So this friend of mine says, regarding health insurance:

"Well, 100 years ago people didn't have all this expensive medical technology. Just because it's there doesn't mean people have to use it."

I says: "Well, what should they do then, just suffer miserably and die - shoot themselves maybe - if they're in terrible pain or chronically ill?"

He says: "Well. That's an option, just as much as society providing free, unlimited healthcare to everyone. Maybe people have to just accept suffering and death if they haven't provided for themselves and their medical care. Just because there is an emotional aspect to suffering and death, doesn't mean it isn't a viable option. Your mother's hip replacements for instance, do you think those should have been FREE? You're attaching all this emotional baggage to the issue that just isn't relevant".

(Uhhh. They weren't FREE. my 79-year old Mom on a fixed income paid thousands for them - what the insurance and Medicare didn't cover and she would have been completely immobile and debilated had she not had them - I guess my friend thinks that is what she should have done)

:wtf:

I think this guy's lost his marbles. He's been hanging out with some Republicans and Libertarians lately and I hate to say he may be getting brainwashed. That, or he's just lost his freakin marbles. Scary. And, I'm totally turned off by this freaky attitude of his. After a few years, I thought he was a pretty decent person.

But - uhhhh :wtf:

First of all no one is advocating free, unlimited healthcare for anyone. However we pay taxes to our lameass gov't in order for it to provide some basic services. Basic healthcare being one of those -- for people who otherwise cannot afford insurance or basic healthcare. I guess he thinks we shouldn't do or expect this. I mentioned Canada's national healthcare system which is apparently very well implemented. Says he: "Well, I hear there are problems with thaat."

Yes. BUT IT'S A DAMN LOT BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN THE US NOW! Whatever we have won't be perfect but we damn well need better than what we have -- which is a government that MISMANAGES the money from our taxes and gives it to big insurance and pharmaceuticals and medical companies in sweetheart deals allowing them to make HUGE profits and jack up their damn prices -- at the expense of the taxpayers who need the healthcare. Can you say Medicare Rx Drug Plan?

Decent (NO not perfect) nationalized healthcare (NO not free or unlimited) is possible and preferable to what we now have, which is a gov't/insurance/pharm plutocracy which serves itself and NOT the larger society who pays the taxes into that system. It's corrupt to the core and it can and should be fixed. Those costs can come WAY down. Someone in DC just has to have the 'BALLS' to get it done.

My friend (who I think has been kidnapped and replaced with some sort of Republifreak) apparently thinks people who can't afford health insurance or healthcare and "didn't provide for themselves and their own medical care" should just .. drop dead.

And THAT -- is the REPUBLICAN mantra about the issue. Granny sick? Had an accident? No money? No insurance? Fine. Drop Dead, Granny. Byeeee. 'Cause well -- 200 years ago Granny would have just suffered till she kicked the bucket so she can do the same now, right? YES, there is an "emotional" aspect to that. DOH!

:wtf:

Even with the best insurance, healthcare costs a lot.

...his parents apparently have $$$ too and all have insurance. There hasn't been any unpaid health problems or real serious sickness, illness, or chronic pain or suffering - with no way out and no money to pay for care or relief.

It's easy to talk this way when you are young and healthy and have good insurance

N/T

He sounds like someone who hasn't experienced much death and/or suffering in his life.

As someone who nearly died after several months of pneumonia while uninsured, I say he needs to learn some compassion toward other humans who aren't as well-off as he is.

And the working class or the poor don't make it.

of course, the minute he or his family faces a health-related crisis not covered by insurance or just after his insurance has been terminated... they'd be the loudest to complain and demand assistance. Kind of an experiential hypocrisy--it's okay for the other guy, especially if they haven't experienced such trying times themselves (as they simply can't imagine how rough it really is until they experience it; perhaps it's a sign of an underdeveloped ability to empathize).

Why don't such people care for other people; why can't they see the value in a society that cares for it's own. Have they experienced some hard time or other during their developmental years in which they felt no one cared or helped out--so now it's everyone deserves to suffer their own hard times without anyone caring or helping? I don't know, but it is symptomatic of Republicanism.

...attached to the issue.

You're right, he's never suffered or needed care or help. And yes, I do feel his is a sort of experiential hypocrisy - and selfishness.

is that they are spoiled, middle class whites, who have never had anything to worry about.

This guy can't appreciate the "emotional baggage," because he has never had any of his own to allow him to understand what it feels like.

...that's him. Parents paid for college. Always had insurance. Always had money. Always had everything.

;)

well, not free exactly ... paid for by taxes collected from me ... and you .... and your ignorant 'unemotioanl' friend.

Quite simply, anything less is wrong.

i pretty much concur with taxes financing health care, but doctors are still scarce. the reason i bring this up, is i feel that to sell the public on national health care, it is important to not set it up as a utopian system, because that is easily knocked down. it is just a far better system than the one we have now. but it definitely doesnt mean unlimited coverage

The system should be set up in a manner that, if a person is ill, that they can receive the appropriate health care for their illness. It should be less of a business. That is not to say that even after one's share of the program is paid that there won't be additional out of pocket expenses. Income should also be an issue.

...less about money and more about care.

He said: "Ok. Then computer work should be that way too then. It should be less of a business and less about making money - all paid for by society and free. That makes just as much sense."

He.

Doesn't.

Get.

It...

then he has serious issues. :eyes:

To begin with, he's comparing apples and oranges. Computers are useful, but they are generally used for data transmission, i.e. business and recreation. Health care preserves *life* and the quality thereof.

...his response:

"Well not true in the case of medical computers. What about a datacenter in a hospital?"

However, ALL computers are not hospital datacenter computers, whereas ALL citizens need healthcare and ALL will suffer and/or die without it.

I think it's definitely different.

Not only that, but most databases were developed for business applications and *adapted* to either specific industries or other related uses. A medical database is not an exception.

Many technologies are adapted likewise. My favorite example is of the infa red telescope technology that was then used to make those nifty ear thermometers. That was research technology that was developed by programs with government grants, and then co-opted by the industrial sector. First as a medical device, then as a consumer product.

...most ins. policies now have limits and ntl healthcare should also. I don't know where he got "unlimited". I asked him later where in the conversation I said I was advocating "unlimited" healthcare. He couldn't really answer that except to say that it was an assumption he began his own side of the argument with. NOT something I said I was advocating.

Sheesh.

simple one stop collection of payment and disbursment, helps reduce overhead at every medical provider in the country.

Ta da!

...but not when people with these types of attitudes are in power. My friend is no politician (thank DOGGIES) but this is the same attitude politicians (well, at least Republicans and SOME Democrats) have.

Besides there's the damn plutocracy. Pharms, HMOs, etc. all in bed together for each other's benefit (instead of the benefit of the people they're supposed to be representing and whose tax money they take).

program." The two insurance sections will scream bloody murder but we will get all the medical providers on our side.

...of rising healthcare costs.

Also doctors have to pay more in malpractice insurance whenever the stockmarket has a hiccup

and more of a common necessity, like utilities and education.

...he didn't understand. He said that made as much sense as computers being less of a business and so computer stuff should all be paid for by society and free too.

¿

:wtf:

what possible harm would be caused by a society where, say, the internet was free to all?

for years there were freenets, i participated in one funded by the state of louisiana until it was defunded, and i didn't notice any widespread collapse of society

there are still computers, internet, etc. at any public library, in my parish you don't even have to show a local library card to make use of them, altho i've noticed in some areas you do, which seems silly

They are completely self-centered and also verging on the edge of corporatists.

IMO Libertarians are Republicans who realized that they are NOT Right, but Wrong and didn't want to admit it so they called themselves Libertarians -- so they don't have to.

I've never spoken with one on any issue that I even remotely agreed with, nor that I could make real sense of in any realistic manner.

Certainly dropping dead if one is ill (or shooting yourself) is an option. But. Ugh. How realistic of an option is that? What society or gov't is going to subscribe to that and advocate it as a solution to the healthcare problem?

Eh? I don't think so.

in recent years.

Unfortunately, the option of letting its citizens simply drop dead is the most popular choice of governments world-wide. On the bright side, it probably won't be the short-term choice here.

..he CLAIMS he doesn't.

I'm not so sure about that anymore.

