
  
  
  :: CAPITALISM advertises: may the best man win!
  
  
  From a practical perspective this choice seems rather simplistic and artificial. You can change the wording without being held responsible for what you're saying, e.g.:
  
  
  "Communism advertises: Let's give everybody a chance!"
  
  
  "Capitalism advertises: let's get rid of the disadvantaged"

  Well, let us take a more scientific approach.

  What are the results to the Capitalist economy vs. the results of the Socialist economy?

  Just the last hundred years should serve to create a solid case one way or the other.

  Why does the United States lead the world? It isn't because of democracy alone. It isn't because we are smarter, we aren't. Our educational system is not up to the task. We are fat, spoiled and self-righteous here in America. But, we attract innovation and stay ahead in technology for a reason firmly rooted in our Capitalist terra firma of allowing the movers and shakers of the world to own their own inventions and prosper from the ownership.

  Where our Capitalism fails is where it is eaten away by special interest meddling and government controls disguised as good stewardship. Honest businessmen are almost literally compelled to play the evil game of lobbying to swing legislation in their favor to dodge confiscatory taxes and other artificial tampering. Our Congress is in the business of using the law as a Protection Racket to acquire re-election money. It is a nasty system and corrosive. But, what remains of the beauty of the Capitalist bedrock of "ownership" and "protected rights" manages to float our boat quite nicely.

  Terry
• 

  Terry

  I agree with a couple of your comments. Karma is merciless, and charitable giving should be voluntary. To say otherwise would be to deny the basic meaning of the words mercy and charity.

  I personally feel morally obliged to support the rights of others (notably in third world countries) to enjoy the basic healthcare and sanitation.that I believe is my "right". That's my personal ethics, though, and I don't denigrate others for holding contrary opinions.

  Thank you for your reasoned voice of rationality.

  When we ALLOW somebody to help we ennoble them. When we force somebody to help we drain them of their freedom of choice and risk alienating their giving spirit. How?

  Large organizations have high overhead. Charity is expensive in the administrative end. Further, the bureaucracy of selecting who "qualifies" for aid is arbitrary, carpricious and whimsical when at its best and cruel, convoluted and criminal at worst.

  The largest of organizations is the Federal Government which is inept at doing the simplest things. It is gorged on the fat of taxpayer dollars and simply ponderously incapacitated by byzantine legislative rules. The behemoth of governmental ineptitude swallows up a fortune of money doing not much more than grinding a wheel here and there.

  I'd be all for "forced charity" i.e. taxed entitlement programs if there was a scintilla of proof the money would be spent even modestly effectively. But, it has never been the case.

  The so-called LBJ program of WAR ON POVERTY spent TRILLIONS of dollars without one single demonstrable positive outcome!! Yet, the money was taxed, wasted and unaccounted for as a matter of course. Par for the course in government you might say.

  Those same Trillions at a local level spent by honest volunteers in a one on one situation could have wrought miracles.

  That is my only argument.

  IDEALLY it is pointless to argue this subject. It is only at the grassroots, hands-on, local level that assistance has any effective chance of making a difference. And always voluntarily in my view.

  (I say to the lurking Socialists: The "right" to be cared for is not only absurd--it is unworkable in the extreme. You may as well say we have a right to be LOVED by strangers. Try enforcing that.)

  Thanks Little Toe.

  Terry
• 

  LittleToe

  LDH:
  You're right. Our health priorities have been set by politicians.

  It used to be that we could blame some of it on rationing during the war years. For a period after that free milk was given to schoolchildren, to enhance their calcium levels for their bones and teeth (I remember it well - sour 1/4 pint bottles coz they'd been left in the sun too long).

  Then in the 80s Margaret Thatcher started privatising everything, including dentistry. We now have a dearth of National Health Dentists, with many having gone private because it's more lucrative. Since my last dentist moved away, I'm now on a six month waiting list to get back into my local NHS Dental Practice. Prior to this I would go for a checkup every 6-8 months. There are no Private dentists in the area in which I live.

  Our Health Service is over-stretched and in decline, which is why we're currently trying to reorganise and streamline everything.
• 

  Terry

  Any group (governmental or otherwise) who compels you to do something is overstepping the very freedom our nation is supposed to stand for.

  Does this mean then that we should dump all of the mandatory tax laws and start over? A government imposes tax on it's citizens in order to provide services/goods that promote an efficient, productive and safe environment. Taxes are paid to service our roads, to provide water and sewage, education facilities, public facilities etc. What defines the boundaries of freedom? At what point do we determine that boundary? Do we make taxes totally voluntary so that we have a society that relies only on donations? Adjusting the tax rates for every person so that health care can be provided for everyone is in essence no different than any other tax paid.

  I have to ask you this. Are you speaking IDEALLY here? Or, is the naive tone on purpose?

  You are representing something here which is a kind of Ideal Fiction and not reality. On what level should I respond?

  First of all, Government in America was originally intended to be so small that it would cost little. Secondly, the landowners and successful business men who would make up the government would have a vested interest in avoiding taxation since it would directly impact on their efficient prosperity. Thirdly, there is a conflict, a built-in dissonance between an announced INTENTION to build roads, provide water and sewage, etc and the ACTUAL demonstration of that intention by result. Let me give you an example of this.

