Government Controlled Heath Care

Government Controlled Heath Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 7:09:11 AM)
quote: Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand. Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770 Is this a peak into the future of government run universal heath care? Many will take the "let them die!" approach. After all its just dirty, disgusting, smokers. I think the logic of the position is irrefutable. Why spend money and a doctors time treating a patient that obviously has no desire to be healthy? If they cared for themselves they wouldn't smoke. If they aren't taking care of themselves why should the government use their limited resources to treat them? Perfectly logically and the pragmatic approach to safe a health care system that requires waiting months for treatment. The policy should be extended. No treatment if you are overweight. No treatment if you are over 70. No treatment if any controlled substance is in the system. No treatment if you drink alcohol. No treatment if you don't partake in a daily exercise program. Then there are the social conditions that can be used. No treatment if you drive an auto that doesn't get 30 MPG No treatment if you live in a segregated neighborhood. No treatment if you don't donate 100 hours per year volunteering No treatment if you have an outstanding speeding ticket. No treatment if you pet isn't spayed/neutered. Yes sir, if we can just cut down on the people qualifying for care universal, government run, health care can be efficient and timely. Can't beat a bureaucracy for efficiency and excellence.

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 8:47:08 AM)
...well, it is the Daily Mail Merc.....not the most unbiased publication in the world. [8\|] However, i do know that, in the UK, some seriously obese people have been denied certain types of operations until they lose weight. Basically, the NHS has to operate some form of triage when deciding when or if to operate. Even a nationalised health service has a finite pool of money to work with. If an individual wont take an active role in looking after their own health, then why should the state fund an operation that has a significently reduced chance of success directly due to the patients failure to help themselves? They are always free to go private.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 9:15:41 AM)
"The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery." It's no different from being ordered to fast or not take blood thinning painkillers before an operation. If a patient refuses to comply with doctor's orders, why should precious medical resources be wasted on them? They deserve what they get.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 9:48:21 AM)
quote: If an individual wont take an active role in looking after their own health, then why should the state fund an operation that has a significantly reduced chance of success directly due to the patients failure to help themselves? I could answer by saying, my taxes are paying for it, and I'm not doing anything illegal. At least not yet. Do they currently turn away any/all coming for health care who are obvious heroin, or any other illegal substance users? I'll agree to the basic concept. I only seek equal application. Applied universally, you should have to come into the clinic with verification that you've exercised every day for the past 4 months prior to any procedure or treatment. I have no problem with that, and I would hope that people supporting this policy have no problem either. I'd expect blanket support from all factions wanting to abdicate personal accountability and responsibility over to the government. I'm an admitted dinosaur, believing in personal responsibility and consequence. I only project out the logical progression of such an approach. Eventually, it will be a major time saver. Imagine the day when no shopping is necessary and no bank account either. Just work, assign you paycheck to the government, and you're meals, beverages, are delivered to you to keep you height weight proportionate and insure you aren't distracted by any disposable income for use on alcohol or any other vice, such as trans-fats. People can look forward to coming home to your video screen and are required to partake in an exercise program geared to your age group. Maybe this is how all those movies projecting the future get the population to all wear co-ordinating clothing. The uniforms come from the Bureau of Fashion. Regarding the source of news; based upon the article it is a politically considered "solution" to the problem with Heath resources. Is it not? quote: They are always free to go private. I think we have a slogan for Universal Health Care; "So bad it will make you long for old HMO!" What a great point. If you have money left over from paying taxes for universal health coverage you have "freedom" to pay even more for "good" health coverage. And candidates are getting support for going down this path? What an amazing electorate we have in the USA!

