Medical things costing money?

Kanzler said:

So what are you really saying? Nobody's suggested that healthcare should fall from the sky nor that government intervention in healthcare would allow them to take less care of their bodies.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

Healthcare, like Education, should be completely free of cost.

Kanzler said:

So what are you really saying? Nobody's suggested that healthcare should fall from the sky nor that government intervention in healthcare would allow them to take less care of their bodies.

Click to expand...

gimmepie said:

My thoughts exactly.

Click to expand...

What do you mean? I laid out my position on whether healthcare and emergency medical services should be free in the first post.

Much of what I've said deals with the underlying concerns that have us even frame a discussion in those terms. Besides that, national healthcare systems are sufficiently complex that our discussions about them are of little practical value. What is immediately practical is to consider the ways in which you can be less reliant on the system, similar to what string555 was saying, and that consideration also shapes much of what I've said.

And isn't it interesting how offended we often get offended at such suggestions, even when they are to our advantage?

Tek said:

What do you mean? I laid out my position on whether healthcare and emergency medical services should be free in the first post.

Much of what I've said deals with the underlying concerns that have us even frame a discussion in those terms. Besides that, national healthcare systems are sufficiently complex that our discussions about them are of little practical value. What is immediately practical is to consider the ways in which you can be less reliant on the system, similar to what string555 was saying, and that consideration also shapes much of what I've said.

And isn't it interesting how offended we often get offended at such suggestions, even when they are to our advantage?

Click to expand...

Exactly how, do you suggest, would more government involvement in healthcare constitute more reliance on the system by you or I?

Do people get offended at such suggestions?

Tek said:

What do you mean? I laid out my position on whether healthcare and emergency medical services should be free in the first post.

Much of what I've said deals with the underlying concerns that have us even frame a discussion in those terms. Besides that, national healthcare systems are sufficiently complex that our discussions about them are of little practical value. What is immediately practical is to consider the ways in which you can be less reliant on the system, similar to what string555 was saying, and that consideration also shapes much of what I've said.

And isn't it interesting how offended we often get offended at such suggestions, even when they are to our advantage?

Click to expand...

Yes, you made it clear you don't think healthcare should be free. Well for clarification, we don't mean free as in no money going in. We mean "free" as in socialised healthcare where it's paid for by taxes. Obviously money needs to go in in order to pay for doctors' time and for resources.

This belief of yours that discussing the healthcare system is impractical makes no sense. We are untrained, ordinary people without access to important resources and even doctors can't file their own scripts. What's impractical is trying to deal with major health concerns on our own, probably making them worse in the process, when what we should be doing is trying to refine our healthcare system so its easier for healthcare professionals to provide us with the treatment and medication we need. Why on Earth would you want to avoid that discussion? Healthcare systems aren't even that complicated compared to other aspects of governance.

Nobody is getting offended about anything, your suggestions just aren't beneficial at all regardless of what you believe.

To avoid problems like this, I just stopped using the word "free" and just replaced it with "socialized" or "universal."

Of course "free" doesn't mean 'free.' Anyone who has even a basic understanding of economics knows that when you factor in the cost to provide or manufacture and run it against charging nothing, you'll always end with a deficit. Taxation is an aspect of life, not an optional thing made mandatory by arbitrary dictators. Might as well allocate more of that money towards things that make society function, like making sure potential workers don't die of sickness. If you don't like taxes, leave society and go live on Mars; it's understandable if you think they're too high, but making them non-existent just makes everything worse.

There were a LOT of words in this post, so here's the TL;DR:

There are emergencies, accidents, and illnesses that are best dealt with by professionals. Absol-utely that is true.

At the same time, the major causes of preventable death in America are health problems related to tobacco, alcohol, and poor diet/exercise. No amount of healthcare reform is capable of addressing that. You could legally mandate that people make healthier choices, and it would still be up to them to make those choices. It's unhealthy choices over time that create this problem; healthy choices over time will remedy it.

Now, this information is readily available, but just knowing it is clearly insufficient. That's why I'm pointing to the general unwillingness of people to take responsibility for their own lives, the knee-jerk 'how dare you suggest...' response. We are our own worst enemies, and until we address that fundamental problem, no change to the healthcare system is going to be sufficient to improve the quality of people's lives.

And let's be clear that taking personal responsibility does not prevent us from making systemic change. Individuals making healthier choices will reduce strain on the healthcare system, increasing its capacity for healing. The two approaches actually enhance each other.



And the rest of my response:

Kanzler said:

Exactly how, do you suggest, would more government involvement in healthcare constitute more reliance on the system by you or I?

Do people get offended at such suggestions?

Click to expand...

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying that the more you work within your capacity to improve your own health, the less you rely on healthcare. They are related but distinct conversations.

And yes, people do get offended when you suggest that they are responsible for their own outcomes. There are two reasons for this. One, it implies that you have not done all you can, and that you have needlessly added to your own suffering, which is painful to admit. Two, people seem to think that personal responsibility and societal assistance are mutually exclusive, when in fact the two approaches work best in tandem.

It is worth noting, however, that with socialized healthcare you no longer have the right to choose whether you rely on it. You either play nice, or you get fines or a time-out behind bars. That we are arguing for such a thing in America leads me to believe that maybe the Dream has died.

gimmepie said:

Yes, you made it clear you don't think healthcare should be free. Well for clarification, we don't mean free as in no money going in. We mean "free" as in socialised healthcare where it's paid for by taxes. Obviously money needs to go in in order to pay for doctors' time and for resources.

This belief of yours that discussing the healthcare system is impractical makes no sense. We are untrained, ordinary people without access to important resources and even doctors can't file their own scripts. What's impractical is trying to deal with major health concerns on our own, probably making them worse in the process, when what we should be doing is trying to refine our healthcare system so its easier for healthcare professionals to provide us with the treatment and medication we need. Why on Earth would you want to avoid that discussion? Healthcare systems aren't even that complicated compared to other aspects of governance.

Nobody is getting offended about anything, your suggestions just aren't beneficial at all regardless of what you believe.

Click to expand...

If it's paid for, then it's not free. That we use the word free in this context is indicative of the psychological motivations at work here, and also how not-in-reality a conversation we are having. Look, we're not organizing a protest or lobbying effort, nor are we directly in charge of structuring healthcare programs. That's not to say there is no value in this discussion. It simply is not going to measurably impact your health any time soon.

Now, examining why we are asking for someone else to bear the burden of improving our own lives, and considering what we can do outside of the healthcare system to better our own health could lead us to discover that there are actions well within our capacity that we are not taking, actions that will be of immediate benefit. For example:

-How much fast food are you eating?
-How much water to you drink?
-Are your breaths shallow or irregular?
-Are you filtering your water and/or air?
-Do you take a multivitamin?
-How about probiotic foods or supplements?
-Are you getting sufficient cardio and strength training during the week?
-Are you overconsuming alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, or other substances?
-How much refined sugar do you consume?
-And as for your emotional health, how much time do you spend family and friends?
-How much of your thought stream is filled with complaints and excuses?
-What resentments do you harbor?

The major causes of preventable death in America are health problems related to tobacco, alcohol, and poor diet/exercise. There's no pill for that and there's no need to burden the rest of the taxpayers with your medical bills. Even seeking a pill for this type of problem is misguided to begin with. It's unhealthy choices over time that create the problem; healthy choices over time will remedy it. And, importantly, no one can force you to take those actions. Not me, not your parents, not doctors, and not policymakers.

In addition, taking those actions will also reduce strain on the healthcare system, increasing its capacity for healing. In this way, top-down and bottom-up approaches to any area of life are complimentary strategies, not opposing strategies. You want to make it easier for medical professionals to treat patients? Take advantage of the body's ability to heal itself - go to work on each and every item on the list above to the best of your ability. Then we can put more resources towards treating the conditions that are outside of our capacity to deal with.

Really, I'm not sure how you've reached the conclusion that my suggestions aren't beneficial. Discuss policy that someone else is in charge of every day for a month, how much will your health improve? Go to work on even one of the list items above every day for a month and your health will improve.

I suspect that the primary concern in this thread is not actually to improve one's own health, but rather how to express how unfair things are and conjecture how someone else could be doing something to make them more fair. In fact, I'm certain of that, based on the way the discussion is framed and the types of responses. Frankly, it's predictable that this conversation has gone the way that it has. And there's nothing wrong with that, really. It's just unlikely to make much of a difference.

As to your other statement, Parvir certainly seemed offended to me in the way that they responded to string555. But more so, I'm pointing to the general unwillingness of people to take responsibility for their own lives, the knee-jerk 'how dare you suggest...' response. It's on display in our culture at large, and you will repeatedly experience it when you begin to engage in a discussion of how you could better yourself. When you read my list of health questions above, do you think 'Oh wow, I have a lot of say in how healthy my body is' or do you start thinking of reasons why you can't be responsible, reasons why you can't do anything instead of ways that you can, and 'you're so insensitive, Tek, you don't even know me'? That's what I'm talking about.

I'm human, too, I know the pull is towards the latter. Been there! I catch thoughts like those in my mind every day. It's not a secret and it's not something that needs to be hidden. We are our own worst enemies, and until we address that fundamental problem, no change to the healthcare system is going to be sufficient to improve the quality of people's lives. And it bears repeating that taking personal responsibility does not prevent us from making systemic change. The two actually enhance each other.

Tek said:

Snip

Click to expand...

I'm glad you've cleared things up a little bit. I'm totally fine with encouraging a cultural shift towards healthier lifestyles - it's been a big thing here for a long time now actually (truthfully it's gotten kind of annoying).

I don't think this changes the need for a socialised healthcare system though. Which is what we're really discussing here. It doesn't matter if the whole country starts eating healthy and exercising plenty if the people who do that and still get sick don't have adequate access to treatment. It also doesn't change the fact that a for-profit healthcare system has much more interest in prolonged treatment than outright cures.

medicine must cost money. i think free medicine is bad

Keiran said:

Healthcare, like Education, should be completely free of cost.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that higher education should be completely free of cost, as I don't see as being as essential to the continuation of living as Healthcare. It's entirely possible to make a good living without a college education under certain circumstances and economic conditions - sadly, the US is currently not one of those places - which includes under-consuming and careful planning.

However, I do think that a large portion of its costs need to be reduced somehow and some oversight needs to be put into place regarding how much universities charge in tuition. Student loan debts are out of control and a real barrier on getting started on adult lives. The fact that most new jobs coming out don't really require a degree and that means more competition for degree-related jobs does not help. It's been more than a year since I've graduated and I'm stuck settling for a job I could've done right out of high-school. There's scarce opportunity anymore to enter the middle class and the youth are rightly pissed.

However, under-college education is necessary and to charge money for something like that I consider regressive and problematic, because it ensures the only people who get any kind of good education are children born into affluent families. Class warfare at it's finest. ick.

Tl;dr: K-12 education should be completely taxpayer funded, college should cost something, but not as much as it does now.

How this should come about is something I'm still pondering over.

-----------------------------------------------------

And as for the healthcare debate, although I agree with Tek to some extent in that plenty of health complications can be controlled through choosing better lifestyle choices, not everyone has the willpower to go through with it or even have those problems to begin with to numb themselves from mental strife that comes with a stressful hyper-meritocratic capitalist society like the US. It's healthy to take personal responsibility, but it's harder to do so when you have baggage that could be alleviated if we had affordable mental healthcare to begin with. I really do think that what you suggest, Tek, is victim-blaming to some degree. Not really calling you a bad person or anything, I agree with you a lot on what you suggest, but I'm saying that it's not really as simple as that. People work in different ways.

And of course, I really don't think that it justifies creating a system that creates astronomical financial problems for the many more people who need healthcare for something they have no legitimate control over, like genetic diseases or conditions that people have received since birth, or for the health problems of our elders.

Socialized healthcare may be the less "AMERICAN DREAM" or less free market and more government reliant than what we have right now, but considering how undesirable what we have now is compared to superior systems in Canada and Europe - I'll take sucking up to government over refusing required treatment because it'll put me in a six-figure debt any day of the week any month of any year.

We have legit cases where people refuse medical treatment or even state that they wish they didn't receive emergency medical treatment because they're afraid of how much it'll cost them personally. I think the moment you get stuff like that, SOMETHING needs to change about the nation's healthcare system. Plus, as I said, everyone paying a proportional amount into a single-payer system could encourage economic growth because it'll take significant burden of healthcare provisions off of business-owners and employers, which I would debate is a very pro-capitalist, pro-American argument.