Medical things costing money?

[Corrin]

Hey guys! I hope my wording is ok with this, but do you think healthcare should be free? Should a hospital visit emergency be free? Or not? Why do you think so?

 

[Sir Codin]

Making it a taxpayer-funded service is the best way to take the burden off of individuals. The general idea of "free healthcare" is that if everyone pays an appropriate amount of their income into this service, then nobody truly pays an astronomical amount for it when they actually need. That's literally how pools work.

You could argue the same for private healthcare insurance as see that as an argument for why it should remain out of government hands, but I said this before in another thread: privatization and for-profit motives don't provide much incentive for actually curing people, only treating them. This is especially true in a capitalist market controlled by very few competitors as tends to be the end result of unregulated capitalism. Privatization CAN be effective if there were adequate regulations, businessmen were incentivized to be generous saints from birth, and human beings in general were honest as angels. But...heh.

Of course, the right will always argue "but being forced to pay for it isn't freedom." To which I say, I think we need to re-evaluate the concept of freedom. I'll personally prefer "the freedom to live free from the anxiety that any accident or illness could send me into financial jeopardy" over "the freedom to have a few extra dollars of my income per month by not being forced to pay for grandma's blood pressure medication."

Kind of a weak comparison, I'll admit, but fuck it. I'm tired.

TL;DR: I think single-payer's the best route and in time, might be the only route left for America to take other than "let 'em die fuck 'em."

 

[Somewhere_]

Im generally pro-privatized healthcare and insurance (with some sort of government insurance option as a safety net, such as Medicaid and Medicare), but the way the US does it is really, really bad. The AMA doesnt permit a lot of competition and there are far too little insurers (often there is only 2 in a state and they cant compete across state lines). And hospitals themselves have no competition, and as a result, can charge ridiculous prices. They often charge prices 20x more than the real cost.

But you shouldn't have universal healthcare if you dont have the right population density. This is why Canada has horrible waiting periods- their population is very spread out, and as a result, there are less medical services per person. Universal healthcare isnt absolutely horrible if you have a denser population because that removes one of its major flaws.

 

[Leafsfan]

I am fully in favour of free healthcare. Being a Canadian, I can see that the value of free healthcare is immeasurable. I do understand where Americans come from as they have never had it, but I couldn't;t imagine life without it. The quality of care in Canada is among the best in the world and not having to worry at all about anything in regards to ailments or medical emergencies is the way it should be.

The main argument I've heard against free healthcare is the wait times. I can say from experience that if you go to a clinic complaining of a runny nose, or a sore finger, you will wait a bit. If you have any type of medical episode/emergency that is of any serious concern you are taken in right away, whether that be in a hospital or clinic. Many of the people who argue this bring up people who die in Canada waiting for a needed surgery. Although there are people who this happens to here, it it nowhere near the same amount of people who die in America because they can't afford healthcare.

 

[Nah]

Can't really have it be truly free, since it needs to be funded somehow, as the people who provide the care and supply the stuff needed for medical services need to be compensated for their work.

Actually affordable though? Of course.

 

[Sir Codin]

Yeah, I don't get the wait time argument at all. I've heard wait times in Canada only apply to people who don't have a condition that warrants immediate concern, like a heart attack.

If you have the flu you might have to wait, but I think they'll slot you in immediate if you need a fast-treatment for something where every second counts. Idk for sure, I don't live in Canada, so don't quote me on it.

 

[gimmepie]

No, healthcare should not be for-profit. We have a significantly better healthcare system than the US here, and even we have problems. Speaking from personal experience, it's been well over a year since I needed an ambulance and I still owe hundreds of dollars and have debt collectors breathing down my neck. The ambulance company can legally refuse to send another ambulance to my house if I need one now because of this and I can't just pay it off because I have no source of income right now and am struggling to get government assistance.

Here though, we at least have public hospitals that don't charge you and general practitioners who bulk bill if you have a healthcare card. In the US you have this mad system based around privitised healthcare where hospitals and GPs charge and there's practically no government assistance. That's prioritising profit over lives and it's fucked up. If I lived in the US instead of Australia, I'd probably have died because there is no way in hell either I or my family could have afforded the repeated emergency room visits. My sister would probably have died years ago too with all her issues. It's awful to think there's families there actually experiencing that.

