Whitworth Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Vermont Public Radio reports: "Governor Peter Shumlin has signed a bill that puts Vermont on a path to become the first state in the country to adopt a single-payer health system." "We gather here today to launch the first single payer health care system in America...To do in Vermont what has taken too long: have a health care system that's the best in the world, that treats health care as a right, and not a privilege." So what say all of you? Is Health care a human right or a privilege? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keptwoman Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovin Learnin Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 It should be a right but it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitworth Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 I suppose I should've given my opinion...:tongue_smilie: Absolutely a human right! Way to go Vermont! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I'm half ready to move to vermont! I know way too many people that can't afford medical treatment. Just yesterday my husband's coworker, who is only a week away from getting medical benefits, had to be hospitalized. I'm so worried his family will be bankrupted by this. A single payer system is way too long coming in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Awesome! May every state do the same! Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrganicAnn Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I thought Hawaii had universal healthcare. Is this different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Life is a right. Healthcare beyond that is a privilege, and to turn it into a de facto right essentially enslaves the health care provider that can no longer choose whether or not to treat someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindyD Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Healthcare is a privilege. I want everyone to have access to good healthcare, but it is a privilege that we have, not an inherent right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Healthcare is a privilege. I want everyone to have access to good healthcare, but it is a privilege that we have, not an inherent right. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I don't believe there are any human rights, just the rights the society you live and participate in deems worthy of defending. That said, I will never forget a man younger than I am now who'd never had insurance, and who came to me as part of a medicaid eval for "carpal tunnel". He was a laborer, and a dad, and looked like a Viking, but so sweet. His hands were atrophied from the nerve damage, and were curved in painful claws. He couldn't work and was hoping a surgery would fix him. As part of my eval, I listened to his heart, and heard the worst mitral regurgitation, and felt the kind of sloppy, boggy, enlarged heart you expect in an 80 year old in a cardiac care unit. I remember my hair standing on end, because his hands were beside the point: I was talking to a dead man. He died 6 months later, waiting a heart transplant. Valve surgery could have cured him 5 year earlier. And it all could have been detected with a simple listen to the chest. So, I support universal care. And I would pay for it through a cultural change. When my near-90 mother grew overwhelmed with age, she had a three day stay in the hospital and was offered chemo and dialysis. Instead, she asked for two units of blood to get her strong enough to make it home, and for her two youngest and her cat to keep her company those last couple of days. I have seen inordinate amounts of money spent on the last 6 months of life, when everyone knows the game is up and the patient is miserable. We do things to the ancient and the demented we would not inflict on a dog. Let us make the good and peaceful passing as desirable as a birth or marriage, and attend it with good cheer. On her last day my mother said "I want absolutely no emotionality [distress]." Looking her right in the eye, I replied that I could not speak for others, but she'd get none from me. I cannot say she was proud of me, for she was not one to express pride, in herself or her children, but she was satisfied. I felt she was satisfied she'd raised a sensible daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrganicAnn Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 When one says Healthcare is a privilege, what exactly does that mean? To me a privilege is something that is earned. Something that is taken away when you do something wrong. So what do you have to do to earn the privilege of healthcare and what does one do wrong to have that privilege taken away? Does privilege mean just financial privilege? If you can pay, you can get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I have seen inordinate amounts of money spent on the last 6 months of life, when everyone knows the game is up and the patient is miserable. We do things to the ancient and the demented we would not inflict on a dog. Let us make the good and peaceful passing as desirable as a birth or marriage, and attend it with good cheer. On her last day my mother said "I want absolutely no emotionality [distress]." Looking her right in the eye, I replied that I could not speak for others, but she'd get none from me. I cannot say she was proud of me, for she was not one to express pride, in herself or her children, but she was satisfied. I felt she was satisfied she'd raised a sensible daughter. I couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 When one says Healthcare is a privilege, what exactly does that mean? To me a privilege is something that is earned. Something that is taken away when you do something wrong. So what do you have to do to earn the privilege of healthcare and what does one do wrong to have that privilege taken away? Does privilege mean just financial privilege? If you can pay, you can get it? Exactly. If you're poor, no