As much insulin as people need is pretty much already bought, right? I mean, I would hope that in the USA those with diabetes have access to it. So I don't quite see how it would be more immense and unaffordable than this is right now, to be honest. It would just be a bit more spread out over everyone (but I assume poor people already get it paid for by the state anyway).
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Who said anything about free? Are the nuclear warhead missles in the Kansas silos free? Is your local circuit court free?Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Theoretically if Americans had better health management, as opposed to strictly disease treatment, fewer of us would be contracting diabetes, or having it progress to the level of requiring insulin injections in the first place. So Dread's complaint about giving to the undeserving really is a rejection of the possibility of reducing the overall cost of insulin and improving the lives of many people at the same time.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Come to think of it, a bit portion of "obamacare" is makign healthcare mandatory, right? IIRC the congressional budget thingy agreed it would be (major) reduction compared to what would be spent if nothing changed, so hey, it's at least a small step in the right direction. (even republicans agreed on this, which is why they specifically excluded repealing "obamacare" from their promise not to increase expenses without pushing through equally large cuts somewhere else)
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
To be fair, you have odd laws. With that said I agree it makes more sense to shaft kids who get type 1 diabetes so that they have shoddy health throughout their lives and then get even more expensive complications from their diabetes.
It really is weird that there aren't cheaper generics out there, or that blood sugar testing machines and strips continue to be so goddamned expensive. Weird and stupid.The cost would be immense and unaffordable.
With that said, dude, seriously. Compare that cost to the costs of poorly managed diabetes. Or to useless subsidies, inefficiency, needlessly smarter bombs, etc etc. Let's try for some perspective eh. If you're going to base your position on costs then you should also look at the benefits and you should also look at what else you're spending your money on. Much of it is in fact shit. It's like saying "Insulin is too expensive so I won't buy it" and then spending your money on iPad accessories.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well, sorta
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbi...h_insuranc.php
it's a bit ranty though
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
My point is I agree with Khend that providing subsidized healthcare to certain populations is certainly a worthy goal for a developed society. But I don't think it's a core right, such as the right to justice and the right to protection from outside hostilities.
What about education? Or isn't that a core right in a developed society, either?
No, a free education isn't a right. It's a valuable thing, but it's not a right.
We need to be careful about what we call "rights". Slippery slope and all, yknowwhaimean.
The right to benefit from your society's collective understanding of health maintenance, improvement and care does not exist? Or is it the right to that benefit when you're too poor to pay the going rate that does not exist? Poor people don't contribute much to American society, so they don't deserve the benefits that society has collectively achieved. Sure, you flip my burger and hand it to me at the drive through, but that's not the same as doing a logistics cost analysis so a company doesn't waste money sourcing in China if the piece price benefit doesn't offset the increased freight cost. So when you get diabetes you can expect to get your feet chopped off, go blind, descend into a coma then die. And I want fries with that. Oh, and fuck you. You should have ate better. And had different parents too.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Well that was a nice rant. Guess what? Life isn't always perfectly fair.
It's nice and desirable for government to subsidize healthcare for those in need. I don't disagree with that.
But it's not a "right". Right's aren't about equal access to goods with monetary value; that's socialism.
Then let's call it a fundamental necessity for a developed and civilized society; to provide public education and public health basics to all its citizens. Then we can argue about what "basic" means.
Another problem in the US system is that ~85% of Medicare costs are used by ~25% of enrolled members, and the largest chunk is used in the last one or two years of life. And that doesn't mean dignified hospice care or minimal home care, but heroics. That doesn't necessarily translate to higher quality of life, just a slightly longer life, with massive costs.
That's where input and activism from the AMA is sorely lacking. They've been educated that Do No Harm means DO SOMETHING and be highly interventionist. It didn't help when cries of Death Panels influenced the discussions.
According to that, almost everyone would qualify for government subsidized healthcare, because it's not affordable by anyone but the wealthy. Even your employer-based insurance coverage is "subsidized" by the gov't in the form of tidy corporate tax breaks.
Are we going to keep up with the populist "how dare you starve this baby" rants? Fundamentally, there is no legal right to free healthcare and there shouldn't be.
Here's a question for the pinkos here, is a government that doesn't provide free education illegitimate? Is it committing human rights abuses? In what way is it different to a government that does provide it?
Hope is the denial of reality
Oooo. Your compassion is stunning. Your understanding of how fickle life can be is frankly frightening. You should knock on wood oh enlightened one.Because guess what? You have no fucking idea how "unfair" life can be. But maybe you'll find out, sooner or later. Unless you're just that lucky that you'll continue your charmed life with no bumps or falls till your biggest decision is who deserves to inherit your fortune.
So anything that can be sold, we don't have a right to? Wow.But it's not a "right". Right's aren't about equal access to goods with monetary value; that's socialism.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I love how you keep slipping "free" in there. I don't know about anyone else, but I've never said anyone has a right to Free Healthcare (tm).
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
The whole point of rights is that we're entitled to them by merit of being a human being. Do you think something like healthcare or education is inherent to the human condition? If it is, then what can we call governments that fail to provide these "rights"?
Hope is the denial of reality
At this point in the thread, even though it's a youtube, it seems fitting here. Start around 6 mins if you're impatient. (Fantastic movie for those who are interested.)
Oooo. Your compassion is stunning. Your understanding of how fickle life can be is frankly frightening. You should knock on wood oh enlightened one.
So anything that can be sold, we don't have a right to? Wow.Yes, I have lived a completely perfect life. Nothing bad has ever happened to me, my family or my friends. I have spent my entire existence swimming in money and I've never had to choose not to buy something so that I could afford something more important.
And my point in slipping the word "free" is because that's what you're saying. That anyone who can't pay for it, gets it anyway. That's basically saying it's free.
Third world?
*Nice, starting out with a pejorative, then asking about legitimacy.Here's a question for the pinkos here, is a government that doesn't provide free education illegitimate? Is it committing human rights abuses? In what way is it different to a government that does provide it?
Last edited by GGT; 04-12-2011 at 03:57 AM. Reason: *
And so if a kid comes out of public school stupid, is that government a human rights violator?
Is it engaging in a human rights violation?
Hope is the denial of reality
Didn't Dread say it was a slippery slope to go down the "rights" alley? Now we've got Loki asking if a gov't is "legitimate" or violating "rights"? What are you two, a tag team called the Professor and Mary Ann?
Loki is making the same point in a different way. But you are talking about the social contract, so it's a fair question.
Yet, you're both laying blame on a governmental system for any faults, flaws or gaps. Why?
Let's presume the US follows the "free market", "free enterprise", or "capitalist" model of things. No gummint intervention. The theory isn't borne out in practice, in the pay-to-play model. There's not enough evidence that charities or non-profits can provide quality education and healthcare for the needy or disadvantaged. If they could, surely they would have by now. But even the Catholic church (with more money than God) could *NOT* fund millions of kids' educations, let alone pay for every granny's hip transplant or nursing home care.
Last edited by GGT; 04-12-2011 at 04:40 AM. Reason: *
Again, if education and/or healthcare is a human right, is a government committing a human rights violation by not providing those services to its citizens?
Hope is the denial of reality
As I said, we don't even need to get into the Rights debate. In a first world, developed and civilized society, basic education and basic health care is a matter of fundamental necessity. In a large and diverse economy like ours, being competitive globally matters. But private entities can't/don't fill the needs. If they could have, they would have. That's why our democratic republic government steps in the game.
Technically rights we're entitled to by merit of being a human being are termed 'human rights." That's one type of right, but it's not the only kind. Civil rights are distinct from human rights and then there are social rights, not generally recognized in the 1st world. *and of course there are different schemes of organization, like where the rights are thought to come from, like natural rights, legal rights (from the application of positivism) etc* You're laying out a natural rights framework and no, health care doesn't fit into that. Personally, I don't think it fits into human rights and certainly makes no sense as a civil right. You can make some sense of it as a social right with a slightly different parse, as the expectation of society that people within it be healthy. The UDHR does list health as a human right, but as even a cursory analysis of the document will reveal, it encompasses all kinds of rights plus the kitchen sink and so makes a very poor framework to hang anything on. It's a wishlist of all sorts of things the authors liked and thought people could/should/would have.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Most first world nations recognize social rights, though. Simply by being a more advanced society, and recognizing social "contracts" benefit the greater good.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote