1
   

healthcare

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 11:56 am
woiyo wrote:
All your hypotheticals are nothing more than liberal scare tactics that are designed to raise taxes.


And still, people in countries that have universal health care systems and results comparable to the United States pay about half as much as Americans for health care (per capita/year).
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 11:59 am
woiyo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
woiyo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Woiyo,

In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.

What should government do in this case?


If that person decided to self insure, the govt should do nothing.


That's not a good idea. Not only does it mean that the poor will have no alternative but to die when they don't have money to buy treatment for a serious disease.

It also means that we will have people walking around you and your family with contagious TB.

Public health is important.... and it requires that treatment for contagious diseases is available to everyone.


We already have that (CDC).

All your hypotheticals are nothing more than liberal scare tactics that are designed to raise taxes. Yet, you liberals want to keep these millions of illegals in this country and many of these illegals have never even been checked out medically.

The entire basis of this post is how much control do you want govt to have over your lifestyle, which is a typical liberal tactic.


Bull! These aren't hypothetical at all.

There are thousands of people with TB who are treated by a government program specifically for this purpose. It is a damn good thing to, when someone is not treated it is serious.

Do you ever wonder why polio (which used to be the number one nightmare for parents) is no longer even a worry?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:02 pm
old europe wrote :

Quote:
And still, people in countries that have universal health care systems and results comparable to the United States pay about half as much as Americans for health care (per capita/year).


that won't cut any ice with woiyo !
he knows what the standars should be , and he knows which people should be entitled to health-care and which not !
CASE CLOSED !
(and i wasted five cents Shocked )
hbg
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:02 pm
You are a liar!

The worldwide emergence of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR TB) and a provisional definition* for this form of TB were first reported in November 2005 (1,2). A more detailed description of these findings and preliminary data from the U.S. National TB Surveillance System (NTSS) were published in 2006 (3). The U.S. data indicated that 74 TB cases reported during 1993--2004met the case definition for XDR TB (3)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5611a3.htm
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:21 pm
a/t the CDC table - see below - there wre 14,097 tuberculosis cases in the united states .


CDC - TUBERCULOSIS
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:30 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
woiyo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Woiyo,

In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.

What should government do in this case?


If that person decided to self insure, the govt should do nothing.


That's not a good idea. Not only does it mean that the poor will have no alternative but to die when they don't have money to buy treatment for a serious disease.

It also means that we will have people walking around you and your family with contagious TB.

Public health is important.... and it requires that treatment for contagious diseases is available to everyone.


Doesn't it also mean that people have to be compelled to take the treatment for contagious diseases that is offered to them?
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:33 pm
Re: healthcare
mysteryman wrote:
flaja wrote:
Why doesn't any politician's health care plan ever bother to address the most fundamental healthcare issue that this country faces: lifestyle?

Does it make sense for the government to provide healthcare or even health insurance to people that smoke (roughly 1/3 of the population), drink (at least half of the population?) or are overweight (at least half of the population)?

If someone intentionally engages in lifestyle activities that puts them at risk for chronic and life-threatening illness, should anyone else be obligated to provide healthcare to them?


What about firefighters?
Some of them, like me, are volunteers and dont get paid for what we do.
The state covers our medical bills if we get hurt at a fire scene.
Are you saying that since I am a volunteer, I shouldnt be covered?


Surely you are not comparing someone who takes a personal risk for the public good with people that make the selfish decision to intentionally endanger society?
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:38 pm
woiyo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
woiyo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Woiyo,

In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.

What should government do in this case?


If that person decided to self insure, the govt should do nothing.


That's not a good idea. Not only does it mean that the poor will have no alternative but to die when they don't have money to buy treatment for a serious disease.

It also means that we will have people walking around you and your family with contagious TB.

Public health is important.... and it requires that treatment for contagious diseases is available to everyone.


We already have that (CDC).

All your hypotheticals are nothing more than liberal scare tactics that are designed to raise taxes. Yet, you liberals want to keep these millions of illegals in this country and many of these illegals have never even been checked out medically.

The entire basis of this post is how much control do you want govt to have over your lifestyle, which is a typical liberal tactic.


The CDC doesn't produce medicines, doesn't prescribe medicines and doesn't administer medicines.

