Universal Health Care

For the most part, I agree with this. I do think that health care needs to move more towards prevention rather than intervention. But at the same time, many people have been helped immensely through good use of prescription drugs. Many prescriptions fall under the prevention form of health care. For example, I take Zoloft for social anxiety disorder. My $5 a month prescription helps me deal with my condition rather than resort to much more dangerous health behaviors that I used to rely on. This will help prevent me from having to go through treatment for liver problems later in life from drinking far too much in social situations.

What changes in the current health system do you advocate? Right now, Cuba spends a couple of hundreds of dollars per person vs. $4500 in the U.S. and the population has approximately the same life expectancy.

What I am advocating is a complete change in perception of health and health care - i.e. moving from drugs are beneficial to lifestyle changes are most beneficial. And this is across the board from acute diseases, to chronic diseases, to child and adult behaviors. Poor health of all kinds are first and foremost affected by lifestyle choices (food, exercise, relaxation time, the air we breath) and only secondarily by other factors. This is very clear from the WHO studies. Yet, the money funneled into the most important factors is minuscule when compared to 1) the money funneled into promoting poor lifestyle choices (Big Macs), 2) the money and time funneled into sickcare.

I do not expect any short-term changes in these areas. Too much money, too many jobs are dependent upon people making unhealthy lifestyle choices. People are convinced that drugs are good for them (only have positive effects) even though the long term, cumulative effects are rarely, if ever, studied. And the medical industry has done a fabulous job of convincing people that they have no choices - it is all genetics. Even when the evidence is overwhelmingly opposite. Observe the chart of life expectancies around the world compared to health costs.

However, I do not think it is feasible for any country to pay for the chronic health issues that manifest from poor lifestyle choices. In other words, I think it is impossible for people to make enough money to pay for the care of all chronic health care problems that are the result of lifestyle choices. We can continue to borrow from overseas - as we are doing this week on the public markets. But that is sinking our population deeper and deeper in debt.

That sort of renders your argument that it would "bankrupt the society" and "no country can afford to do it" a bit toothless, doesn't it?

I think you need to move away from the apparent obsession with drugs. There is a lot more to healthcare than simply pumping people full of drugs. What about operations, training of surgeons, facilities, etc. The list goes on. Medical costs aren't just a huge drug invoice.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The U.S spends by far the most money per capita of any nation on earth and shows, as a result, no additional life expectancy over those who spend much less. None. Zero. By almost all measures, the U.S. has one of the most unhealthy populations of all industrialized nations. And we are funding our expensive health care system, which is delivering no additional benefits, by borrowing money.

1. In that case, so is forcing people to pay for nuclear weapons. So is forcing them to pay for illegal invasions of countries which they want nothing to do with. Here's an idea, why don't we all just contribute taxes to the things we each individually deem okay, and then we'll all be happy? :sarcastic:
If you want to talk about theft, all private property is the result of theft. Mankind did not crawl out of the primordial soup 'owning' things. The earth and all its fruits belonged to everyone. Somewhere along the line, someone decided, illegitimately, that something was theirs and theirs alone. They had no right to do this, but hey-ho, they did it anyway, and that has led to the warm, cuddly world we now find ourselves in, a world where people like you think it is morally fine to let people die in agony if they don't have money. Nice.

2. Oh my GOD! Do you honestly believe that? That is just bullshlt right-wing political rhetoric to 'justify' the continued exploitation of the poor. Welfare is a form of control? No, you're thinking of MONEY.

3. Not welfare, WEALTH.

4. Are you serious? Are you really? A nation that can afford to spend trillions of dollars invading Iraq, and billions on nuclear weapons and other defense? A nation where you have people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, each worth over 50 billion dollars, and others of a slightly less plutocratic status.

Of course you can.

You simply choose not to.

And Rich, it seems a bit of a reach to claim that the US is funding its healthcare bill on borrowed money when that pittance is utterly eclipsed by borrowings to wage futile foreign wars while delivering tax cuts to the very wealthiest.

Bear in mind that spiralling medical costs are also the consequence of extended longevity.

It's curious how we've obsessed about extending lifespans while being relatively indifferent about the quality of life issue.

The only choice Americans have when it comes to healthcare is a stark and simple one: Pay or Die.

