Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Why would they need to die if they can get treatment? Pay for it = you get it.
The problem is is you then develop a true two tier society where the rich live to 100 and the poor and working class make it to 45 or 50 if they are lucky; again, Social Darwinism
I know they don't, but they don't balk at mainstream treatments for non-terminal illnesses. But suggesting you let people just die with treatable illnesses, well, that they don't do and that's what it appears your suggesting they start doing.
People used to die from an abscessed tooth before the use of penicillin became common.
The number of medical conditions that are treatable increases every year. No shortage of conditions that were a death sentence just 50 years ago, are now treatable. This evolution is one of the many causes of the price of healthcare, here, there and everywhere.
The problem is is you then develop a true two tier society where the rich live to 100 and the poor and working class make it to 45 or 50 if they are lucky; again, Social Darwinism
So what?
You always write "social Darwinism" as if that's supposed to make sense of your position, which is that the poor can reproduce as much as they want and then they just go "OMG, NOW WHAT??" and then you go "it's OK, we'll --" "Hang on, we just had two more kids." "-- we'll raise them for you and make sure they live until they're 100, just like the people who have to raise them." "OMG, you'll raise my kids?? Bless you, sir!!" "No, I won't, ha ha. But I'll make sure someone else does!" "You are a saint!" "I know!"
The problem is is you then develop a true two tier society where the rich live to 100 and the poor and working class make it to 45 or 50 if they are lucky; again, Social Darwinism
We already have a 2 tier society. Shelter is necessary to remain alive. The part-time minimum wage worker lives in a hovel while the limousine liberals live in gated mansions. No one has a problem with that inequity.
That already happens. As I've said, neither Medicaid, Medicare, nor even the ACA pay for every healthcare cost no questions asked.
And I already said slackercruster's 2 tier system of basic limited healthcare for all paid for via a flat tax paid by all, or more extensive healthcare for those who buy a catastrophic policy and/or pay out of pocket, is the best solution.
Well, good!!!
We agree even though I suspect there might be some quibbling about our various definitions of "basic limited healthcare" but at least that conversation would be held at a national level instead of after-the-fact by insurance companies operating under 50 different state regulatory systems. Too bad our broken politics prevented us from trying to move in that direction.
And here I was not a fan of the ACA thinking that it was too problematic to layer it onto our likewise broken insurance system. However, there is one segment of it that you and some of your fellow posters should have applauded - the evidence-based care portion (that I understand to be gathering data to try and determine which medical procedures are medically and financially effective). I gather this is thought to be "bad for business" and will soon disappear under the new Administration?
If I were king it would not. But realistically you and I know that something will always come up over time. And I would propose deficit spending to support it before taxes.
I need gov't to create that money.
Government does not create money, it takes it from the people, therefore your need is exactly the problem we began discussing. /shrug
We already have a 2 tier society. Shelter is necessary to remain alive. The part-time minimum wage worker lives in a hovel while the limousine liberals live in gated mansions. No one has a problem with that inequity.
I mean this in the nicest way for the tendency to do the LOL at "libs" is a bit much ... but I appreciate your analogies. The "shelter" example simply doesn't work in a medical application.
Sure you could stick your lower-tier patients in a ward and let the higher-tier patients pay for a plush private hospital room. No problem from me here. However, while square footage in a hospital might have been a cost driver 50 years ago it's not what drives today's high medical expenses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