  When the Texas State Legislature (I live in Texas) proposed allowing a State Lottery here it was advertised as a way to provide much needed funding for Public Schools which would lessen the impact of taxation for schools on the citizens. That was the STATED INTENTION. The proposal passed. What then happened in reality?

  The funds from the lottery did NOT GO into education at all. No. It went into the GENERAL FUND which could be spent the way politician's saw fit individually. That mean a lot of pork barrell local projects and not much at all for education.

  In response to your above question I now comment. Am I advocating doing away with all mandatory taxes and starting over?

  Here is my answer: IT AIN'T A GONNA HAPPEN no matter what I advocate.

  Therefore, I'm not going to continually allow the mismanagement to grow and grow and grow by adding more and more opportunity for new taxes and bungled bureaucratic strategies to go haywire under the guise of HELPING people. It is a fiction.

  Why tap the bankrobber on the shoulder and hand him your wallet?

  Government is not any good at managing the money it already has grabbed under its benign and altruistic slogan of: FOR THE PEOPLE. Why then, would a sane person grant government even more money when they have ably demonstrated incompetence?

  Government run healthcare is a disastrous nonsensical madness.

  Only local, volunteer programs stand the chance of being effective.

  And one more thing!

  The Federal Government has the State Government over a barrel when it comes to forcing their policies (as inept as they are) on them. They withold huge wads of money if the State refuses to comply. The Federal Money wads o' cash is a big stick of persuasion. We have State's rights--but, few legislators have the gumption to risk losing the Federal funding.

  Government is awash in coerced $$$. It is out of control how it is taken and spent. Why add to the crime?

  Terry
• 

  LDH

  Little Toe,

  Thank you for not taking offense. I was discussing one of the cons of socialized medicine.

  The point is, I have acknowledged several times that the current systems is not sustainable in the long-term, however it is the system we have. If the politicians could figure out how to provide health care for the $45 million uninsured Americans WITHOUT increasing my taxes, I'd be all for it and so would most other Americans.

  One of the components of the new program should be financial and fiscal education and incentive, so that the person is on the 'new plan' which is subsidized by taxpayers for as short a time period as possible.

  There is another solution that is not frequently spoken of, limited benefit plans. There are companies who sell benefit plans such as $150,000 annual max benefit, with first dollar and co-pay services. The rate is usually about a fourth of fully insured, $5,000,000 lifetime max plans. When the member exhausts the limited benefit, they are usually eligible for Medi-cal or other government program as a backup based on their income.

  Lisa
• 

  LittleToe

  No offense taken in the slightest

  Here the idea was introduced as an insurance for a basic level of health care and an accompanying national social care and pension scheme whereby men could retire at 65 and women at 60, and there would be support available for the unemployed.

  Tax and "National Insurance" combined take about 25% of my gross income, and less for those earning less (like Window Cleaning JWs ).

  Since people are living longer due to advances in health care, we have more pensioners than anticipated on the books. They are now looking to raise the pension age and a few other tweaks, to enable the system to continue.

  I suspect that if they'd kept to the original plan and left the more expensive types of care to the private sector and insurance, it would have worked better and for longer. There would still have been a disparity between rich and poor, concerning quality of life for the aged. FOr example, should hip replacements be available to all?
• 

  ballistic

  Little Toe, I don't know if you know about the scare I recently had (my flat mate has TB) which I posted about, but the service has been A1, very impressed. I have not got it by the way but had to go for several tests - it's a nice new hospital and the doctors extremely friendly and waited there for me at the hospital Christmas Eve. I know what you mean about the shortage of dentists though.
• 

  LDH

  Since people are living longer due to advances in health care, we have more pensioners than anticipated on the books. They are now looking to raise the pension age and a few other tweaks, to enable the system to continue.

  This should tell all of us that this is a Ponzi scheme, much like our country's Social Security system.

  Our retirement age in this country has been raised to 67 before you can draw your SS pension.

  This is one of the biggest reasons I am against socialized anything. With services like fire, police, etc, there are concrete costs and the taxpayers can vote on whether or not to make improvements, etc through bond measures.

  With this Social Security crap, it's just foisted on us and whatever the politicians decide is what we have to live with.

  If they socialize medicine, the costs are not concrete, they are fluid and spiral upwards. Before you know it, they will be 'tweaking' the benefits much like you are seeing in your country.

  Lisa
• 

  LittleToe

  Lisa:I have no difficulty with the idea of basic things being covered. When you're in an accident it's nice to know that they'll attempt to operate and save your live, should that be required. I'm not so sure about some of the elective surgeries, though.

  Some things, such as laser eye-correction are only available privately (I got it done myself a few years ago). I imagine this could be expanded. The difficulty is that it's a political hot potato and no-one wants to be the "bad guy" that makes the change.

  The difficulty is in where to draw the line. In the case of Englishman and Dansk, and Ballistic and his roomie, are we to suggest that they shouldn't have received the care they did without further personal investment? I have difficulty drawing the line that tightly.