The wait time argument is ridiculous because triage is a thing. You get seen according to when you need to be seen, not according to when you arrived or how much money you have and that is how it should be. The people complaining about wait times are probably the ones who don't need to see a doctor that badly because the people having heart or serious respiratory problems are already in the resuscitation bay.

The only other reason left to be against public heathcare is "I don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare". You're not, you're paying an infinitesimal amount of money to the government that gets pooled. Then you can dip into that pool if you yourself need health care, even if the cost of your surgery is more than the amount you've put in. It's like everyone sharing a single insurance policy, except it's vastly cheaper for everyone involved. Stop being greedy and think logically.

 

[string555]

If people have free health care, and someone gets injured to the point where they are out of a job, then who pays for it? If everyone pays their fair share for the health care, it would seem that it would end up being balanced.

Now, on a mad side note, if everyone just learned some health skills, maybe they could tackle these problems themselves, without relying on the governments for the care. Isn't that the ideal situation, relying on as few of people as possible for help?

 

[Parivir]

Now, on a mad side note, if everyone just learned some health skills, maybe they could tackle these problems themselves, without relying on the governments for the care. Isn't that the ideal situation, relying on as few of people as possible for help?

What a thing to say. Are you seriously condoning DIY treatments as a substitute for actual healthcare? 'Learning some health skills', I assume, means knowing how to execute first aid, conduct CPR, perform the Heimlich, etc.; how exactly does that negate the necessity of the public health sector or, as you put it, 'relying on the governments for care'? That's a gross oversimplification of the problem.

 

[string555]

What a thing to say. Are you seriously condoning DIY treatments as a substitute for actual healthcare? 'Learning some health skills', I assume, means knowing how to execute first aid, conduct CPR, perform the Heimlich, etc.; how exactly does that negate the necessity of the public health sector or, as you put it, 'relying on the governments for care'? That's a gross oversimplification of the problem.

These various skills to cover simple medical treatments seem like skills that everyone should learn, in case of emergency. I did say it was a mad side note, didn't I? ;P

 

[Parivir]

These various skills to cover simple medical treatments seem like skills that everyone should learn, in case of emergency. I did say it was a mad side note, didn't I? ;P

If you're recommending learning simple medical treatments like first aid, then that's not a mad side note. If you're saying we can replace the health sector with DIY treatments, that's a hella dangerous idea to perpetuate, disclaimer of it being a mad side note notwithstanding.

 

[User19sq]

I don't think healthcare should be completely free, because someone has to pay for it. But I feel it should be cheaper. I blame insurance companies, as well as our politicians for causing a stalemate over something a black guy made.

Say what you will of me for using this source, but it's a pretty solid argument:

 

[Tek]

Hey guys! I hope my wording is ok with this, but do you think healthcare should be free? Should a hospital visit emergency be free? Or not? Why do you think so?

TL;DR:

First step to getting healthy: forget about free stuff!

It's hard work to get your life together, and it's understandable that we avoid it. What we find out sooner or later is that our suffering only increases the longer we avoid this challenge. And no one can do it for you, regardless of anyone's opinion about the matter.

You will almost certainly will need to ask for help, but it's in your best interest to assume full responsibility for your life... despite the fact that much of it is beyond your control!


Full answer:

I think this question is not based in reality.

Regardless of whether we think healthcare should be free, the reality is that it can't be free. Medical treatment requires time, energy, and resources. To say "I want free healthcare" is pure fantasy, and in the real world that would be saying "I want someone else to pay for my healthcare".

I don't mind sharing the expense on principle. But again, that ideal doesn't jibe well in a society where people (including myself!) have taken very poor care of their bodies, and insist that they are not responsible for that problem or its resolution.

Sure, the environment pulls for an unhealthy lifestyle. It can be far more difficult to live healthy than it is to live unhealthy when we're surrounded by advertisements that are designed to manipulate our emotions in order to have us make poor health choices, which provides profits to some corporate entity and its shareholders. And the unhealthy choice typically requires far less effort!

But by wallowing in self-pity and being averse to taking responsibility we only make it worse for ourselves. As my grandma used to say, "Life's a bitch and then you die." It's never been fair. It's a hard pill to swallow, trust me, I know. But like it or not, we have free will, and it is therefore impossible for any outside force to impose order upon our lives.

One could debate the philosophical merits of that argument, but practically speaking we go about our daily lives as if humans have free will. I'm only interested in discussions that can directly improve the quality of our lives. To that end I say that we must get our own house in order or live in chaos, plain and simple.

And that's important because with something like Obamacare, we are essentially asking the government to be responsible for our health. It's completely inappropriate. What we've really accomplished is to give up our right to choose whether we participate in the healthcare system, which goes against the very principle of individual liberty. It's progress, alright, but not towards a free Republic.

 

[pixelani]

TL;DR:

First step to getting healthy: forget about free stuff!

It's hard work to get your life together, and it's understandable that we avoid it. What we find out sooner or later is that our suffering only increases the longer we avoid this challenge. And no one can do it for you, regardless of anyone's opinion about the matter.

You will almost certainly will need to ask for help, but it's in your best interest to assume full responsibility for your life... despite the fact that much of it is beyond your control!


Full answer:

I think this question is not based in reality.

Regardless of whether we think healthcare should be free, the reality is that it can't be free. Medical treatment requires time, energy, and resources. To say "I want free healthcare" is pure fantasy, and in the real world that would be saying "I want someone else to pay for my healthcare".

I don't mind sharing the expense on principle. But again, that ideal doesn't jibe well in a society where people (including myself!) have taken very poor care of their bodies, and insist that they are not responsible for that problem or its resolution.

Sure, the environment pulls for an unhealthy lifestyle. It can be far more difficult to live healthy than it is to live unhealthy when we're surrounded by advertisements that are designed to manipulate our emotions in order to have us make poor health choices, which provides profits to some corporate entity and its shareholders. And the unhealthy choice typically requires far less effort!

But by wallowing in self-pity and being averse to taking responsibility we only make it worse for ourselves. As my grandma used to say, "Life's a rattata and then you die." It's never been fair. It's a hard pill to swallow, trust me, I know. But like it or not, we have free will, and it is therefore impossible for any outside force to impose order upon our lives.

One could debate the philosophical merits of that argument, but practically speaking we go about our daily lives as if humans have free will. I'm only interested in discussions that can directly improve the quality of our lives. To that end I say that we must get our own house in order or live in chaos, plain and simple.

And that's important because with something like Obamacare, we are essentially asking the government to be responsible for our health. It's completely inappropriate. What we've really accomplished is to give up our right to choose whether we participate in the healthcare system, which goes against the very principle of individual liberty. It's progress, alright, but not towards a free Republic.

Disclaimer: none of this is meant as an atrack on you or your position, and I've tried to remain respectful despite my very different perspective!

Okay - I can respect that viewpoint and I get where you're coming from, but, using that perspective, how exactly is one expected to take responsibility for - and by extension pony up the capitalist-inflated life-ruining bill for - something that they were born with, or acquired over time because of a genetic factor, or caught from someone due to the actions of that other person? How is one expected to foot the massive medical bills that come from genetically-induced cancer, or afford drugs and treatments that the local "pharma bro" or big CEO can make 5,000% more expensive at the drop of a hat?

When we talk about healthcare solutions, we are primarily not talking about people who make poor decisions and don't take care of themselves. We're not even talking about people who are influenced by external factors, like those malicious and irresponsible advertisements you mentioned. We should be talking about them as well, because it actually becomes incredibly difficult at a micro level to take two people and say one deserves assistance and one doesn't based on certain actions - but we're really not. We're more or less talking about people who absolutely cannot be expected to take full responsibility for what has happened to them or for their state of being. We're talking about people systemically disenfranchised financially, to the point that "hard work" cannot and will not elevate their socio-economic class; we're talking about people who may never have done anything wrong but now have cancer, or HIV, or chronic pain, or MS, or ALS, or any other number of things over which they have absolutely no control. Things as simple as accidents, or the flu, or opportunistic infections, or sporting injuries.

But the idea of the systemically disenfranchised who can't just take responsibility for their situation and change it themselves are the people who take center stage here; the United States is no longer (and has probably never been) a place where one knows they can change their lot in life, as income inequality is too high and social mobility is too low.

If medical bills were affordable in the first place, then maybe your perspective would make more sense to me, but I just can't fathom the concept when we live in a society in which it costs thousands of dollars simply to step into an emergency room and say "help, I'm dying." It's hard to say we should all be our own keepers and "get our house in order," as you put it, when it can cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to stay alive because of something that happened entirely randomly, or happened because you were a victim of a crime or freak accident your insurance (if you have it) won't pay for or this or that, you know? For a lot of people, that's simply not possible.

