FARK.com: (3340215) Insurance rejects transplant patient who needs $3200 a month for anti-rejection medication. Ironic tag succumbs to Obvious tag

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WLTX.com)		Insurance rejects transplant patient who needs $3200 a month for anti-rejection medication. Ironic tag succumbs to Obvious tag (wltx.com)		284
		More: Obvious

• • •

8917 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2008 at 11:47 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/3340215

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

284 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

mountebanks		2008-01-19 02:05:20 PM

Bob Dolemite: economic principle and reality are not parallel roads. you're going to have hundreds of administrative bodies in the system anyways, why charge them all to the same account? why should people in des moines pay the same as people in seattle?

It would be easy enough for one entity to charge different amounts depending on cost of living. That's no problem.

Bob Ondeeznuts		2008-01-19 02:06:41 PM

etymxris: How many 19 year olds can afford $3k a month in medicine that weren't born into money? Pretty much none, so medicaid is basically taking away her means of survival.

You don't have to be born into money to make sure your kids have proper health care. Medicaid is not proper health care.

Gardenia		2008-01-19 02:09:02 PM

Uncle Karl:

/seems other nations manage

Other countries pay a MUCH higher tax rate to pay for it. Just look at the tax rates in the UK and one of those Scandinavian places like Sweden? Norway? I believe those are around 45-55% and 70% respectively but am too lazy to go look it up at the moment. I also read something last year about any earnings over 50k (can't remember if it is dollars or pounds) is taxed at 90% in the UK. Maybe someone from the UK can post some links.

I personally would not want to hand over 70% of my income to fund more government programs. I like to be able to eat and pay my electric bills.

Bob Dolemite		2008-01-19 02:12:07 PM

mountebanks: It would be easy enough for one entity to charge different amounts depending on cost of living. That's no problem.

and i agree, and that is why i maintain that it ought to be managed by the states themselves and not a national program

piperTom		2008-01-19 02:12:59 PM

So, the family had 12 years to plan for this day; they knew the gubmit plan would stop. Did they appeal for private charity? Did they write to church groups? Story doesn't mention it and, even now, there's no appeal for donations.

I'm sorry for the girl too; it sux to have complete shait-heads for parents.

web250		2008-01-19 02:14:31 PM

Let's be realistic hear too people. If this were a pretty white girl, this would be all over the news, with some wealthy benafactor helping her out quickly.

But seriously, Britney Spears definately deserves her airtime over people like this.

Damn shame.

Uncle Karl		2008-01-19 02:17:54 PM

Gardenia: Uncle Karl:

/seems other nations manage

Other countries pay a MUCH higher tax rate to pay for it. Just look at the tax rates in the UK and one of those Scandinavian places like Sweden? Norway? I believe those are around 45-55% and 70% respectively but am too lazy to go look it up at the moment. I also read something last year about any earnings over 50k (can't remember if it is dollars or pounds) is taxed at 90% in the UK. Maybe someone from the UK can post some links.

I personally would not want to hand over 70% of my income to fund more government programs. I like to be able to eat and pay my electric bills.

The highest income tax rate in the UK is 40% see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Income_tax

mountebanks		2008-01-19 02:18:35 PM

Bob Dolemite: and i agree, and that is why i maintain that it ought to be managed by the states themselves and not a national program

I'll do you one better: I think it should be managed by several, competing government-sponsored non-profits. That way, choice is retained (except for the choice to not have coverage) wherever you live.

piperTom		2008-01-19 02:20:15 PM

Maddogjew: "he real question should be why the drugs cost so much. Does it cost anywhere near that to manufacture them? Making a profit at knife point is OK if your a drug company I suppose."

What a great thought, maddogjew! By the way, what do you do for a living... er, I mean, ... you don't really demand to take home more that it costs you to go there and do the work, do you? Of course, it would be alright for you to make a profit, if you're not doing anything that people "need". Don't do anything like that.

Dick_Hertz		2008-01-19 02:23:57 PM

Generation_D [TotalFark] Quote 2008-01-19 10:57:59 AM
Meanwhile, insurance profits soar

It's Medicaid, Asshat!

/When Government fails, Liberals (Asshats) blame the corporations.

jake3988		2008-01-19 02:27:59 PM

RandomFeature 2008-01-19 12:04:56 PM Maddogjew: The real question should be why the drugs cost so much. Does it cost anywhere near that to manufacture them? Making a profit at knife point is OK if your a drug company I suppose.
=======================

Spell it with me:
P
R
O
F
I
T
PROFIT.

scott-ty		2008-01-19 02:28:39 PM

Maybe were are interfearing in gods plan's with some of these medical marvels. People are made to live and die, young and old. Black or white, life is not fair and equal and if you will look around this country (as well as the world) is going to hell in a handbasket. Not enough taxpayers dollars to feed those in need, much less to repair or maintain defective people. God has his callings. nuff said.

piperTom		2008-01-19 02:30:49 PM

RandomFeature partially answered Maddogjew's lament:

Drugs cost so much in the US because 90% of the companies that develop the drugs are located in the US and almost all the R&D is done here. People in the US bear the cost of that R&D while the rest of the world just gets the benefits, a.k.a. the drugs.

Want to change that? ...

Sure, we want to change that, but forcing the rest of the world to do anything isn't really an option. We CAN focus on the regulations that cause new drug deployment to cost a $Billion, -- or the patent system that allows Big Pharma (and them only) to tolerate the system, -- or the gubmit entitlement system that allows the populace to tolerate both of the above -- or the tax breaks that have helped to hide the costs until recently.

But nobody really wants to know why or how the system got broken; it's too much easier just to demand IMMEDITATE ACTION.

Tesseractor		2008-01-19 02:33:59 PM

Sumdumfarkr		2008-01-19 02:37:58 PM

I, for one, salute our profiteering insurance ~~overlords~~ PROTECTORS!

/Is Chiron Beta Prime nice this time of year?

stealer_of_sleep		2008-01-19 02:39:32 PM

Uncle KarlI take medicine that without insurance costs $25/month, I paid for a few months before the insurance from my job kicked in so I know.

Without it I will die. I must take it forever. Do you think that it too much upkeep?

Obviously not. But there is a difference between $25 per month and $3200 per month. You are able to pay $25 per month yourself without any major difficulty, right? And now that your insurance is paying for it - the insurance premiums paid by your employer should more than cover $25 per month, right?

40oz_A_Knight		2008-01-19 02:44:40 PM

I currently take a life-saving drug, and I'm trying to get Medicare to stop paying for associated doctor visits (at a hospital, hence part A). I spent 5 hours at their M street office only to be told they couldn't give me the termination date for my part A coverage because someone had forgotten to add it to my record. The government has really made a mess of things.

stealer_of_sleep		2008-01-19 02:49:41 PM

I'm starting an insurance company that is going to take on all the cases that insurance companies reject and charge affordable premiums. Company name: Going Bankrupt for a Good Cause. Let me know if you want to invest. I'm not putting any of my own money into it, but I'm willing to donate my time to run the company for awhile

It's_A_Farking_Secret		2008-01-19 02:49:46 PM

LOCNAR69:
no way would she be covered in canada..they have a 2 year waiting list for minor surgeries

and yes--a car and a person aare different things but the business world doesn't look at it that way

Yes dumbass. the wait is so that MAJOR surgery, like, yk, heart transplants, have priority.

And every province has mandatory prescription drug insurance. You either get it from your employer or wherever or you are required to be on the govt. plan.

Bet your ass we pay.

Slugs_of_a_banana_nature		2008-01-19 02:56:54 PM

This sort of thing should be illegal; it's not as if the girl can pay for the stuff herself, and to go without it is basically a death sentence. Charities may or may not help pick up the tab, but even if they do, it'll be a short-term thing. What charity is going to cover her care for the next 50+ years? They'll give a handout now, maybe, for a few months, then what? When something more interesting comes along, they'll drop her too... and eventually, she'll be right back where she started.

