The issue of health care

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
13 Spider Bloody Chain

13 Spider Bloody Chain

Grandmaster Knight
On the Political Compass thread, there's been an interesting discussion on negative effects of various health care policies.

On one hand, you have the health care policy in America. If you can afford the hospital bills, in you go! Treatment is yours. Sadly, if you don't have money but you're in desperate need of treatment...well, no luck for you. Or at least, that's the idea I'm getting from reading posts.

On the other hand, you have the health care policy in, say, Britain. Everyone can afford health care, yay! But sucks for you if you happen to be stuck in the back of the line, even if you have cancer or worse. Again, that's the idea I'm getting from posts.

Which do you think is the better policy? On one side, you have a policy that, ideally, allows for immediate access but is highly expensive. On the other side you have a policy that ideally gives free or cheap health care for everyone, but is very slow.
 
A well run socialized system is superior. Just because the British system is inefficient doesn't doom the concept.
 
I work on health care for the state, we have universal healt care over here, and the way it works is quite simple. You get threated at an hospital (at the expense of the state), if you happen to have a serious disease, say cancer, and the public hospital is overwelmed (meaning it can only plan your surgery 5 months from now) you get treated at another public hospital. If all public hospitals are saturated, then the state pays a private health center for you.
Sounds fine, but I do guess that its a humoungous drain on the state resources. I have seen people who make $600 a month get treated for a value of $200.000, its almost ridiculous.
 
OliveTower said:
I think the state should pay for things you couldn't help avoid, like brain cancer (What you do hardly effects that, right?), and possibly help out more if your problem is preventing you from providing for kids. But not things that are a result of your bad decisions. Lung cancer from smoking? Pay for it yourself, fag. AIDS? Quit ****ing hobos. This, I guess, would help balance it, but I have no idea how health care works outside the states, so I can't say.
Click to expand...

Wow, I just lost all respect for you with the AIDS comment right there. Idiot.

Basically I agree with trooper and D'Sparil, just because the British health care system is a train wreck doesn't mean that it doesn't work well elsewhere. The British hospital system isn't failing because of affordable health care, but because there aren't enough hospitals/doctors.

Universal health care does not have to mean poor health care, that only happens in countries that can't keep their hospital systems together. All things considered in Australia it works fine.
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
On the other hand, you have the health care policy in, say, Britain. Everyone can afford health care, yay! But sucks for you if you happen to be stuck in the back of the line, even if you have cancer or worse. Again, that's the idea I'm getting from posts.
Click to expand...
That's simply Britain. If you were to compare the state health care of another country, say Austria for example, it's actually better than the private sector in other countries (such as Britain). The problem isn't anything to do with the policy itself, it's mishandling by the government.
 
Health care bills are the single most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the US.
The privatised health care sector is supported by health care insurances, and these are
partially payed by the state - because they are tax-free.
In Denmark it costs about twice as much to send a patient to a private hospital than to a public hospital.

Comparing the quality of health care in various countries, you'll see that the Scandinavian ones
(where the private sector is (still) very small) are doing just fine compared to a privatised system, like in the US.
AND you get a good treatment no matter how much money you have or wether you have a job, or a health insurance.

I would any day prefer a public health sector to a privatised one.
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
On the other hand, you have the health care policy in, say, Britain. Everyone can afford health care, yay! But sucks for you if you happen to be stuck in the back of the line, even if you have cancer or worse. Again, that's the idea I'm getting from posts.
Click to expand...
Isn't that one of the reasons why they're trying to make it easier to get cross-border healthcare within the EU? Believe there's plans now so that you can get your healthcare in another EU country while getting reimbursed for it in your home country by the NHS or the equivalent you have where you live.
Although a system like that might only shift the problem to someplace else instead of solving it.
 
And you shouldn't cross a road either going where ever you want to go unless you have every driver on the road drunk tested.

One sure way of avoiding road accident.  :wink:
 
OliveTower said:
Cloud Breaker said:
OliveTower said:
Why should I pay for the bad result of you taking a chance?
Click to expand...
Because having sex is no reason for a country to refuse social security to a citizen.
Click to expand...
Is it my fault if I **** a bunch of 35 year old whores who've been in the business for a while and I end up with AIDS? You don't just get it randomly. If you don't want to take any risk at all, you'll tell people you won't have sex until they get tested.
Click to expand...
Except of course that people who are HIV positive don't always know that they have it? :roll:
It has practically no symptoms until it progresses to AIDS and in many people it doesn't become AIDS at all, so most people who spread it don't even know they have it at all. The retarded belief that only intravenous drug users and prostitutes get AIDS is one of the reasons that it and many other STI's spread so quickly. And tested? You have to be ****ing kidding, it takes months to do a HIV test, and it's not exactly cheap to do.

One of the reasons HIV/AIDS is such a terrible disease is that so many people buy into the stupid line that it's all their fault and end up trying to blame sufferers instead of helping them, or at least showing some empathy. And even for those who do get it from, say, sharing needles, would you seriously look that person in the eye and say "Well your own stupid fault, you should have used a fresh syringe. Go die in a ditch." Because if you would then no offense mate, but your a ****ing monster.
 
OliveTower said:
Moss said:
OliveTower said:
I think the state should pay for things you couldn't help avoid, like brain cancer (What you do hardly effects that, right?), and possibly help out more if your problem is preventing you from providing for kids. But not things that are a result of your bad decisions. Lung cancer from smoking? Pay for it yourself, fag. AIDS? Quit ****ing hobos. This, I guess, would help balance it, but I have no idea how health care works outside the states, so I can't say.
Click to expand...

Wow, I just lost all respect for you with the AIDS comment right there. Idiot.
Click to expand...

Why should I pay for the bad result of you taking a chance?
Click to expand...

You're essentially advocating social darwinism. We can take it a step further, and tell diabetes sufferers "hey, you didn't have enough self-control to stop yourself from eating that candy bar, so now 65 years later it's coming back to bite you in the ass!" or tell war veterans "hey, you could've just defected or claimed mental insanity, it's your fault you participated in your country's war and got your limbs amputated."

The problem with it is that you really don't know where to draw the line, once you take the "too bad, you were stupid" line of reasoning - not to mention that alot of people with HIV/AIDS didn't actually get it through any fault of their own.



Think about this: if anyone comes in with a brain injury as the result of a motorcycle accident, should the hospital treat them? According to you, they shouldn't be treated - it's their own decision to ride a motorcycle and expose themselves to a much greater risk of head injury. What if it comes to a point where the injured person will recover fully if treated, and will die if not? Would you really sentence that person to death because it was their personal preference to ride a motorcycle?
 
And I guess it certainly doesn't help if you just got HIV because of a bad blood transfusion or because you were born with it. Or if your government tells lies like "If you shower afterwards, you will be ok!".

Public healthcare, I love! Since I'm atopic I've been to the hospital quite some times, and I've had to buy quite a lot of medicin. But since it's so cheap because of the system, it's not been horrible for my family.
 
If there's something i like about my country it has the be the social health care .

we only get 3/4 of our norther neighbours(the dutch)incomes because it all goes into taxes and healthcare .but if anything happens to you you've almost always some or other fund to support you to get better , live with you're disease.

funny thing: in this lesson called "social-economic-initation" whenever we were talking about the health care system the, teachers always told us that we should praise god that we don't have to sell our house when you have cancer detected like in America.
 
your nightmare said:
If there's something i like about my country it has the be the social health care .

we only get 3/4 of our norther neighbours(the dutch)incomes because it all goes into taxes and healthcare.
Click to expand...

W T F
 
Why is that ?

We pay 21 procent of our bruto wage to taxes an health care(and that's without insurance's and stuff), i've always been told that they had to pay less.
 
LK said:
The problem with it is that you really don't know where to draw the line, once you take the "too bad, you were stupid" line of reasoning - not to mention that alot of people with HIV/AIDS didn't actually get it through any fault of their own.
Click to expand...

Of course funding would be a problem, since nobody is going to contribute to a system that's going to refuse them treatment ...
 
Holy ****, I made that post while I was bat**** drunk... I've just realized that I'm less articulate when I'm sober.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SP - General Simple immersion improvements
Replies
2
Views
151
sh1ny4
sh1ny4
Expressing myself about the state of the game.
Replies
10
Views
335
JunKeteer
JunKeteer
Sreaction
Champion Benefits?
Replies
5
Views
220
Sreaction
Sreaction
Back
Top Bottom