privilege for you! Next to freedom, it's the most basic human right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I thought Hawaii had universal healthcare. Is this different? No, Hawaii requires employers to provide insurance to employees who work more than 20 hours/week. Waitresses, ice cream scoopers, lifeguards, everybody has pretty generous health insurance. They don't have single payer or universal health care. They have had their system since 1974, it is similar to the national plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrganicAnn Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Thanks Mrs Mungo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Exactly. If you're poor, no privilege for you! Next to freedom, it's the most basic human right. Not to start an argument but what does my disabled son need to do to earn that privilege? Does he need to make a speech? That may be hard since he doesn't speak well. Does he need to get a great job after graduating from a great college? I sure hope they can find a place like that for him. People who say healthcare is not a right is not a mom fighting for her son to get speech therapy, special testing all while being bombarded with thousands of dollars of doctor bills because no one will insure him. My son did not ask for this life and not congress or the state or anyone on this board has any right to say he does not deserve healthcare. We didn't ask for seizures or heart defects or autism or any of it. We did not ask that no daycare within 100 miles refuse to watch him so I could continue teaching. He has a right to healthcare and so does everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 It is absolutely a human right. No question. It's one of the very most basic. Everyone should have health care. Everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathmom Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 It is a right. It "promotes the general welfare." And maybe we don't have to move to Canada after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialmama Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Life is a right. Healthcare beyond that is a privilege, and to turn it into a de facto right essentially enslaves the health care provider that can no longer choose whether or not to treat someone. If you mean that the dr. would have to treat the homeless man who hasn't showered in a month the same as he would the lawyer as the lawyer, then yes, he is "enslaved," although I prefer the terms non-judgemental, caring, and right to do what his job is regardless of who the patient is. If you mean that the dr. must treat *any* patient for *any* illness, I beg to differ. Here in Canada we have universal healthcare (which I love and wouldn't change for the world btw) and my dh works in the upper government of healthcare. Doctors can and do refuse to treat a patient if a) it is beyond their scope (in which case they make a referral to a specialist who can handle it) b) they believe the treatment is futile, or c) it goes against the Hippocratic Oath. Doctors here are far from "enslaved" tyvm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Life is a right. Healthcare beyond that is a privilege, and to turn it into a de facto right essentially enslaves the health care provider that can no longer choose whether or not to treat someone. Something you probably did not know: if a military type has a horrible, disgusting house a moving company can refuse to pack them out. However, only two moving companies can do so. The third has to take the job. Are they being enslaved through this requirement? Something you do know: criminals have the right to an attorney. Are those attorneys enslaved? Lawyers are strongly encouraged by the ABA to do a certain number of pro Bono hours per year. Are they enslaved? It is ridiculous to use the term enslaved. You are not required to be a doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Life is a right. Healthcare beyond that is a privilege, and to turn it into a de facto right essentially enslaves the health care provider that can no longer choose whether or not to treat someone. So, if your child was dying from something treatable and everyone refused to treat her, would you then consider it her right? Or would you just say, "Oh well. It wasn't her right anyway."? It's really easy to say that when it's not someone you love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) We can have "universal" healthcare if we can afford to do so. Eventually, we'll run out of other peoples money. In about 5 years the Europeans will still be calling it a right as they deny services to their citizens because their currency will be crap and no individual or institution will purchase their bonds to finance their deficit spending. The US is a short jump behind them. This debate is completely divorced from reality. ETA: To answer your question: It's neither a right nor a privilege. It's a commodity that can be purchased and sold. To you all you Vermonties (iers?) Hey, good luck with that, even though your state is currently on the edge of insolvency and your municipal bonds are soon to be toast. I hope it works our for you better than it do for Mass. Vermont may have the right idea. Let's all go out and buy a Mercedes even though our homes are being forclosed on. Edited May 30, 2011 by Stacy in NJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Vermont Public Radio reports: "Governor Peter Shumlin has signed a bill that puts Vermont on a path to become the first state in the country to adopt a single-payer health system." "We gather here today to launch the first single payer health care system in America...To do in Vermont what has taken too long: have a health care system that's the best in the world, that treats health care as a right, and not a privilege." So what say all of you? Is Health care a human right or a privilege? In Canada, it all started with Tommy Douglas and Saskatchewan. It took some time and some tweaking, but as you know, the rest of the country came around, too. I truly hope that Vermont is your Saskatchewan. :001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquinas Academy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I've always loved Vermont. Now I love it even more. :) Yes, healthcare is definitely a human right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 No, Hawaii requires employers to provide insurance to employees who work more than 20 hours/week. Waitresses, ice cream scoopers, lifeguards, everybody has pretty generous health insurance. They don't have single payer or universal health care. They have had their system since 1974, it is similar to the national plan. And look at the cost of living in Hawaii. Yes, much of it is due to isolation and shipping costs, etc. However, the fact that businesses have to pay more for each employee increases prices as well. Minimum wages, mandatory employer provided health care, etc. Something you probably did not know: if a military type has a horrible, disgusting house a moving company can refuse to pack them out. However, only two moving companies can do so. The third has to take the job. Are they being enslaved through this requirement? Something you do know: criminals have the right to an attorney. Are those attorneys enslaved? Lawyers are strongly encouraged by the ABA to do a certain number of pro Bono hours per year. Are they enslaved? It is ridiculous to use the term enslaved. You are not required to be a doctor. So, are you saying that a patient has a right to healthcare, even if there are no providers? How does that work? So, if your child was dying from something treatable and everyone refused to treat her, would you then consider it her right? Or would you just say, "Oh well. It wasn't her right anyway."? It's really easy to say that when it's not someone you love. The idea of the free market is that a doctor will treat my child because I can compensate them for their time, supplies, training, and experience. Not to start an argument but what does my disabled son need to do to earn that privilege? Does he need to make a speech? That may be hard since he doesn't speak well. Does he need to get a great job after graduating from a great college? I sure hope they can find a place like that for him. People who say healthcare is not a right is not a mom fighting for her son to get speech therapy, special testing all while being bombarded with thousands of dollars of doctor bills because no one will insure him. My son did not ask for this life and not congress or the state or anyone on this board has any right to say he does not deserve healthcare. We didn't ask for seizures or heart defects or autism or any of it. We did not ask that no daycare within 100 miles refuse to watch him so I could continue teaching. He has a right to healthcare and so does everyone else. As the parent, it is your responsibility to take care of and provide for your children, right? For those that can not afford to do so for various reasons, that is what churches and communities and private charities are for. It is not the responsibility of the state and the taxpayer. If you mean that the dr. would have to treat the homeless man who hasn't showered in a month the same as he would the lawyer as the lawyer, then yes, he is "enslaved," although I prefer the terms non-judgemental, caring, and right to do what his job is regardless of who the patient is. If you mean that the dr. must treat *any* patient for *any* illness, I beg to differ. Here in Canada we have universal healthcare (which I love and wouldn't change for the world btw) and my dh works in the upper government of healthcare. Doctors can and do refuse to treat a patient if a) it is beyond their scope (in which case they make a referral to a specialist who can handle it) b) they believe the treatment is futile, or c) it goes against the Hippocratic Oath. Doctors here are far from "enslaved" tyvm. If the homeless man can pay the same as the lawyer, then yes, they should be treated the same, absolutely. And if he won't, hopefully the free market system will allow him to receive treatment elsewhere, which will receive more business from the community accordingly. We can have "universal" healthcare if we can afford to do so. Eventually, we'll run out of other peoples money. In about 5 years the Europeans will still be calling it a right as they deny services to their citizens because their currency will be crap and no individual or institution will purchase their bonds to finance their deficit spending. The US is a short jump behind them. This debate is completely divorced from reality. ETA: To answer your question: It's neither a right nor a privilege. It's a commodity that can be purchased and sold. To you all you Vermonties (iers?) Hey, good luck with that, even though your state is currently on the edge of insolvency and your municipal bonds are soon to be toast. I hope it works our for you better than it do for Mass. Vermont may have the right idea. Let's all go out and buy a Mercedes even though our homes are being forclosed on. :iagree: What do you do for those whose poor health is self-inflicted due to poor lifestyle choices? Obesity, drugs (legal or illegal), etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In The Great White North Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 This hardly makes Vermont a single provider state. All it does is establish a phiosophy. Richter said the law makes history because it establishes health care coverage as a public good, regardless of a person's employment or economic status. But she also acknowledged that the hard job of designing the system - and how to pay for it - lies ahead. The Vermont Medical Society, which represents the state's physicians, says the law does very little initially. Paul Harrington is the group's vice president. He says the measure calls for about 16 separate studies on health care issues. So, the first thing they are going to do, in their attempt to spend other peoples money, is fund 16 separate studies!?!? As if health care hasn'd been studied to death already? (Dillon) Federal law says states have to wait until 2017 to launch single payer plans. Nothing is going to happen soon. BTW, did you know that Vermont taxes hospitals, even if they are nonprofits (thereby raising cost which deny some people care)? Makes me think their concern for universal healthcare is isn't as deep as their pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 So, are you saying that a patient has a right to healthcare, even if there are no providers? How does that work? A person has a right to food even if there isn't enough. Supply doesn't determine what is a human right and what is not. The idea of the free market is that a doctor will treat my child because I can compensate them for their time, supplies, training, and experience. That's nice. And if a child is, by no fault of their own, born to someone who cannot compensate a doctor for their time, supplies, training, and experience it is okay that they are permanently injured or killed because of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 To me, it's a right to life. Same thing that makes me pro-life. But let's not go there. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialmama Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 If the homeless man can pay the same as the lawyer, then yes, they should be treated the same, absolutely. And if he won't, hopefully the free market system will allow him to receive treatment elsewhere, which will receive more business from the community accordingly. Wow. :001_huh: Where's Johnny? Any good kilts around? OH hey, speaking of pot stirring, I tried this great recipe this weekend. Ya'll have to try it! Mama's 3 bean salad recipe! Ingredients 1 (15 ounce) can garbanzo beans (chickpeas), drained and rinsed 1 (15 ounce) can kidney beans, drained and rinsed 1 (15 ounce) can green beans, drained and rinsed 4 green onions, chopped 1 stalk celery, sliced 1/2 cup cider vinegar 1/4 cup vegetable oil 1 tablespoon honey 1/2 teaspoon ground dry mustard 1/4 teaspoon garlic powder 1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper 1/4 teaspoon onion powder (optional) 1/4 teaspoon ground cayenne pepper (optional) Directions In a bowl, gently mix the garbanzo beans, kidney beans, green beans, green onions, and celery. In a separate bowl, whisk together the vinegar, oil, honey, mustard, garlic powder, black pepper, onion powder, and cayenne pepper. Pour dressing over the salad, and toss gently to coat. Cover, refrigerate at least 2 hours, and gently toss before serving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 A person has a right to food even if there isn't enough. Supply doesn't determine what is a human right and what is not. That's nice. And if a child is, by no fault of their own, born to someone who cannot compensate a doctor for their time, supplies, training, and experience it is okay that they are permanently injured or killed because of this? No, I already posted that the right to life is a factor here. Treatment beyond life-saving (think: ER) is not a right. And I would disagree that there is an absolute right to food. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuntieM Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Okay, I am admittedly not ready to actually answer the question, but I am musing over a few things... Interesting how this is an issue specific to the modern era. I wonder how the framers of our Constitution would have regarded it? Interesting that this is a debate and a demand in "civilized" countries. Is there a similar demand in third world countries? In collectivist cultures? I am curious how non-Westerners view this issue. Stacy in NJ ask some good questions about paying for it all. It seems futile to debate the morality of the issue apart from the economics of it, since the fulfillment of the first is dependent on the second. I am just going to think, and read, and watch this thread. At least until it gets locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 As the parent, it is your responsibility to take care of and provide for your children, right? For those that can not afford to do so for various reasons, that is what churches and communities and private charities are for. It is not the responsibility of the state and the taxpayer. . Yes it is my resposibility to care for my child. I did for many years but when jobs changed the new carrier that I paid for by the way refused to cover him, as he got sicker the daycares refused to care for him. Since you have all the answers why don't you enlighten me as to how I was suppose to work to financially provide his healthcare when I could no longer feed him. I would appreciate you telling me what church, charity or community resource will pay his $600 dollar a month meds, his twice a year MRI, his every three month EKG his speech therapy etc. etc. I would really enjoy the lifestyle I once had back so please do tell. I would also like to know your plan for when disabled children grow up, who is responsible then? I would really like to know right now if one of your children needed a heart transplant can you front that bill? If you give birth to a disabled child and your medical insurance turns down coverage can you keep your lifestyle? Actually I don't want to know because until you are there you have no idea what you are talking about. Until you watch everything you worked for dissapear because your beautiful child is ill and you have no childcare you know nothing. Until you are put into a hopeless situation as so many parents are with these types of kids, you know nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 No, I already posted that the right to life is a factor here. Treatment beyond life-saving (think: ER) is not a right. And I would disagree that there is an absolute right to food. :) I guess I should quit feeding people here then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialmama Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Yes it is my resposibility to care for my child. I did for many years but when jobs changed the new carrier that I paid for by the way refused to cover him, as he got sicker the daycares refused to care for him. Since you have all the answers why don't you enlighten me as to how I was suppose to work to financially provide his healthcare when I could no longer feed him. I would appreciate you telling me what church, charity or community resource will pay his $600 dollar a month meds, his twice a year MRI, his every three month EKG his speech therapy etc. etc. I would really enjoy the lifestyle I once had back so please do tell. I would also like to know your plan for when disabled children grow up, who is responsible then? I would really like to know right now if one of your children needed a heart transplant can you front that bill? If you give birth to a disabled child and your medical insurance turns down coverage can you keep your lifestyle? Actually I don't want to know because until you are there you have no idea what you are talking about. Until you watch everything you worked for dissapear because your beautiful child is ill and you have no childcare you know nothing. Until you are put into a hopeless situation as so many parents are with these types of kids, you know nothing. :iagree: And until he actually experiences a health care system like Canada's, Australia's, Vermont's (pending), then he really doesn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Okay, I am admittedly not ready to actually answer the question, but I am musing over a few things... Interesting how this is an issue specific to the modern era. I wonder how the framers of our Constitution would have regarded it? Interesting that this is a debate and a demand in "civilized" countries. Is there a similar demand in third world countries? In collectivist cultures? I am curious how non-Westerners view this issue. Stacy in NJ ask some good questions about paying for it all. It seems futile to debate the morality of the issue apart from the economics of it, since the fulfillment of the first is dependent on the second. I am just going to think, and read, and watch this thread. At least until it gets locked. Yes. People want health care for their loved ones when they need it, even in third world countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Yes it is my resposibility to care for my child. I did for many years but when jobs changed the new carrier that I paid for by the way refused to cover him, as he got sicker the daycares refused to care for him. Since you have all the answers why don't you enlighten me as to how I was suppose to work to financially provide his healthcare when I could no longer feed him. I would appreciate you telling me what church, charity or community resource will pay his $600 dollar a month meds, his twice a year MRI, his every three month EKG his speech therapy etc. etc. I would really enjoy the lifestyle I once had back so please do tell. I would also like to know your plan for when disabled children grow up, who is responsible then? I would really like to know right now if one of your children needed a heart transplant can you front that bill? If you give birth to a disabled child and your medical insurance turns down coverage can you keep your lifestyle? Actually I don't want to know because until you are there you have no idea what you are talking about. Until you watch everything you worked for dissapear because your beautiful child is ill and you have no childcare you know nothing. Until you are put into a hopeless situation as so many parents are with these types of kids, you know nothing. I am truly sympathetic to your situation. I just don't think the state should be responsible for you and your family. I am sorry if you feel that is harsh or something, but that is how I feel. No, I don't have all the answers. I am merely sharing my opinion, that is all. I believe there does need to be reform in our healthcare system, and the way health insurance works. I think we need an overhaul of our entire economic system, from the Federal Reserve on down. Why is healthcare so expensive in the first place? Malpractice insurance, inflation, etc. But I think that is a separate discussion. If the whole system were fixed, it wouldn't be as big an issue, healthcare would be affordable for almost everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 So, tnt, it sounds like you are saying other people aren't your problem. Am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I don't see how you got that out of what I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I don't see how you got that out of what I wrote. Okay. Government programs are funded by you and the other citizens of America. You think people ought to pay for themselves, and if they can't, tough. You don't want your tax money going to help them. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I am truly sympathetic to your situation. I just don't think the state should be responsible for you and your family. I am sorry if you feel that is harsh or something, but that is how I feel. No, I don't have all the answers. I am merely sharing my opinion, that is all. I believe there does need to be reform in our healthcare system, and the way health insurance works. I think we need an overhaul of our entire economic system, from the Federal Reserve on down. Why is healthcare so expensive in the first place? Malpractice insurance, inflation, etc. But I think that is a separate discussion. If the whole system were fixed, it wouldn't be as big an issue, healthcare would be affordable for almost everyone. Well I am glad your sympathetic, so was the insurance company the daycares the school where I quit my job that I worked for four years in college to get while also working two jobs that is all very nice. Sympathy and wishing things were different got my baby no where. It is easy to make decisions and opinions when you are not there. So until our government decides to fix everything Damie should go without seizure and heart meds. What you are basically saying is I should hold his hand while he dies and say sorry buddy I couldn't tie you up in a cage to go to work to pay for your pills. That is what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Okay. Government programs are funded by you and the other citizens of America. You think people ought to pay for themselves, and if they can't, tough. You don't want your tax money going to help them. No? I just really like you!!! :grouphug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuntieM Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Yes. People want health care for their loved ones when they need it, even in third world countries. Oh yes, I know they want it! But, do they view it as a right? Or is it received more as... I dunno, a gift, maybe (admittedly speculating here)? I'm particularly wondering how this perception varies among cultures. I have friends who render medical services to communities in both Africa and South America. In each of their experiences, patients have insisted upon paying for services with goods, food, produce, chickens and other livestock... in such a way that it seems their honor is preserved by making an exchange of some sort. I am really just trying to consider the notion of "rights" from the perspective of other cultures. I have no doubt that the desire to provide for those who do not have access is a noble one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Well I am glad your sympathetic, so was the insurance company the daycares the school where I quit my job that I worked for four years in college to get while also working two jobs that is all very nice. Sympathy and wishing things were different got my baby no where. It is easy to make decisions and opinions when you are not there. So until our government decides to fix everything Damie should go without seizure and heart meds. What you are basically saying is I should hold his hand while he dies and say sorry buddy I couldn't tie you up in a cage to go to work to pay for your pills. That is what you are saying. You realize the government that you want to fix everything doesn't have all the answers either, right? The government is made up of people. Please, by all means, let me know what your workable solution is to fix the situation. In the meantime, out of respect for you, I will not get further involved in this conversation. I will choose not to express my opinion in order to not cause you further emotional distress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 [quote name=AuntieM;2775808. I have friends who render medical services to communities in both Africa and South America. In each of their experiences' date=' patients have insisted upon paying for services with goods, food, produce, chickens and other livestock... in such a way that it seems their honor is preserved by making an exchange of some sort. . I believe that the majority of people feel they should pay for medical care, because, well you should do something for anyone who helps you. I would be willing to do all kinds of things (nothing bad) for my children to have great medical care. Sadly in the US that is not the way it is. It is all about money money money. Insurance companies and hospitals don't care if you have the funds to eat they just want their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 You realize the government that you want to fix everything doesn't have all the answers either, right? The government is made up of people. Please, by all means, let me know what your workable solution is to fix the situation. In the meantime, out of respect for you, I will not get further involved in this conversation. I will choose not to express my opinion in order to not cause you further emotional distress. Emotional distress? Nope. I don't feel that at all. I don't have a workable solution really just a thought on how things should be. I believe that across this great nation there should be childcare centers for people like my son. I believe that his healthcare and meds shouldn't have cost me to lose my home. I believe that a pill that takes maybe a quarter to be made shouldn't cost me a small fortune. This conversation doesn't cause me emotional distress and I don't expect anyone to have all the answers I just expect them to treat my son as if his life means something other than a dollar sign or a statistic in healthcare studies. I believe it is stupid for children to be dieing or hungry in the Untited States of America where the people who are making these choices are spending more on their clothes using tax payer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SailorMom Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Healthcare is a privilege. I want everyone to have access to good healthcare, but it is a privilege that we have, not an inherent right. :iagree: Ya know - maybe if the government had a better track record of being effective and efficient I'd be more on board with all of this- but I've been to the DMV, I've seen what they did with the Federal Housing issues, and the biggest one - I've seen what they've done throwing our money down the black hole that is the education system. Why does anyone think they'll manage healthcare any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anabelneri Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Ok, so this forum is made up of an unusual collection of people from both sides of the political spectrum (and people outside the spectrum, and in the middle of it, etc.) We all agree that something isn't perfect about education in our country, and we're taking a stance and doing something about it for our kids (and grandkids and maybe the neighbors' kids...), and many of us are probably pretty good at petitioning our political representatives (if only to protect homeschooling rights) Sometimes I wish that these conversations would veer from the everyone-take-sides model that is so expected and promulgated by our news media. What if we took all of the energy and intelligence of this forum and worked on finding something we can agree on in this? So, from talking to folks, it seems like one group is primarily concerned that 1) our government is getting too big 2) our government is spending too much 3) our rights to privacy might be negatively impacted The other group seems to be concerned that 1) big business (and its leaders) are scamming everyone 2) certain groups are not receiving the medical care they need 3) the government is the only authority who can fix the situation I'm guessing that many of us can agree with a lot of these points, though we might choose to place emphasis on different points. I know I can agree with all of them. I may not have represented each side fully, though. But it might be a starting place? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Ok, so this forum is made up of an unusual collection of people from both sides of the political spectrum (and people outside the spectrum, and in the middle of it, etc.) We all agree that something isn't perfect about education in our country, and we're taking a stance and doing something about it for our kids (and grandkids and maybe the neighbors' kids...), and many of us are probably pretty good at petitioning our political representatives (if only to protect homeschooling rights) Sometimes I wish that these conversations would veer from the everyone-take-sides model that is so expected and promulgated by our news media. What if we took all of the energy and intelligence of this forum and worked on finding something we can agree on in this? So, from talking to folks, it seems like one group is primarily concerned that 1) our government is getting too big 2) our government is spending too much 3) our rights to privacy might be negatively impacted The other group seems to be concerned that 1) big business (and its leaders) are scamming everyone 2) certain groups are not receiving the medical care they need 3) the government is the only authority who can fix the situation I'm guessing that many of us can agree with a lot of these points, though we might choose to place emphasis on different points. I know I can agree with all of them. I may not have represented each side fully, though. But it might be a starting place? :) Well, MY fix would be to have everyone join a non-profit that "fit" them. We're members of Samaritan's Ministries which is a Christian non-profit health sharing group that takes care of its own members. For us, it works well. I pay for others who have medical needs and when someone in my family had medical needs others pay for us. Having been on it for years now, I have no complaints. Since it's non-profit, it only costs $320/month to cover our whole family. There's a $3-400 deductible, then things are covered at 100% (most of the time). Since it is Christian, there are certain things not covered that I don't want my money to go to (abortion, for one). Since everyone who is a member of this group agrees on these issues in order to join, there's no fussing. But, things like this need to be expanded to include more people. Many people are not Christian. Some would like to see other things covered that aren't under "my" plan. It seems to me that there ought to be a group for everyone - and not just based on religious beliefs. Each group would figure out what they want to see covered and what they don't. The Fed gov't (maybe) could set bottom line requirements (all must cover childbirth for example). The amount one would need to pay to be in a group would be determined by the amount of needs that group has - and would be adjusted as needed as medical costs rise. It would be a fixed monthly amount (no surprises needed!). Any extra in a given month would be put into an emergency fund for when costs exceed that monthly amount. Take the profit out of "insurance" and everyone wins. Take the gov't out of insurance and everyone wins (IMO - I've yet to see the gov't run anything effectively). Have different groups with different ideals (some could cover everything from a hangnail on - others could do the "basics" required) and there ought to be something for everyone. Supplement those on unemployment when needed out of the "emergency" fund. But the chances of this happening? Really, really low. People like either their profit or a bigger gov't and think those are the only two choices. And so, we sit here as one family happy with our small niche watching the same bickering go on month after month. Yes, our "group" will not work for everyone (probably not even the majority), but there's no reason similar groups shouldn't be able to work just as well as a much lower cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I am truly sympathetic to your situation. I just don't think the state should be responsible for you and your family. I am sorry if you feel that is harsh or something, but that is how I feel. No, I don't have all the answers. I am merely sharing my opinion, that is all. I believe there does need to be reform in our healthcare system, and the way health insurance works. I think we need an overhaul of our entire economic system, from the Federal Reserve on down. Why is healthcare so expensive in the first place? Malpractice insurance, inflation, etc. But I think that is a separate discussion. If the whole system were fixed, it wouldn't be as big an issue, healthcare would be affordable for almost everyone. Almost everyone isn't good enough. But that aside....if healthcare isn't a right, what about education? Do you want to abolish public schools? I mean, if healthcare isn't a right, why should education be a right? I would think health care was just as important, or more so, than an education. And what about the police? Public defenders? Should those be on the same basis as health care? If you can pay to have a lawyer or to have a crime investigated great, otherwise is isn't the problem of the state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts