Did the system fail this man? - Page 2

vulturesrow · #11 11-22-2005, 03:33 PM

I realize you responded to another poster but I hope you dont mind if I butt in a bit.

[ QUOTE ]
IF YOU ARE SO SAD HE DIED, WHY DIDNY YOU SEND HIM U$1000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply, I dont have 1000$ to give anyone. I do contribute to charity however.

[ QUOTE ]
Hate people using sentimental feelings to attack "the system".
I'm sure there are thousands, if not MILLIONS of people who could not have died, or expanded their lifespan over 20 years, if they had 1 million dollars of disposable income.

Rich people die older, surprise?
THis has nothing to do with the system

[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with the system. In a society that posits a fundamental right to life, ones economic status should have little bearing on your ability to obtain treatment necessary to sustain, especially in a clear cut case like this one was.

I agree we shouldnt change to full scale socialism. But I think we can do better in health care in this country.

Jdanz · #12 11-22-2005, 03:46 PM

well a fundemental right to life would but into other fundemental rights.

There has to be a line at which point it is not worth it for a society to continue paying to save one member. What that line is is far murkier

superleeds · #13 11-22-2005, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The market didnt do much for this fellow, in spite of the fact that he had health insurance

[/ QUOTE ]

The market did it's job. It's why natedogg, pvn etc are wrong in their assumption that the market is always right. Sometimes, and as seen in this young mans case, a market does not (and will not) exist due entirely to market forces. Hopefully he wouldn't have found the cure to cancer.

vulturesrow · #14 11-22-2005, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
well a fundemental right to life would but into other fundemental rights

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, all other rights stem from this one, therefore it trumps the others.

[ QUOTE ]
There has to be a line at which point it is not worth it for a society to continue paying to save one member. What that line is is far murkier

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont completely disagree with this. Obviously compromise is called for and some line drawing is required, but situations like this one should be on the side of the line where the government does something to help.

Jdanz · #15 11-22-2005, 04:29 PM

if something else can trump this, then it can't be the right that all others stem from.

Just a thought.

mackthefork · #16 11-22-2005, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
At what cost? Should someone be kept alive an extra day for $1M? Should someone be kept alive an extra year for $10M?

What if there are 500 people who can be saved by $1M, to extend their lives 20 years, or 1 person who can have his life extended 40?

Why are you in a better position to decide how others should spend their money than they are? Are you demanding that the doctors work for free? If not, the money has to come from somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this about money, I know someone has to pay for it, in many ways the American system is better, as it encourages pioneering treatments etc, the free market isn't all bad that's not what I'm saying.

I got a call 5 minutes ago from my mother, my grandmother just passed away this very minute, finally succumbed to the cancer, her net value ($) is approximately zero. All I expected was for our system to allow her to die with dignity without having to worry about leaving people bills they cannot pay, this is what we get here. I take your point on board believe me, but there are benefits to both ways.

Best Regards Mack

lehighguy · #17 11-22-2005, 05:51 PM

Have you considered the cost spiral implications that government involvement in healthcare entails. Costs in this country are high because of government involvement, not as a result of lack of involvement.

Tax-emept health savings accounds, tax-exempt employee health plans, and various other government subsidies distort the market and drive costs out of control.

There is no particular reason health insurance has to be tied to your employeer or be some special thing. It could be provided for in the same way life insurance or home insurance is.

PokerMatt · #18 11-22-2005, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Have you considered the cost spiral implications that government involvement in healthcare entails. Costs in this country are high because of government involvement, not as a result of lack of involvement.

Tax-emept health savings accounds, tax-exempt employee health plans, and various other government subsidies distort the market and drive costs out of control.

There is no particular reason health insurance has to be tied to your employeer or be some special thing. It could be provided for in the same way life insurance or home insurance is.

[/ QUOTE ]

High government involvement doesn't seem to be a problem in other countries that use a single-payer model. Those countries pay significantly less per capita than those of us in the United States. This doesn't exactly equate to better performance. The World Health Organization ranked the performance of the US system 37th out of 191 countries. In other words, we're paying for single-payer healthcare but we're not getting it.

Here's another article I found that addresses the usual (conservative) arguments against a single-payer system:

Myths and Memes About Single-Payer Health Insurance in the United States: A Rebuttal to Conservative Claims

lehighguy · #19 11-22-2005, 06:32 PM

It's a pretty well known fact that France and the UK for example have lousy healthcare. Huge waiting list, lack of facilities. Just look at how many people dided in France during the heat wave.

I had a chance to experience cheaper healthcare when I went to the hospital in Japan. It only costs $70 for an emergency room visit, but they don't actually treat you. I was still having bowel movements and diareah every fifteen minutes. When I came back to America my doctor gave me one pill and I was cured within a day.

It is important to understand the mythodology behind the statistics they have. The life expectancy is Japan is much longer, but is that due to better health care or because all of them excersise, eat right, and there is almost no obesity.

tylerdurden · #20 11-23-2005, 03:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
well a fundemental right to life would but into other fundemental rights.

There has to be a line at which point it is not worth it for a society to continue paying to save one member. What that line is is far murkier

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa... how does a "right to life" encompass a "right to have someone else supply stuff I need to live"? A right to life means a right to be free from aggression.