It's one thing to reject someone for health insurance because he or she is a self-indulgent smoker/heavy eater with diabetes and an allergy to exercise... it's another to reject someone who has a condition he or she didn't have a hand in creating, which will kill said person without treatment which the person cannot, in any way, afford.

Considering all the money out there in untapped corporate tax, income tax, cushy contracts, ect... The money is out there for this sort of thing, it's just that the people who make the decisions aren't poor and stuck up against the wall.

A private health care system cannot work effectively to keep people healthy, as there is no financial benefit to paying out more than you get in payments.

Nail the pharma companies for extortion, yank the pharma ads out of everything, and use some of that government muscle to make sure the prices for services and medicine reflect the cost to provide them... rather than, "Oooh! This person will DIE if he doesn't get this med... Let's charge him $5000 more! HAHAHA!"

Meanwhile, the poor doctors have their hands tied so tightly that they practically have to leave the system altogether in order to have any say in the treatment of their patients... they don't get to say what medicine you get... they can only Suggest to the insurance companies what they'd Oh Pretty Please like you to be given.

My mom got jerked around by the insurance companies, and I highly suspect she died because of their shiat. They refused her medications multiple times, even though she was a textbook example of the disease the medicine treated... they lost files, skipped payment, retroactively denied services... all while my mom got sicker and sicker because we could hardly afford the $4000+ costs of her care each month.

What it really says about our society is that, if you've got some disease that'll be expensive to treat, either pay for it yourself, or feel free to die.

Do you think if Bush had a heart transplant, he'd have to worry about being rejected by the insurance industry?

Nope.

gerrychampoux		2008-01-19 03:01:42 PM

Son_of_Jack: If I remember correctly, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Non-Profit) turns no one down for pre-existing conditions.

That is correct. However, BCBS of Michigan has no obligation to make the insurance affordable. If and when they do contact BCBS, they will probably find that it's too expensive.

Her best hope is to get a job with medical benefits.

I still find it odd that she cannot get any insurance. As I understand (in Michigan) you cannot be turned down for a pre-existing condition if you were previously covered by other insurance, which is indeed the case here.

nightfire		2008-01-19 03:09:34 PM

LOCNAR69

no way would she be covered in canada..they have a 2 year waiting list for minor surgeries

Hey, asshole... normally I get the whole ITG thing and find it amusing. Your post actually offends me though (I'll get over it, ha ha).

If you want to help fark your own country, fine. Don't bring mine into it. The Canadian healthcare system would unequivocably help this person and provide the medication she needs, until she dies of other causes.

I certainly hope this was just an effective troll, but something tells me it's either an honest post by a truly ignorant person, or an honest post by someone who stands to gain under the current system of corruption and profit.

crazyhair		2008-01-19 03:13:31 PM

all joking aside she should move up here to canada or over to france or somewhere, hell even cuba takes care of their people.

It's_A_Farking_Secret		2008-01-19 03:14:11 PM

LOCNAR69:
no, but they wouldn't cover her anti-rejection drugs forever

cock-knocker!

yes wanker, we would and do.

Cataholic		2008-01-19 03:22:12 PM

Uncle Karl: Gardenia: Uncle Karl:

/seems other nations manage

Other countries pay a MUCH higher tax rate to pay for it. Just look at the tax rates in the UK and one of those Scandinavian places like Sweden? Norway? I believe those are around 45-55% and 70% respectively but am too lazy to go look it up at the moment. I also read something last year about any earnings over 50k (can't remember if it is dollars or pounds) is taxed at 90% in the UK. Maybe someone from the UK can post some links.

I personally would not want to hand over 70% of my income to fund more government programs. I like to be able to eat and pay my electric bills.