Do you think it is morally acceptable for the richest country in the world to let its citizens die because they cannot personally afford private healthcare?

For even 3% of the NIH budget to be going to research in this comparatively low tech, high yield area is a tremendous commitment.

But most cancers are NOT preventable with lifestyle choice, and to develop effective screening tools and treatment modalities costs a great deal of money.

The decrement in our child mortality, longevity, maternal mortality, etc statistics is primarily due to health disparities. In other words, many people in this country get health care that is as good or better than anywhere in the world. But many people don't, especially poor people, minorities, people in rural areas, and people in inner cities.

It's a social problem,

Well, most of the reason why other developed countries spend less on health care than the U.S. is due to the fact that there is less overhead in their health care systems. Most national (all?) health care systems are non-profit, and, thus, cost less. Part of the reason people with health insurance pay so much is to give profits to the health industry. Much of the rest of the inflated cost is due to the fact that over 50 million (about 1 out of every 6 people) have no health insurance and is pooled into the whole system. By eliminating the middle man for the majority of people in the U.S. the overall cost would decrease.

Secondly, given human propensities for greed, avarice, deception and piggery, I can't imagine why anyone thinks its a 'good idea' to have medical care a For-Profit endeavor.

Aedes;68015 wrote:

In my mind the real problem with for-profit health care is that people make bad decisions. A fairly local hospital in southern Virginia did that a couple years ago, and began to cut unprofitable services, lay off staff, and the result has been patients heading for the hills.

To the Editor: Tuomilehto et al. (May 3 issue)1 reported that counseling subjects at high risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus to reduce weight and the intake of fat and to increase physical exercise and the intake of fiber reduced the risk of diabetes by 58 percent, as compared with the risk in a usual-care group.

Those who ate the most red meat as well as the most processed meat had a higher overall risk of dying during the study period as well as a higher risk of dying from cancer and heart disease compared to those who ate the least of both.
For instance, men in the group with the highest intake of red meat had a 31% higher overall risk of dying during the study period than did those in the lowest intake red meat group. And women with the highest intake of red meat had a 50% higher risk of dying due to heart disease. Or put another way, Sinha says that 11% of all deaths in men and 16% of deaths in women could have been prevented if participants cut their red meat consumption to that eaten by the lowest intake group. Heart disease deaths could have been decreased by 11% in men and 21% in women by limiting red meat intake to the amount eaten by the lowest intake group.
For processed meat, the highest intakes were associated with a 16% overall increased risk of dying in men and 25% increased risk in women.
Cancer risk was about 20% higher in those who ate the most red meat, and 10% higher in those who ate the most processed meats.
In contrast, the intake of white meat was often protective, with those eating the most having a slightly lower risk for overall and cancer deaths.
Exactly why red meat and processed meat are associated with increased risks of cancer, heart disease and other deaths isn't known for sure, Sinha says. But the leading explanations, she says, include:

• The meats are a source of carcinogens formed during cooking.
  
• The iron in red meat may increase oxidative cell damage, leading to health problems.
  
• The saturated fat found in meat has been linked with breast and colorectal cancer.
  

I notice you have thus far avoided the issue of the morality of it, so I'll ask you directly:

Do you think it is morally acceptable for the richest country in the world to let its citizens die because they cannot personally afford private healthcare? And let's not have any politician answers here, before any justification, let's first have a 'yes' or 'no'.

People are dying by the hundreds of thousands in hospitals all the time from mistakes in hospital procedure. Of course, they are dying all the time for all sorts of reasons, and faster than in a couple of dozen other developed countries. Paying money for medical expenses is not equivalent to keeping people from dying. In fact, it may very well be the inverse as shown in Cuba. I avoid the hospital and everything associated with it because it is the last place I want to be to get better in case of sickness.

Do you think it is morally acceptable for the richest country in the world to let its citizens die because they cannot personally afford private healthcare?

Yes or no?

Do you think it is morally acceptable for the richest country in the world to let its citizens die because they cannot personally afford private healthcare?

Yes or no?

Countries do not prevent people from dying so I have not idea what the question is all about. Let me know how the U.S. kept me from dying today. I did it.

What the question is about is simple. If you do not understand it, then you are going to be eating your words, because a visit to a neurologist will be imminent, as that would indicate severe mental retardation.