He's never been without it. And a HUGE amount of money too, as does his family. They've never been without care or suffered any health catastrophe. He hasn't, nor has anyone close to him. He's never suffered, or seen anyone he "loves" suffer.

there is a tiny point in his argument worth considering, end of life care is mildy absurd in the US for those with coverage.



i fully support national health care, but if you look at other countries that have it, they have there own rationing methods.

The "dumbing down" of American Citizens...is the cause of your friends opinions...although he may be correct on the idea of "100 years ago..this or that"...

I see this issue totally different...

As an evolved member of society...A society that has created more wealth than any other in human history...I believe that working together for the betterment of all is the next natural step in our evolution.

Morally speaking, why can't I be "my brother's keeper"...if I have the means and the ability...? I don't agree with helping someone who doesn't want to help themselves, that's foolish...

But...here's an example...

When I'm driving to work and I see an accident and I see someone lying on the ground hurt...and I don't stop, I just keep on driving...(I was running late for work that morning and didn't have time and I thought to myself that "someone" will stop and help them)...and because of my "indifference"...the person dies...

Don't I have a moral obligation to stop and help? Do I not become responsible for their ultimate fate...at that moment... when I didn't stop when I could have...?

Now translate this into the current post...Are we not responsible for each other...we have the means...with our amassed wealth...and the opportunity...through our government...to tax and create social programs...The Obligation...as members of an advanced society?

We've all witnessed the destruction of the "new deal era" programs by bush and company and the PR Campaigns they employed...we can't afford it...or it's not the government's job to do this or that...people on welfare are lazy...etc.,etc.,etc...

Remember guys...if you repeat a lie enough times...people will believe it...That was step number one in their plan...without the obligation of supporting social programs...there's more money for "our militarism"...

Step 2 is the "no child left behind" bull...every teacher I've spoken to about this has said that things have gotten worse...not better...they feel at times that if they "don't fudge the numbers" and let non-learning children pass on to the next grade...they won't get the federal funding they need...instead of actually helping the "failing student" learn...takes time, and of course money...which they have very little of...

The result is children learning less and less...

Bringing these two points together in a concerted effort brings down our society...it turns the clock back so to speak to an era where "you were on your own"...We should just forget the past two hundred years of our evolution as a society...throw it all away...or better yet...don't teach our children to think independently...teach them how to become good workers instead...

It boils down to our collective social consciousness...we are being forced down a path where morality no longer means "doing the right thing"as a society...it now means that we should ban gay marriage or ban the teaching of "safe sex"...

Public morality is why we have a government in the first place...pesonal morality is how I live...

Not letting two people marry is not the governments job...but giving children "the tools for success" by teaching them about "safe sex" is...an unplanned pregnancy will forever change a teenager's life...utimately affecting "our society" and all of us...

I would have said to your friend that our social awareness has risen above the "you're on your own mentality" and I respect your opinion to disagree...but I chose to live in a society that promotes education and "the helping of others"...

I don't recall what philosopher said this...but it went something like this..."Once consciousness has been raised...it can never be lowered"

I am truly grateful for the education I got in public schools...and the dedication of the teachers I had...with only two exceptions...they molded my thoughts and ideas into believing that we can be better than what we are...and that morally...we do have an obligation...that we can become more than the sum of our thoughts...

Sorry for being so long winded here...:loveya:

societies must have some level of. This is what he calls "emotional baggage" (one of his favorite words). I think decent nationalized healthcare is part of that basic level of morality that a society (and its gov't) ought to have. Not to say "unlimited" healthcare. There has to be limits but everyone should have some standard, basic, healthcare who can't afford their own and can't afford basic medical care.

he wanted her in pain, unable to walk, forever, because she didn't have enough of certain pieces of paper?

that is no friend, that is indeed some kind of sociopath

this world is sick

...that just because we can replace hips now, doesn't mean Mom should have hers replaced. Mind you she didn't get it FREE. It cost her thousands even after insurance and Medicare.

...now I don't feel so alone in believing this guy's attitude about this is whacky and oh-so-Republican/Libertarian-like. I was rather freaked and totally put off at that conversation and needed some SANE input on the matter (besides my own).

Thanks DUers!