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 9:58:23 AM)
i don't think, Merc, that universal health care is an abdication of personal responsibility. For me, social responsibility can easily go hand in hand with personal responsibility. There can be conflicts, but life is complex. However, any state run system has a finite amount of money to spend. So hard decisions, akin to those in triage, will have to be made from time to time. Obesity isn't always 'glandular', sometimes it is a life choice....a bad one maybe, but still a choice. Smoking is somewhat diferent in that it is pretty much always a choice. If either of these conditions interfere and thus lower the chances for a sucesful operation then a given medical facility may have to make a choice about that. Perhaps a diffeent example may make my point clearer.....a liver transplant for an alcaholic. Resources are seriously limited, there isn't an infinite supply of livers about. An alcaholic, by the very nature of their addiction, reduces the chance for a succesful op at the expense of someone else. So, do doctors have a right to withold treatment from someone whose lifestyle choices reduce their medical chances in order to treat someone who hasn't made such dangerous choices?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 10:38:37 AM)
quote: i don't think, Merc, that universal health care is an abdication of personal responsibility. For me, social responsibility can easily go hand in hand with personal responsibility. There can be conflicts, but life is complex. However, any state run system has a finite amount of money to spend. So hard decisions, akin to those in triage, will have to be made from time to time Who is appointed as arbiter? The current "finite amount of money" is pointed to smokers. Do you see this as the solution? Smokers not treated or all dead equates to no more money issues in health care? I don't think you believe that. Most "glandular" rationalized obesity goes away in the face of exercise and limited calorie intake. I doubt any current prisoners of N. Korea given 500 calories a day are still obese due to their pre-existing glandular condition. I only address the perfect logical conclusion. Health coverage will only be given to the healthy and only when the age of the patient justifies the effort and expense. Where is the difference from a smoker or obese person being denied treatment? And now you bring up the economics. There is an admission that any budget and any tax percentage will not cover the cost. That is one of the reasons you support the position. In that case why bother allocating beds and spending money to treat infirm elderly patients suffering from dementia and/or Alzheimer's? Most of the "complexities" of life are the result of attempts at social engineering by the government. Life is simple. You are born and you die. What you do in between results in your "quality" of life, and is most responsible of how long that life lasts. The complexities come into play when a government gets in the way of the decision process. Obviously social interaction requires some government involvement. However on this issue, would universal health care have been viewed as a universal solution if somewhere down the line, the "universe" was defined as being made up of non-smoking, height/weight proportionate, non-drinking, non-drug taking individuals to the exclusion or at minimum inconvenience of anyone else? That question should be going through the minds of US citizens watching the politicians in support of moving to this plan. Currently the insurance companies in the US would like to have the same exclusions in their insured pool and the government is fighting against it. In the UK it appears that it is a government program.

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 10:58:24 AM)
"Who is appointed as arbiter? The current "finite amount of money" is pointed to smokers. Do you see this as the solution? Smokers not treated or all dead equates to no more money issues in health care? I don't think you believe that. " ...you're right, i wouldn't support such a solution. However, Merc, this is not what is being suggested. It may well be the way the Daily Mail spins the story but what's really happening is far more specific. Certain operations carry a greater risk of bleeding complications afterwards. Thus heavy smokers are told to at least cut down before such specific, higher risk operations. No-one (other than the Daily Mail) is suggesting withdrawing all health care from smokers. In fact they are given vast amounts of help to quit. A small minority fail to avail themelves of this help, ignore all medical advice and demand high risk operations regardless. All other parts of the NHS are still available, the only thing being denied are high risk operations. There is no thin end of the wedge here. As for who decides, this is a purely medical decision akin to triage. i doubt you'd suggest that a triage nurse in a war-time situation is attempting to socially engineer a shift away from prsonal responsibility. This is really no different, instead of having to triage in order to best distribute the crucual resource in that situation (doctor and nurses attention), this is a triage regarding the crucial resource in a different situation, ie cash and operation room time. Not to mention the recovery period. To suggest that this is a decision that allows the NHS to not serve those with Alzeimers is, i'm afraid, a strawman argument. It ignores the element of choice that smokers have exercised.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 11:01:39 AM)
Yes, they do. Ever seen an alcoholic get a liver transplant? It doesn't happen. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Do they currently turn away any/all coming for health care who are obvious heroin, or any other illegal substance users?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 11:09:27 AM)
quote: To suggest that this is a decision that allows the NHS to not serve those with Alzheimer's is, i'm afraid, a strawman argument. It ignores the element of choice that smokers have exercised. It wasn't an argument to the choice debate. The comparison of the obese to smokers addressed that issue. The Alzheimer's issue was raised concerning your correct admission that there is a "finite amount of funds". If a cost/return assessment is being made the Alzheimer argument is in play. quote: this is a triage regarding the crucial resource in a different situation, ie cash and operation room time. Not to mention the recovery period. My question would be is there an arbiter making a decision based upon the quoted concern in all cases? Or is it just socially acceptable to implement a program where smokers are not entitled to "equal care"?

Archer -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 11:14:00 AM)
The question though comes down to Looking forward can you see a time when the party you trust the least will be the ones deciding what will and won't be covered by virtue of their executive privledge. Will abortion be on demand or limited to life threatened mothers? Likely something decided by executive order. Will HIV drugs be covered for all or will the triage be set up to exclude gays? Worst case would you want Bush or Clinton (depending on your views) deciding what gets covered and paid for by the system? We all have to look at the ramifications of new laws based o the idea of this view. If the other guy gets that power what would happen? We've alredy seen that power once wielded y one party and then by the other the abuses complained about by one party are quickly adopted by the other party when they gain power.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 11:15:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Yes, they do. Ever seen an alcoholic get a liver transplant? It doesn't happen. Micky Mantle. Remembered another - David Crosby (Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young)

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 11:20:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: To suggest that this is a decision that allows the NHS to not serve those with Alzheimer's is, i'm afraid, a strawman argument. It ignores the element of choice that smokers have exercised. It wasn't an argument to the choice debate. The comparison of the obese to smokers addressed that issue. The Alzheimer's issue was raised concerning your correct admission that there is a "finite amount of funds". If a cost/return assessment is being made the Alzheimer argument is in play. quote: this is a triage regarding the crucial resource in a different situation, ie cash and operation room time. Not to mention the recovery period. My question would be is there an arbiter making a decision based upon the quoted concern in all cases? Or is it just socially acceptable to implement a program where smokers are not entitled to "equal care"? just a quick reply, cos Mistress will be home in a bit and she'll want her lunch [:D] ...however, it's not a cost/return equation....at least not in pure money terms. Applying my liver transplant argument its a question of, 'we have one liver and two potential recievers....ones an alcaholic, the other isn't' Who gets it? Smokers are getting equal care, they are getting the same advice as anyone else. Cut out the stuff that makes your high risk operation virtually without merit or don't have the operation. Works for everyone.

knothere -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 11:26:40 AM)
as to alcoholics getting liver transplants,yes they do. because people will lie to save their life. I personally knew a woman who did this. she died anyway,her new liver couldnt cope with her body. not the drinking, but rejection. still, what a waste,both of her life,and the healthy liver,and all that time,knowlege and money.she was on state care,too. my comment here was a knee jerk response and may have nothing to do with the main body of this thread. thanks anyway.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 11:38:25 AM)
quote: Smokers are getting equal care, they are getting the same advice as anyone else. Cut out the stuff that makes your high risk operation virtually without merit or don't have the operation. Works for everyone. Does it? Change the focus - would it be acceptable? Obese are getting equal care, they are getting the same advise as anyone else. Cut out the stuff that makes your high risk..." I like Archer's argument even better, change one word and address the homosexual community concerning Aids treatment. Why not apply the same logic regarding treatment, requiring that a gay man give up his "risky" behavior. "Gays are getting equal care, they are getting the same advise as anyone else. Cut out the stuff that makes your high risk..." To me, a non-smoking, life-to-date heterosexual, not obese person; I can't rationalize supporting any "universal" health care program that attempts to rationalize discrimination and prejudice.

thompsonx -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 12:28:30 PM)
quote: Merknbeth Most of the "complexities" of life are the result of attempts at social engineering by the government. Life is simple. You are born and you die. What you do in between results in your "quality" of life, and is most responsible of how long that life lasts. The complexities come into play when a government gets in the way of the decision process. Obviously social interaction requires some government involvement. Merknbeth: This just is not supported by the facts. I am sure you and I will agree that the corporations are in bed with the government. That being said if we look at "social engineering" That limits the number of hours a person may work per day, that mandate safety standards, set speed limits,that limit emissions of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere ....and the list goes on and on and on. All of this "social engineering has come about as a result of the rampant greed and disregard of the public interest by the corporate community. To say that because a citizen pays taxes for something does not necessarily entitle that person to the use of said services. I pay property taxes. the bill is itemized to indicate how much goes to trash collection, education, sewers etc. I have never gone to publicly funded schools and I have no children. I live so far out in the boonies that there is neither trash pick up nor a sewer system. I could make the list of services I pay for but do not have access to much longer but I am sure you see my point. No one is talking about the government being the arbiter of who gets medical services or not. What is being argued is medical decisions made by doctors not bureaucrats. I also know you like to stir the pot just to see what boils up[;)] please do not stop it is good for discussion. thompson

NorthernGent -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 12:37:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand. Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770 Is this a peak into the future of government run universal heath care? 1) I doubt it. This is Britain, you're in the US - different history, different culture, different way of doing things. 2) According to the article, this will be trialled in Leicestershire and others are considering it. It's hardly universal. More importantly, why would the US build a system around the goings on in Leicestershire? 3) Personally, I think it's harsh. We're all involved in something that could potentially require a spell in hospital. Maybe this is the British learning from the Americans, not the other way 'round. The word over here is your insurance companies refuse to take patients under a set level of fitness (to minimise pay outs). A reference can be cited to refute. 4) My advice: tackle the principle first and foremost, the small details can be ironed out further down the line. The question is this: are Americans prepared to fund those who can't afford to pay for health coverage. That's it. You can build a system around a principle, no problem. Do you believe in society? That's the argument. If the majority of Americans believe in individualism at all costs, and they can't be swayed, then there's no discussion.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 1:08:11 PM)
thompson, I had quite a few paragraphs on the positive "social engineering" done by governments. Everything from running water and stop lights; to the elimination of legalized segregation. I continue to support each and every government attempt at social engineering directed toward the goal of equality. I only balk when they create a group of people who are more or less equal than others. No matter how small or large that group is, no government should put in place a program that requires prejudicial behavior. Whether it is a health program or hiring program, a person's merits or lack of merit should determine the outcome. You would think that its a policy that most would share, however creating "more equal" people seems to be a growth industry for the government with many people cheering for it to happen. It may have something to do with most people wanting and expecting to be next in line for a handout. quote: To say that because a citizen pays taxes for something does not necessarily entitle that person to the use of said services. I pay property taxes. the bill is itemized to indicate how much goes to trash collection, education, sewers etc. I have never gone to publicly funded schools and I have no children. I live so far out in the boonies that there is neither trash pick up nor a sewer system. I could make the list of services I pay for but do not have access to much longer but I am sure you see my point. However the comparison is not the same. If you did live in such an area and had school aged kids they would go without any pre-qualification. This situation would create a screening system where two individuals walking in with the same health issue being treated differently. Age, weight, gender being equal, the non-smoker gets preference under the program. I only point out other places where the same can/should be the case. No doubt I like to "stir the pot" but it wasn't me who made up this proposal, its the NHS due to money issues. I only extrapolated upon their theme. There have been people supporting the position for very good pragmatic reasons. I only serve to 'project out' the application for similar situations.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 1:42:36 PM)
Exceptions that prove the rule. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Yes, they do. Ever seen an alcoholic get a liver transplant? It doesn't happen. Micky Mantle. Remembered another - David Crosby (Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young)

pahunkboy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 2:02:12 PM)
ok- what would you do with someone with fake credentials? we can rfid just about every thing we ever touch. we are the pioneers of the information age. the bleak picture you paint- i believe is happening in some form thru-out much of the globe. the unibomber warned us this was coming....

thompsonx -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/4/2007 4:01:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth thompson, I had quite a few paragraphs on the positive "social engineering" done by governments. Everything from running water and stop lights; to the elimination of legalized segregation. I continue to support each and every government attempt at social engineering directed toward the goal of equality. I have always applauded your post in this area. I only balk when they create a group of people who are more or less equal than others. No matter how small or large that group is, no government should put in place a program that requires prejudicial behavior. I have heard this argument being brought forward in regards to quotas. Quotas were instituted to combat the defacto bigotry that was no longer dejure. The rules of the quota did not call for a lower skill level only that of those qualified there be a percentage set aside for those who were suffering from defacto and not dejure discrimination. Whether it is a health program or hiring program, a person's merits or lack of merit should determine the outcome. You would think that its a policy that most would share, however creating "more equal" people seems to be a growth industry for the government with many people cheering for it to happen. It may have something to do with most people wanting and expecting to be next in line for a handout. I have noticed that the Bill Gates and Wall Marts of this country seem to be the first ones there with their hand out. quote: To say that because a citizen pays taxes for something does not necessarily entitle that person to the use of said services. I pay property taxes. the bill is itemized to indicate how much goes to trash collection, education, sewers etc. I have never gone to publicly funded schools and I have no children. I live so far out in the boonies that there is neither trash pick up nor a sewer system. I could make the list of services I pay for but do not have access to much longer but I am sure you see my point. However the comparison is not the same. If you did live in such an area and had school aged kids they would go without any pre-qualification. This situation would create a screening system where two individuals walking in with the same health issue being treated differently. Age, weight, gender being equal, the non-smoker gets preference under the program. I only point out other places where the same can/should be the case. No doubt I like to "stir the pot" but it wasn't me who made up this proposal, its the NHS due to money issues. I only extrapolated upon their theme. There have been people supporting the position for very good pragmatic reasons. I only serve to 'project out' the application for similar situations. That is why I believe those decisions belong in the hands of the doctors and not bureaucrats.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875