And actually showing a concern for the public good is a hallmark of conservatism. Liberals and libertarians are the ones that place individual rights and pleasures above society. Conservatives hold that the individual and society must be balanced. Neither can be allowed to put the other at undue risk. Any person who is granted absolute rights will invariably infringe on the rights of others.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:44 pm
A DRINK A DAY KEEPS THE DOCTOR AWAY - so says harvard university study . who am i to argue with them Very Happy
hbg

Quote:
One Alcoholic Drink Per Day Improves Cognitive Function Among Older Women
Older women who consumed one drink per day have a reduced risk of cognitive impairment as compared to nondrinkers
Boston - January 2005, Harvard Medical School affiliate Brigham and Women's Hospital - While adverse effects of excess alcohol consumption are well established, the health effects of moderate consumption Ð one drink of wine, beer or liquor Ð are not clear. Researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) and Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), in an analysis of data from the Nurses' Health Study, found that compared to women who were nondrinkers, older women who consumed one drink per day experienced less cognitive impairment. Specifically, such moderate consumption of alcohol seemed to produce a 20 percent reduced risk of cognitive impairment. These findings are published in the January 20, 2005 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.



link :
HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:50 pm
flaja wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
woiyo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Woiyo,

In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.

What should government do in this case?


If that person decided to self insure, the govt should do nothing.


That's not a good idea. Not only does it mean that the poor will have no alternative but to die when they don't have money to buy treatment for a serious disease.

It also means that we will have people walking around you and your family with contagious TB.

Public health is important.... and it requires that treatment for contagious diseases is available to everyone.


Doesn't it also mean that people have to be compelled to take the treatment for contagious diseases that is offered to them?


Factually, yes.

For certain diseases, people are mandated to take treatment.

My mother worked with TB patients to make sure they did not endanger the public by not getting treatment. She was government funded. Usually this meant just checking up on them to make sure they had medicine and where keeping up with their schedule.

But on a rare occasion she would have them arrested and hospitalized so that they would not be a danger to the public.

Clearly offering medicine and support is much preferable (and a much better use of tax payer money).
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:53 pm
hamburger wrote:
HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE !
i still believe that if we are all living in a somewhat civilized society , imo EVERYONE should be entitled to good basic medical care - whether they can pay for it or not .


What do you consider "good basic medical care" and how do you propose that it be paid for?

Quote:
most of us have some habits that someone else might consinder unhealthy .


You consider smoking to be a healthy habit?

What about drunkeness?

What about overeating?

What about not exercising?

Quote:
sure , much can be done to improve preventive health-care even more .
it also shows that preventive health-care has already made good progress . certainly there are fewer smokers than twenty or thirty years ago . why don't we agree to pursue that and built upon success ?


How do you propose that we build upon what you see as success? What specifically do you have in mind?

Quote:
in the end WE ALL have to pay if our neighbour does not receive adequate health-care when needed - no matter how many bad habits he might have .


But why should we be compelled to pay for mistakes that our neighbors intentionally make?

Quote:
is it not much better to strive and improve the health of all people , even though it may cost a little extra to provide it for some people ?


If we taxed food (especially junk food and convenience food) we would discourage obesity. That way we could improve people's health without it costing us anything.

We could also ban all tobacco products and again improve people's health care without it costing us anything.

Quote:
why not pay a little extra so that we all can have adequate basic health-care - or is that too humane ?


How much little extra are you talking about?
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:56 pm
woiyo wrote:
You are a liar!

The worldwide emergence of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR TB) and a provisional definition* for this form of TB were first reported in November 2005 (1,2). A more detailed description of these findings and preliminary data from the U.S. National TB Surveillance System (NTSS) were published in 2006 (3). The U.S. data indicated that 74 TB cases reported during 1993--2004met the case definition for XDR TB (3)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5611a3.htm


I've been hearing about drug-resistant cases of TB in the U.S. since the 1990s. The problem is more serious than you want to admit.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 12:56 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Factually, yes.

For certain diseases, people are mandated to take treatment.



My father headed a specialised TB-hospital and a TB-ward in a general hospital (and was additionally the public health's offices doctor re TB in three counties).

That's quite some time ago (and in a different country).


Generally, public health measures (such as isolation and
confinement) are nowadays more a subject to an express balancing exercise conditioned by law as they were in years ago.

Though it should be remembered that the public's health is narrowly connected to 'public health'.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 04:51 pm
flaja :

let me respond to one of your questions/objections :

Quote:

hbg wrote :
in the end WE ALL have to pay if our neighbour does not receive adequate health-care when needed - no matter how many bad habits he might have .

flaja responded :
But why should we be compelled to pay for mistakes that our neighbors intentionally make?


let me take a simple case :

-one of your neighbours had very little education and therefore cannot find a job with a company offering group health-insurance .

- was it his INTENTIONAL mistake not to get better education ?

- is it possible that he is trying his best but can simply not compete with better educated people ?

- your neighbour has a low-paying job with an employer not offering group health-insurance and cannot afford private/individual health-insurance ( some a2k members have stated that they cannot afford the health- insurance premium ) ,

- the roof of his house starts to leak and rain-water comes into the children's bedroom ,
- since he does not have enough money to pay for a roofer's emergency call , he climbs on the roof tryinng to fix the problem , he slips , falls of the roof and is taken to emergency ,
- i understand that even in the united states one would be treated in the emergency room even though one might not have insurance or money for the treatment .

if he truly cannot pay for the treatment , who do you think reimburses/pays the hospital ?

or let's assume one of his childern has a bad cold . he can't pay for the doctor and eventually the child is admitted to emergengy with pneumonia .

would it not have been better if he had had UNIVERSAL health-insurance so the child could have been treated early , BEFORE it turned into pneumonia ?

whether you like it or not , you are paying for the treatment of those not insured , and it'll cost the economy(YOU !) more than if that person had had insurance .

of course , you do not see the cost to the economy (and YOU !) of treating the uninsured and perhaps having to look after disabled people that might have been able to get back to work had they received proper treatment early on .

there is an old saying : you can pay now or you can pay later- but paying later is going to cost you extra !

you probably won't agree with me . well , that's your privilege .

i'm glad i live in a country where every citizen is entitled to basic health-care . i don't mind if my neighbour needs and gets more health-care than i , even if he paid less into the fund .
if our system can keep me reasonably healthy , i don't mind my neighbour getting some extra care if he needs it - perhaps some time my family needs the extra care and i'll be glad if i don't have to go begging .

that's the way i see it .
hbg
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 04:59 pm
Giving health care to smokers and drunkards...

... is like giving higher education to conservatives.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 05:23 pm
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
------------------------------
under a universal health care system even those people that can not afford private insurance , would be paying into the universal fund - unless they are destitute .
when these people do need medical treatment , they will have contributed some money to the fund . which also means that i contributed a little less . to me that is a WIN-WIN situation - usually favoured by business !
hbg
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 05:29 pm
hamburger wrote:
-one of your neighbours had very little education and therefore cannot find a job with a company offering group health-insurance .


Does this mean my neighbor has to take up smoking (a very expensive habit)?

Does this mean my neighbor has to become a drunk?

Does this mean that my neighbor has to over eat and never exercise?

Quote:
- was it his INTENTIONAL mistake not to get better education ?


Yes. We do have things like public libraries even if my neighbor couldn't attend public school for some reason or another.

Quote:
- is it possible that he is trying his best but can simply not compete with better educated people ?


Again public schools and libraries.

Quote:
- your neighbour has a low-paying job with an employer not offering group health-insurance and cannot afford private/individual health-insurance ( some a2k members have stated that they cannot afford the health- insurance premium ) ,


Then my neighbor surely wouldn't want to engage in activities that increase his need for healthcare, but yet some 30% of this country smokes and at least half are overweight.

Quote:
- since he does not have enough money to pay for a roofer's emergency call , he climbs on the roof tryinng to fix the problem , he slips , falls of the roof and is taken to emergency ,


My understanding is that not every health insurance policy or HMO plan covers ER visits.

Quote:
- i understand that even in the united states one would be treated in the emergency room even though one might not have insurance or money for the treatment .


At taxpayer expense.

Quote:
if he truly cannot pay for the treatment , who do you think reimburses/pays the hospital ?


Medicare and Medicaid.

Quote:
or let's assume one of his childern has a bad cold . he can't pay for the doctor and eventually the child is admitted to emergengy with pneumonia.


Medicare and Medicaid.

Quote:
whether you like it or not , you are paying for the treatment of those not insured , and it'll cost the economy(YOU !) more than if that person had had insurance .


The solution to this is to end Medicare and Medicaid which raise everyone's healthcare costs because there is nothing that doesn't go up in price when the government is willing to pay for it.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 01:00 am
flaja wrote:
woiyo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Woiyo,

In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.

What should government do in this case?


If that person decided to self insure, the govt should do nothing.


Suppose the person has TB and refused to have it treated for so long that it becomes untreatable and the person then poses a risk to public health. What then?

And even if this TB patient is self-insured, the demand that he puts on the health care industry will raise everyone's doctor bills. Even if the person is self-insured we all end up paying the cost of his care.


Suppose a person posts mindless drool incessantly on political forums causing all the sane members of said forum's blood pressure to rise? What should be done about this person?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » healthcare
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2025 at 07:06:45