IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Some people are "enlightened," while others are myopic to a fault.

The list you provided including, fire, police, and landing on the moon, are all considered necessary for the well being of our citizens and humanity as a whole. None of us live in isolation.

The reason we are able to communicate on a2k was based on "free" education for all. The reason governments provide for college loans is to improve not only the individual, but the whole society. A well educated society improves the lives of all; through modern conveniences and medical research. That was also a benefit for both American citizens and the people of the world at large.

Our country would not have enjoyed the better economy after WWII were it not for our government providing the GI bill so that the veterans could attend college. We all benefited from it.

Universal health care benefits everyone. It ensures that our children remain healthy in their development years, and good health is necessary for them to get a good education. It pays off many times over as they become contributing citizens of our country.

Some people will never see the cost/benefit, but complain about why they have to help pay for somebody else's health care. We already do; emergency rooms in the US cannot turn away anyone that shows up. We all end up paying more.

Prevention has been shown by many studies to be cheaper.

0 Replies

mm :

is there a possibility that a sick person not getting medical care might spread that sickness to other people - similar to fire spreading to adjacent structures ?
i guess that's just tough luck for those other people getting infected .
they just should have stayed away from that sick person .

btw. as far as police services are concerned , people could also hire their personal guards - as some are doing anyway .
is there really a need for universal police protection ?

also wondering why the "moonshot" needed to be financed through tax money . anyone wanting to go to the moon should pay for it personally .
hbg

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

If someone decides not to have health insurance, and gets sick, that is their choice.
It doesnt affect anyone else, it doesnt threaten their neighbors, it doesnt risk other people.

That might be so.

But since we - like many other Europeans - are depply stuck in the hundreds of years of Christian tradition, we even have it in our constitution.

I can imagine some a nation with less tradition and a different background acts differently.

Our health system isn't financed by public (tax) money, generally at least, but by the solidarity of every insured person - the "solidarity principle". (This solidarity-based approach creates an equilibrium between the healthy and the sick, between those at the bottom and the top of the earning scale, and between families and singles.)

0 Replies

An analogy here is the requirement in many states that motorcycle riders and passengers wear helmets. The reason for the requirement is that many of those sustaining head injuries in crashes become wards of the state, and, therefore, a burden on the taxpayer.

0 Replies

Don't forget seatbelts - that most countries now enforce. Also, non-smoking in public places.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't forget seatbelts - that most countries now enforce. Also, non-smoking in public places.

Thats something else I am opposed to, the anti smoking laws.

I dont smoke, but that doesnt give me the right to tell a bar or a restaraunt owner that he cant let people smoke in his establishment.

If I dont want to be around smoke, I wont go into that bar.

I'm adult enough to make my own decisions, I dont need or want the govt making decisions for me.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Don't forget seatbelts - that most countries now enforce. Also, non-smoking in public places.

Thats something else I am opposed to, the anti smoking laws.

I dont smoke, but that doesnt give me the right to tell a bar or a restaraunt owner that he cant let people smoke in his establishment.

If I dont want to be around smoke, I wont go into that bar.

I'm adult enough to make my own decisions, I dont need or want the govt making decisions for me.

Do you oppose helmet laws? Seatbelt laws?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Don't forget seatbelts - that most countries now enforce. Also, non-smoking in public places.

Thats something else I am opposed to, the anti smoking laws.

I dont smoke, but that doesnt give me the right to tell a bar or a restaraunt owner that he cant let people smoke in his establishment.

If I dont want to be around smoke, I wont go into that bar.

I'm adult enough to make my own decisions, I dont need or want the govt making decisions for me.

Do you oppose helmet laws? Seatbelt laws?

For adults, yes I do.

The govt doesnt have the right to tell me as an adult that I have to use a seatbelt or a helmet.
I can make my own decisions.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

The govt doesnt have the right to tell me as an adult that I have to use a seatbelt or a helmet.
I can make my own decisions.

It looks like you were better suited to live somewhere where there aren't laws at all: you then can make your own decissions, as can everyone else.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

The govt doesnt have the right to tell me as an adult that I have to use a seatbelt or a helmet.
I can make my own decisions.

It looks like you were better suited to live somewhere where there aren't laws at all: you then can make your own decissions, as can everyone else.

Walter - that is inconsistent with public policy in any country. To see this, consider that the greatest costs to public health systems are due to (1) obesity and (2) debilitating geriatric illnesses.

Are you proposing that we imprison the fat people in camps where they eat only one apple a day until they lose the extra weight? Or dispatch all Alzheimer sufferers to some uninhabited island where they can either fend for themselves or just plain die at no cost to the rest of society?

And if none of the above, why do you focus on non-seatbelt wearers, who are about number 35 on the list of causes of injuries and death - mind you, injury and death to THEMSELVES ONLY and to NO THIRD PARTY?

Please think before advocating any more "nanny state" legislation!

0 Replies

Well, I DO think.

And I'm not confusing traffic safety regulations with universal health care.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, I DO think.

And I'm not confusing traffic safety regulations with universal health care.

Neither am I - and if you DID think you'd see that traffic "safety" means, first and foremost, the safety of OTHERS.

I never wear a seatbelt, and don't plan to start. In most states the law is that you can't be stopped by police for not wearing a seatbelt unless you're also in contravention of some other rule, like driving past a red light.

And in my experience, nobody bothers to enforce the seatbelt law even in places where police can stop you for that alone - most police have more important things to do!