The highest income tax rate in the UK is 40% see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Income_tax

It goes nicely with their 17.5% VAT and the 34% for their equivalent of FICA.

firefly212		2008-01-19 03:26:41 PM

And you want big government to make medical decisions for you?

/the people who think like that are always conspicuously absent from these threads.

phadedout		2008-01-19 03:29:34 PM

sucks for her then.

firefly212		2008-01-19 03:37:35 PM

Let's hit the other side of the issue... the drug would cost joe schmo 3200 bucks a month... but let's not pretend that it would cost the insurance company the same thing... they negotiate much lower drug rates. The single largest failure of US healthcare is that if you're on your own because you cant afford insurance, you pay an average of 2.64x as much for the same services and treatments(NIH, 2004).

piperTom		2008-01-19 03:45:24 PM

Slugs_of_a_banana_nature gives the whole thing away:

This sort of thing should be illegal; it's not as if the girl can pay for the stuff herself,.... Charities may or may not help pick up the tab, but even if they do, it'll be a short-term thing.

Conclusion: Nobody and no group is generous enough to pay for this girl's care. As a result, "caring people" know what they must do -- FORCE OTHERS TO PAY!

Ox		2008-01-19 03:56:17 PM

Wow what a screwed up country you people live in.. I blows my mind people are arguing in favour of this system, like they enjoy seeing this woman suffer and die because she was stupid and poor enough to go and get sick..

How can the richest country in the world not take care of it's people, as well as have the highest prison incarceration rate in the world.. The US is compared to third world countries for some of these measures.. sad and pathetic.. seriously guys.. there are dozens of studies proving some form of "socialized medicine" (yes I know OMFG commie take our gunz HILLARY!!! OMFZ) is far far cheaper per capita to run. Of course this is the country that cuts taxes for people making 200,000+ and expects the middle class too pick up the slack.. in a recession..

/jesus christ..

Bob Ondeeznuts		2008-01-19 04:07:55 PM

Ox:

I'm proud to be an American. We're not perfect. I'd rather be here than anywhere else. You can't judge an entire country of people by a few isolated cases of people that are screwing themselves for not making the right decisions in the first places.

Personally, I don't feel like I should pay for your health care (if you're in the U.S., I understand you live in Canada). Let me spend my money the way I feel is best suited. I don't use as much health care as most other people do, I take care of myself, but just something does happen to me, I AM COVERED. Yes I pay more than most but I can go anywhere I want, get any health care I need, and not worry about it.

Notice all the "I's" used. Not we, I. Worry about yourself.

/lived in many places in the world
//father was in the military for 30 years fighting for the rights I have today
///not perfect, but better than most

Cataholic		2008-01-19 04:11:39 PM

jake3988: RandomFeature 2008-01-19 12:04:56 PM Maddogjew: The real question should be why the drugs cost so much. Does it cost anywhere near that to manufacture them? Making a profit at knife point is OK if your a drug company I suppose.
=======================

Spell it with me:
P
R
O
F
I
T
PROFIT.

Drug company profit margins are a maximum of 20%. So, if you made them all non-profit, you should only expect a 20% decline in the price of your medicines.

pchancharl		2008-01-19 04:15:20 PM

I don't know the details of this particular case but I just came here to say a few things about the stance that some people are taking on health care - things that seem illogical to me.

Socialized health care will not work. If the government pays for all health care costs associated with any procedure people in general will not maintain their health the way they should. Instead of saying, "perhaps I should not eat this double mccheeseburger because I could get heart disease and not be able to pay for the procedures to cure myself (or paying for it will be extremely expensive" they will think "it doesn't matter if I get heart disease (or hurt myself participating in an extreme sport or dangerous activity), it will hurt dearly, but the government will pick up the tab". And before I have a flood of people pointing out how the pain and suffering of disease and fractures matters more to people than the cost I urge you to consider that American Idol is among the most watched show on television and people in general are selfish and stupid. Not only this but the hospitals will be overrun with people who have the sniffles, who want elective procedures, with people who want surgery that may in fact increase their overall health but are expensive and they could live without (liposuction is an example that comes to mind).