There's a lot of rhetoric built around the choice element you mentioned, but that oversimplifies the concept of freedom and individual liberty. We shouldn't have to worry about the choice of whether or not to participate in the healthcare system, and we shouldn't have to worry about choosing this insurance provider or that treatment center or the slightly different generic pill over the branded one.

Maybe I'm alone in this thought, but health care should exist as a separate entity from our wallets, our private sectors, and the goods and services that we exchange for prosperity. It's literally needed to live - in modern society, it's becoming as basic a function as fire departments, police units (though their effectiveness is another debate), legislative bodies, and more. It's something that should be by and large paid for through taxes and the concept of the social contract. In order to be a part of a functioning, prosperous, and peaceful society, one of the things that we should be willing to exchange is a part of that prosperity for the guaranteed wellbeing of our fellow citizens. This is how we treat things like the military and the protection of the land we occupy, so why is it not the way we treat the protection of the bodies we live in?

That some people make terrible decisions and don't keep themselves healthy shouldn't mean another should die because he or she can't afford insurance and then, by extension, can't afford medication or treatment. There's a reason so many other nations have moved to a better, more affordable, and universally covered model: we know, by virtue of statistics and data and other assessments, that it works, and it's probably scalable to a large nation like ours.

My apologies if any of this is hard to understand or seems more "angry" than intended; I tend to ramble a little bit and get lost in the passion of the moment, but I find that I make more sense when I get all my words out! {XD} The only entity I'm at all frustrated with is "the system," as cliche as that sounds.

 

[Tek]

Disclaimer: none of this is meant as an atrack on you or your position, and I've tried to remain respectful despite my very different perspective!

Well, you're nicer than me! I was intentionally provocative in the way I worded my statements. So I'm at least partly responsible for the frustration you're experiencing. Read on, you might discover why I did that. It wasn't just to be rude, really.

... how exactly is one expected to take responsibility for - and by extension pony up the capitalist-inflated life-ruining bill for - something that they were born with, or acquired over time because of a genetic factor, or caught from someone due to the actions of that other person? How is one expected to foot the massive medical bills that come from genetically-induced cancer, or afford drugs and treatments that the local "pharma bro" or big CEO can make 5,000% more expensive at the drop of a hat?

Well you start by declaring that you are, in fact, responsible. But not as a logical statement like 'X event and Y circumstance exist, and I played this or that role, so therefore I am responsible'!

It's not an evaluation of what is at fault or who is to blame, and it's also not a step-by-step plan. It's more like the conviction that you have the ability to effect change (regardless of evidence for or against), and the willingness to take action even when you feel like someone else should rightfully be doing it.

We're more or less talking about people who absolutely cannot be expected to take full responsibility for what has happened to them or for their state of being. We're talking about people systemically disenfranchised financially, to the point that "hard work" cannot and will not elevate their socio-economic class; we're talking about people who may never have done anything wrong but now have cancer, or HIV, or chronic pain, or MS, or ALS, or any other number of things over which they have absolutely no control. Things as simple as accidents, or the flu, or opportunistic infections, or sporting injuries.

But the idea of the systemically disenfranchised who can't just take responsibility for their situation and change it themselves are the people who take center stage here; the United States is no longer (and has probably never been) a place where one knows they can change their lot in life, as income inequality is too high and social mobility is too low.

The above definition of 'responsibility' works regardless of circumstance, and what you find when you take it on is that it gives you real power in creating pathways to success in your life. When you're genuinely being responsible in this way, it's like taking the blinders off of your eyes, enhancing your imagination in the most practical way possible. It's the most useful when the deck is stacked against you and you just got dealt an unexpectedly bad hand.

If medical bills were affordable in the first place, then maybe your perspective would make more sense to me, but I just can't fathom the concept when we live in a society in which it costs thousands of dollars simply to step into an emergency room and say "help, I'm dying."

I have thousands of dollars in emergency medical bills right now! And ten times that amount in school loans, which I took when I was 18 and thought it's what I was supposed to do. Then my unresolved social anxiety led to isolation and subsequent addiction, and here I stand a drop-out. The more I get into my background and family history, the better a case I can build for why I am one of the systematically disenfranchised.

But here's the thing. Over the last ten years, I've found that what works to flip the script is to give up being a victim, no matter what the circumstances. It's incredibly difficult. Many times throughout the day, I discover that my thoughts are rooted in self-pity and some degree of despair and defeat. And the longer I dwell there, the more depressed and the less effective I am. The more I say that this is my time and that it's up to me to better myself, the more empowered and in action I am.

My apologies if any of this is hard to understand or seems more "angry" than intended; I tend to ramble a little bit and get lost in the passion of the moment, but I find that I make more sense when I get all my words out! {XD} The only entity I'm at all frustrated with is "the system," as cliche as that sounds.

I understand completely. I feel enraged when I consider the way society is structured. I presented my viewpoint to intentionally rattle some cages, and to create an opportunity to let go of self-sabotaging narratives and discover real power.

 

[Kanzler]

TL;DR:And that's important because with something like Obamacare, we are essentially asking the government to be responsible for our health. It's completely inappropriate. What we've really accomplished is to give up our right to choose whether we participate in the healthcare system, which goes against the very principle of individual liberty. It's progress, alright, but not towards a free Republic.

Here in Canada the government is 100% responsible for our health and we have absolutely no right to choose whether we participate in the healthcare system.

 

[gimmepie]

I understand completely. I feel enraged when I consider the way society is structured. I presented my viewpoint to intentionally rattle some cages, and to create an opportunity to let go of self-sabotaging narratives and discover real power.

So... I should embrace my inability to leave the house and my constant physical and health problems because they make me powerful? I'm all for self-empowerment and finding the best of a bad situation, but that doesn't pay bills.

It's one thing to say "okay, I'm sick and I'm going to have to deal with that" it's another to say "I should have to pay hundreds or thousands for the medical treatment keeping me alive because sickness is strength!"

I'm not about to play the victim, but it doesn't change the fact that I can't work and therefore I can't afford medicine I need (I have not yet been able to secure a disability pension) and it's worse in the US. There's people a hell of a lot sicker than me too. What you're saying makes no sense.

 

[Tek]

So... I should embrace my inability to leave the house and my constant physical and health problems because they make me powerful?

Your health problems are not a narrative, they're a physical reality. Embracing then is not necessary to do something about them. So that's probably not what I'm saying, eh?

I'm all for self-empowerment and finding the best of a bad situation, but that doesn't pay bills.

It's one thing to say "okay, I'm sick and I'm going to have to deal with that" it's another to say "I should have to pay hundreds or thousands for the medical treatment keeping me alive because sickness is strength!"

I'm not about to play the victim, but it doesn't change the fact that I can't work and therefore I can't afford medicine I need (I have not yet been able to secure a disability pension) and it's worse in the US. There's people a hell of a lot sicker than me too. What you're saying makes no sense.

Really? Notice that I never said we shouldn't have affordable healthcare. I said that the money for the time, energy, and resources to provide that healthcare has to come from somewhere, which is true.

I never said you have to do it entirely on your own. In fact, I said the opposite - you will almost certainly need help to have your life work. Requesting aid is one strategy, and it doesn't inherently mean that you can't pursue additional strategies simultaneously.

Do what you can with diet and exercise, make money where you can online, seek help from the government and others in footing your bills, and don't make excuses. Not because excuses are bad or even invalid, simply because they are not useful.

There are usually legal requirements to receive aid, yes, but you see what I'm saying, don't you? It's not complicated. What I'm saying makes perfect sense, it's just an uncomfortable proposition.

 

[Ninjorf]

Healthcare cannot be for profit. Healing is not profitable. Prolonged treatment is. They are incompatible with our needs.

 

[Kanzler]

Really? Notice that I never said we shouldn't have affordable healthcare. I said that the money for the time, energy, and resources to provide that healthcare has to come from somewhere, which is true.

I never said you have to do it entirely on your own. In fact, I said the opposite - you will almost certainly need help to have your life work. Requesting aid is one strategy, and it doesn't inherently mean that you can't pursue additional strategies simultaneously.

Do what you can with diet and exercise, make money where you can online, seek help from the government and others in footing your bills, and don't make excuses. Not because excuses are bad or even invalid, simply because they are not useful.

There are usually legal requirements to receive aid, yes, but you see what I'm saying, don't you? It's not complicated. What I'm saying makes perfect sense, it's just an uncomfortable proposition.

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.