Nanny state regulations only weaken respect for the law generally because so many people ignore idiotic rules. Please DO think about it.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

To see this, consider that the greatest costs to public health systems are due to (1) obesity

That argument has been made quite a few times. Especially regarding the high per capita health care costs in the United States. The interesting thing is that studies actually found the opposite to be true: it's not fat, lazy, chainsmoking people who are the biggest burden to a health care system. It's healty people who cost governments money:

Quote:

Study: Healthy People Cost Governments MorePublic Library of Science-Medicine.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

High Seas wrote:
To see this, consider that the greatest costs to public health systems are due to (1) obesity

That argument has been made quite a few times. Especially regarding the high per capita health care costs in the United States. The interesting thing is that studies actually found the opposite to be true: it's not fat, lazy, chainsmoking people who are the biggest burden to a health care system. It's healty people who cost governments money:

Quote:
Study: Healthy People Cost Governments MorePublic Library of

Science-Medicine.

Hi Old Europe - pls read the entire post before commenting:

The obese were number (1) the others are the ones mentioned under number (2), and the subject of your article. Smokers cost almost nothing.

0 Replies

Old Europe is correct; it's the healthy people that costs the health care system the most; the unhealthy die early. The aged use most of the health care system, because that's when all kinds of age related problem happen. Those people who smoke and are obese die early with heart problems.

Another trevia: blacks usually do not gain by our social security system, because their life expectancy is under the age of retirement. Even though they may pay into it, their benefits are used less.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Hi Old Europe - pls read the entire post before commenting:

The obese were number (1) the others are the ones mentioned under number (2), and the subject of your article. Smokers cost almost nothing.

Hello High Seas.

I did read the entire post. However, I only commented on the part of it that I quoted - the claim that obese people cost a health care system more money than healthy people.

I thought the results of the Dutch study were quite interesting in that regard, and somewhat counter-intuitive.

If you've been following the threads on universal health care on this forum, you'll have noticed that obesity has often been cited as a reason why per capita health care costs in America would be so much higher than in any other country - just as you claimed in your earlier post.

0 Replies

high seas wrote :

Quote:

And if none of the above, why do you focus on non-seatbelt wearers, who are about number 35 on the list of causes of injuries and death - mind you, injury and death to THEMSELVES ONLY and to NO THIRD PARTY?

my guess is that insurance carriers - both private and public - should be permitted to exclude people not wearing a seatbelt or helmet from receiving treatment from a resulting accident , if high seas' would set the rules .
even in a private plan the insured "living by the law" now have to pay for those insured "not living by the law" - that surely is not how insurance should work ?

this article might be of interest to high seas :

Quote:

Ontario court of justice Judge James Blacklock ruled against a challenge to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act that had been launched by Baljinder Badesha, a devout Sikh who was fined $110 in 2005 for not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle.

Badesha, who was wearing a turban at the time, refused to pay the fine, arguing that the law was discriminatory because it violated his religious rights.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission had supported his position, saying the issue was about religious accommodation.

Blacklock said "no accommodation appears possible" under the law because there is no question that helmets reduce the risk of head injuries suffered by motorcyclists in crashes.

He said allowing Badesha, along with other Sikh motorcyclists, to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet would put "undue hardship" on the province to maintain safety standards.

read complete article :
SIKH NOT EXCEMPTED FROM WEARING HELMET

imo the OHRC should never have taken on that case in the first place .

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

high seas wrote :

Quote:
And if none of the above, why do you focus on non-seatbelt wearers, who are about number 35 on the list of causes of injuries and death - mind you, injury and death to THEMSELVES ONLY and to NO THIRD PARTY?

my guess is that insurance carriers - both private and public - should be permitted to exclude people not wearing a seatbelt or helmet from receiving treatment from a resulting accident , if high seas' would set the rules .
even in a private plan the insured "living by the law" now have to pay for those insured "not living by the law" - that surely is not how insurance should work ?

this article might be of interest to high seas :

Quote:
Ontario court of justice Judge James Blacklock ruled against a challenge to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act that had been launched by Baljinder Badesha, a devout Sikh who was fined $110 in 2005 for not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle.

Badesha, who was wearing a turban at the time, refused to pay the fine, arguing that the law was discriminatory because it violated his religious rights.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission had supported his position, saying the issue was about religious accommodation.

Blacklock said "no accommodation appears possible" under the law because there is no question that helmets reduce the risk of head injuries suffered by motorcyclists in crashes.

He said allowing Badesha, along with other Sikh motorcyclists, to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet would put "undue hardship" on the province to maintain safety standards.

read complete article :
SIKH NOT EXCEMPTED FROM WEARING HELMET

imo the OHRC should never have taken on that case in the first place .

Religion isn't related to anything I said, Hamburger, unlike the case you quoted.

All I'm interested in is actuarial calculations for the purpose of maximizing cash flow - from premia - or minimizing expenses - from payouts to patients. Whether the payouts are made by private insurers or by some government agency doesn't change the numbers.

0 Replies

Example: I'm a relatively healthy 72 year old man. I've had no major health problems until recently when I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. In addition to my physician, the urologist, oncologist, and the technicians who treated me for my radiation treatment, the cost ranged anywhere from $35 thousand to $50 thousand. I have met many people like me who were healthy most of their lives, but ended up with some health problems as we aged. A friend of mine who had diabetes had to have very expensive medication that cost over $1000 per pill. I believe this scenario is very common not only in the US but around the world - if they live this long.

The unhealthy usually die before age related problems begins to show its ugly head. I believe this is a truism.

I started a tread "getting old is not for sissies." Come and visit.

0 Replies

high seas wrote :

Quote:

Religion isn't related to anything I said, Hamburger, unlike the case you quoted.

as far as i'm concerned , people can have whatever religion they want .
if they think that they are free to crush their skulls and i'll have to pay for them getting fixed up on my dime : no way - religion or no religion !
i have only one word for it : stupid !
hbg

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know