Personally, I despise what health care has become in this country. I dislike the FDA (which kills thousands of people with terminal illnesses a year because the drugs that could save them are too "risky"), the pharmaceutical giants (who price discriminate to make drugs extremely expensive in the U.S. but then raise holy hell when we import drugs from afar), the HMOs (who, I believe, are at least partly to blame for large increases in the cost of health care coverage). HOWEVER, a nationalized health care system would cause their to be artificially "infinite supply" of health care at zero cost to the consumer and therefore demand will skyrocket until their are shortages. Doctors and R&D will flee the sector and quality will plummet. Please rethink your position on this issue farkers, you are the people who vote!

Bob Ondeeznuts		2008-01-19 04:24:44 PM

pchancharl: Please rethink your position on this issue farkers, you are the people who vote!

That.

insomniac8400		2008-01-19 04:34:57 PM

This is the perfect example why anyone talking about free health care for children only, need to be punched in the face.

WhyteRaven74		2008-01-19 04:42:44 PM

pchancharl: HOWEVER, a nationalized health care system would cause their to be artificially "infinite supply" of health care at zero cost to the consumer a

you forgot option C, state provided health insurance, to make sure that everyone can get health care. This doesn't involve state run health care, just the state making sure everyone has insurance. Which is actually what quite a few of the places accused of nationalized health care actually have. They only provide state insurance, actual health care isn't nationalized at all.

pchancharl		2008-01-19 04:51:41 PM

WhyteRaven74

Actually, this amounts to the same thing. Say we have insurance that covers some operations, but not others (like no boob jobs). Then it becomes a sticking point over where we draw the line. Say that we say no liposuction. But then people can, rightly mind you, point out that liposuction reduces fat and thereby lowers the risk of heart attack and so is preventive treatment and not an "elective" procedure done out of vanity. So then we allow liposuction to be covered by national health insurance and, surprise surprise, everyone is now getting this procedure done to look good.

So now instead of having prices control the market, we have an all or nothing government insurance program set in place that will either ban procedures outright (what if you couldn't get an abortion because people didn't want to fund that with government insurance? Scary thought no?) or allow it for EVERYONE and thereby create huge shortages (even if the government created a writ to be necessary by a doctor to prove that the procedure was necessary, as in the liposuction case, doctors will become underpaid enough that they might be bought off). It just creates massive headaches and distortions of peoples' incentives.

a0helsux		2008-01-19 06:02:02 PM

niangelo: Glad I live in Canada!

I just got out of the hospital a couple months ago, and I was just short of the "last ditch" treatment, an injection similar to chemo that would cost upwards of $20,000.

I asked my doctor if there was going to be any problems with the cost or insurance and she just said,

"Oh no, you won't even see a bill. Alberta Health Care will cover it. Just thought you were curious about the cost."

Say what you want about socialized spending policies...

Now try reading the article asshat. It was the US Federal health insurance program that dropped her, not an insurance company.

You AND Submittard fail.

j0ndas		2008-01-19 06:03:06 PM

Transplants are expensive, don't work well (typical average of like 2 years), and require body parts harvested from people who are still alive. Even from the expense viewpoint alone, let's say the person lives as much as 5 years with the transplant. That's probably at least 150K-200K for the operation, plus $192K for anti-rejection medication. Do you know how many people's lives can be saved with that much money? Or to put it another way, do you know how many people can't afford health insurance because insurance companies have to cover crap like this? You're footing the bill yourself through both higher insurance costs AND higher taxes.

All in all, transplants don't even make sense from a cost-benefit standpoint. More people die because they're allowed than if they were not.

consciousNOT		2008-01-19 06:33:45 PM

Uncle Karl is either a super flame master or the most liberal farker known to man. You decide.

LMark		2008-01-19 06:34:40 PM

letrole The market makes the decision. Stephen Hawking is worth it. Paul McCartney is worth it. JK Rowling is worth it. Theoretically, every life is equal, but in practise, some lives are worth far more.

Hmm... several things wrong with that statement. First of all, all of those people you mentioned are British, so they would be covered under NHS anyway. Funny how this system you hate produced people you supposedly admire.

Secondly, each of those folks was, at one time, impovershed. McCartney was a poor boy trying to get a band together with his buddy Lennon. JK Rowling was a single mother on welfare before she wrote the first Harry Potter. Hawking was a poor grad student. In all of those cases, this poverty occurred shortly before the major contribution to society. So what you are saying is that the market decides that a person is most valuable after they make their contribution. Saving the lives of any of those guys now would have a much lower social value (although still high; a life is very valuable) than it would if they had gotten sick (and in the case of Hawking, he did, and NHS saved his ass) at the beginning of their careers. Seriously, what has McCartney contributed in the last 30 years?

Finally, the market considers Paris Hilton to be very much worth saving. C'mon, if we are gonna go down the very dangerous route of playing God, which is what you are doing, I think there are people who are a little more worthwhile than Paris Hilton.

LMark		2008-01-19 06:56:36 PM

pchancharl Socialized health care will not work. If the government pays for all health care costs associated with any procedure people in general will not maintain their health the way they should. Instead of saying, "perhaps I should not eat this double mccheeseburger because I could get heart disease and not be able to pay for the procedures to cure myself (or paying for it will be extremely expensive" they will think "it doesn't matter if I get heart disease (or hurt myself participating in an extreme sport or dangerous activity), it will hurt dearly, but the government will pick up the tab". And before I have a flood of people pointing out how the pain and suffering of disease and fractures matters more to people than the cost I urge you to consider that American Idol is among the most watched show on television and people in general are selfish and stupid.

FOA, what does American Idol have to do with anything? Just because people would rather watch that to unwind after a typical stressful day than watch a NOVA special or Masterpiece Theatre doesn't make them dumb or selfish. But that's secondary. Walk down a major street in Toronto, and then do the same thing in Cleveland. I guarantee you that the average person you see in Toronto is slimmer, and in better shape. Yeah, there are fatties in Canada, but not nearly as much as in the US. When you make statements to the effect that "with socialized medicine people will let themselves go," think about the other countries that already have socialized care.

WorldCitizen		2008-01-19 07:05:26 PM

Gardenia: Other countries pay a MUCH higher tax rate to pay for it. Just look at the tax rates in the UK and one of those Scandinavian places like Sweden? Norway? I believe those are around 45-55% and 70% respectively but am too lazy to go look it up at the moment. I also read something last year about any earnings over 50k (can't remember if it is dollars or pounds) is taxed at 90% in the UK. Maybe someone from the UK can post some links.

I personally would not want to hand over 70% of my income to fund more government programs. I like to be able to eat and pay my electric bills.

If you have health coverage from an employer, you pay the costs of your premiums. You do this in one of two ways (or both). You pay a direct premium to the insurance company. And/or your employer pays a premium for you to the insurance company diverting money they could otherwise provide to you directly through your paycheck. So, you still pay for health coverage. With 300,000,000 people, if everyone paid into one giant government run health insurance program instead of paying into a thousand separate private ones, it would likely not require that you pay any more than you do currently either through direct premiums or through having the money taken out of your pay through taxes rather than having it taken out of your pay by your employer to pay the private company.

We're larger and wealthier than other industrialized countries, so we would have a bigger pot from which to draw. If anything, we should be able to do it better than they do for less money per individual. We already pay as much or more of our GDP for health care than other industrialized nations with universal health care pay, so if we provide about the same coverage that they provide, we should be able to do so without taking more money out of peoples' pay than we do now. It would just be directed toward a different provider.

However, I don't advocate government owned and employed doctors. At least not for the most part (there is always a place for community hospitals though). I'm all for competition, and choice should not be taken away. So let private facilities exist to help compete with any government run facilities that might exist. But make sure everyone has health care coverage. It's called being a civilized, advanced society with morals. What gets me is it is usually the Republicans who claim to be the most moral and who reject Darwinianism who seem to have the least morals when it comes to care for their fellow man regarding health care, and they are the first to embrace a Darwinian health care system. Here I am an atheist who is having to advocate having a moral society which ensures access to life for its people. Shame on those who claim to support a "culture of life" who don't advocate society provide universal access to health care.

WorldCitizen		2008-01-19 07:08:22 PM

Sorry, that quote and post should have looked like this:

Gardenia: Other countries pay a MUCH higher tax rate to pay for it. Just look at the tax rates in the UK and one of those Scandinavian places like Sweden? Norway? I believe those are around 45-55% and 70% respectively but am too lazy to go look it up at the moment. I also read something last year about any earnings over 50k (can't remember if it is dollars or pounds) is taxed at 90% in the UK. Maybe someone from the UK can post some links.

I personally would not want to hand over 70% of my income to fund more government programs. I like to be able to eat and pay my electric bills.

If you have health coverage from an employer, you pay the costs of your premiums. You do this in one of two ways (or both). You pay a direct premium to the insurance company. And/or your employer pays a premium for you to the insurance company diverting money they could otherwise provide to you directly through your paycheck. So, you still pay for health coverage. With 300,000,000 people, if everyone paid into one giant government run health insurance program instead of paying into a thousand separate private ones, it would likely not require that you pay any more than you do currently either through direct premiums or through having the money taken out of your pay through taxes rather than having it taken out of your pay by your employer to pay the private company.

We're larger and wealthier than other industrialized countries, so we would have a bigger pot from which to draw. If anything, we should be able to do it better than they do for less money per individual. We already pay as much or more of our GDP for health care than other industrialized nations with universal health care pay, so if we provide about the same coverage that they provide, we should be able to do so without taking more money out of peoples' pay than we do now. It would just be directed toward a different provider.

However, I don't advocate government owned and employed doctors. At least not for the most part (there is always a place for community hospitals though). I'm all for competition, and choice should not be taken away. So let private facilities exist to help compete with any government run facilities that might exist. But make sure everyone has health care coverage. It's called being a civilized, advanced society with morals. What gets me is it is usually the Republicans who claim to be the most moral and who reject Darwinianism who seem to have the least morals when it comes to care for their fellow man regarding health care, and they are the first to embrace a Darwinian health care system. Here I am an atheist who is having to advocate having a moral society which ensures access to life for its people. Shame on those who claim to support a "culture of life" who don't advocate society provide universal access to health care.

And to throw in a p.s., the countries you quote also aren't pulling in that tax rate just for health care. They provide a lot of other support such as for free or much reduced cost higher education after secondary school.

letrole		2008-01-19 07:11:54 PM

letrole
The market makes the decision. Stephen Hawking is worth it. Paul McCartney is worth it. JK Rowling is worth it. Theoretically, every life is equal, but in practise, some lives are worth far more.

LMark
Hmm... several things wrong with that statement. First of all, all of those people you mentioned are British, so they would be covered under NHS anyway. Funny how this system you hate produced people you supposedly admire.

This is a strawman. The fact they're covered under the NHS is of no consequence. They were presented as examples of people who rated higher consideration based upon merit, that is to say, their overall worth to society. How could you deduce any hatred on my part for the "system" that produced these three people?

In all of those cases, this poverty occurred shortly before the major contribution to society. So what you are saying is that the market decides that a person is most valuable after they make their contribution.

It's called meritocracy. It works quite well, unless you're either too stoopid or too lazy to prosper. In that case, it's a mean old bad cruel system.

WorldCitizen		2008-01-19 07:16:51 PM

pchancharl: I don't know the details of this particular case but I just came here to say a few things about the stance that some people are taking on health care - things that seem illogical to me.

Socialized health care will not work. If the government pays for all health care costs associated with any procedure people in general will not maintain their health the way they should. Instead of saying, "perhaps I should not eat this double mccheeseburger because I could get heart disease and not be able to pay for the procedures to cure myself (or paying for it will be extremely expensive" they will think "it doesn't matter if I get heart disease (or hurt myself participating in an extreme sport or dangerous activity), it will hurt dearly, but the government will pick up the tab". And before I have a flood of people pointing out how the pain and suffering of disease and fractures matters more to people than the cost I urge you to consider that American Idol is among the most watched show on television and people in general are selfish and stupid. Not only this but the hospitals will be overrun with people who have the sniffles, who want elective procedures, with people who want surgery that may in fact increase their overall health but are expensive and they could live without (liposuction is an example that comes to mind).

Personally, I despise what health care has become in this country. I dislike the FDA (which kills thousands of people with terminal illnesses a year because the drugs that could save them are too "risky"), the pharmaceutical giants (who price discriminate to make drugs extremely expensive in the U.S. but then raise holy hell when we import drugs from afar), the HMOs (who, I believe, are at least partly to blame for large increases in the cost of health care coverage). HOWEVER, a nationalized health care system would cause their to be artificially "infinite supply" of health care at zero cost to the consumer and therefore demand will skyrocket until their are shortages. Doctors and R&D will flee the sector and quality will plummet. Please rethink your position on this issue farkers, you are the people who vote!

Yes, because the people in the US currently live much longer and healthier than in other industrialized countries with universal health care. Oh, wait, we don't? They live longer? That can't be!

Per Capita Spending and Life Expectancy (pops)

/whatever

Gamer Grrrl		2008-01-19 07:28:00 PM

Aren't healthy people like me who never go to the doctor supposed to be paying for people like her? Isn't that the point of mass healthcare, that the healthy people will pay for the sick people, even if the sick people can't afford it?

WorldCitizen		2008-01-19 07:32:27 PM

Gamer Grrrl: Aren't healthy people like me who never go to the doctor supposed to be paying for people like her? Isn't that the point of mass healthcare, that the healthy people will pay for the sick people, even if the sick people can't afford it?

So your private health care provider only makes you pay premiums when you go to the doctor? It's free to you and/or your employer to have health insurance for you if you never go to the doctor?

LMark		2008-01-19 07:36:17 PM

letrole It's called meritocracy. It works quite well, unless ~~you're either too stoopid or too lazy to prosper.~~ happen to get sick when you are still young and poor, and you don't have a rich daddy. In that case, it's a mean old bad cruel system.

FTFY

You missed the point of my post. Probably my fault, I could have been clearer. If Paul McCartney had dropped dead last week, it would have been sad, especially for his family, but it would be no greater loss than that of anyone else. he hasn't made any real contribution since Wings (arguably since the Beatles). But if he had died in 1960, we all would have lost something. What you are saying is that McCartney circa 2008, as well as Paris Hilton, is worth saving, but all the potential 1960 McCartneys (the poor garage band members) are not. BTW, McCartney's drummer almost died as a boy. NHS saved his life. I know Ringo gets no respect, but am just saying.

We can also thank NHS for Stephen Hawking's contributions. Hawking was diagnosed with motor neuron (ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease) when he was an poor grad student. I have been in graduate school. I know that for many grad students, health insurance is not affordable. B/c of treatments provided by NHS, he has lived longer than most people (in part because life with ALS is worth living to him, but it wouldn't be to most people) with his disease.

My point is simple. Once people get rich, they (and their descendants) can live off their wealth. It is at that time, when they are generally no longer productive, that the market decides that they are worthy of life. Let's make sure that people who may be productive in the future have the same worth. It's one thing to be cold-hearted,. but you're myopic, too.

Erik_Emune		2008-01-19 07:53:47 PM

LOCNAR69: for those who think national health care is the answer--go to canada or england and see how THAT'S working out--there's no way they'd pay for this person

Lying in support of an argument is rarely a good strategy.

Displayed 50 of 284 comments