Les,

Would you mind if I repost this on my ‘blog?  I think more people need to read this story.

The question is: How many more people have to have it hit close to home before it shakes enough of us out of our apathy to do something about it?

Why is it that the richest country in the world, by many measures, is the only one that has not implemented some useable form of public health care?  Must be that all your doctors are evil bastards.

What a sad story, Les.  What an unnecessary waste of life.  I, too, hope the Americans start questioning what kind of quality of life they are buying with their legendary wealth.

I miss Americans, and grumble a lot about the closeminded stiffnecked Austrians.  But I’m glad we have universal healthcare here.  I got appendicitis (here in Vienna) ten years back, made it to the hospital just in time, was operated, spent a week in the hospital.  I would never have been able to afford it (instrumentmakers are not rich) without healthcare.  I did have to pay for my food- the bill for the week was something like $40.

Of course, it will not be easy to implement national healthcare in America, given the wealthy vested interests against it, and the disillusioned and apathetic voters (and non-voters).  But given the number of people affected, there’s reason to hope.

Whoa!  Mr Death!  I know plenty of docs who see patients on a pro bono basis.  But the patient has to go there.  Not defending our lack of healthcare, but don’t blame the docs.

Let’s see...45 million people X $5,000 (guessing here)/policy equals 225,000,000.  This is not really a fair calculation, since many are children who would be included on their parents’ policy.  Our GNP is $10,402 billion, so what’s the problem with the government paying some of these costs?  It seems to me that we can afford it.

SG

As I see it, its an outgrowth of the ‘Everyone fending for himself’ philosophy. The market will take care of it.

Me, I’m pretty happy that in such things, European governments are more paternalistic.

That said, even in countries like Germany, the numbers of people without healthcare are rising. Mostly self-employed people who are not required by law to have coverage. Since many of these are actually just people struggling along on some sort of half-paying job (who’d be otherwise be unemployed, and whose jobs would not normally count as self-empoyed at all), it hits exactly those who can’t afford it when bad luck strikes.

That is so very sad, Les. My heart goes out to her family.

I am presently under insured now but 18 years ago I found myself in hospital via ambulance due to pneumonia. That is also when I found out that my health insurance was non-existant due to Eastern Airlines going belly-up. And to top it off I found out I was also pregnant! Due to the severity of the pneumonia and the added complication of pregnancy I should have been admitted. I was given a scrip and sent on my merry way. I suffered horribly - never knew pneumonia was that painful - but luckily got through it.

A few months later whilst on a business trip to Switzerland with my then husband I ended up in hospital for an emergency surgery. I was in for 4 days. Being a non-resident I had to pay… a whopping $125.00 USD per day for EVERYTHING! You couldn’t get an MRI in this country for less!

I think if one had the information to put a number to the death toll of under/uninsured people it would probably surpass that of the tsunami. I feel strongly that this is an area where donations could surely help.

Les, I’m sorry…

I learned a couple of days ago that owing medical fees is a virtual non-issue in Texas - provided you pay back $2 a month, without fail, for the rest of your life or until full repayment. As long as you do that, your credit rating is not affected and one of the few problems is that you can’t refinance unless the fees are fully paid.

Like SG, I don’t believe it’s fair to blame the docs - they can’t treat a patient they don’t see. Unless there is significant abuse, I’d be surprised if there are many docs that would refuse to handle the occasional pro bono case for a life-threatening condition that is easy to diagnose and treat.

If you don’t know you’re gravely ill, then why would you see a doctor in the first place? If you suspect, but the ability to pay medical fees is a concern, then it doesn’t hurt to phone around. The real problem is if somebody is scared off to the point of self-neglect.

Personally, while it’s not my primary motivation I also tend to look at universal healthcare as a matter of enlightened self-interest. Healthy people have a better chance to find jobs, do better on the job, and will likely have more money to spend back into the economy. You have to spend money to make money…

While the story is obviously going to be tragic and somewhat heartbreaking to anyone personally related to it, you must look at it from an objective point of view to come up with a viable solution.  Nationwide health care for every American, while often depicted as a lofty and virtuous cause, is nothing more than campaign trail fodder.  In practice, it would be disastrous.

My grandfather having been a doctor for years, I’ve been witness to far too many cases of people with fully-government-paid-for healthcare strolling in to receive treatment for the most minor of injuries, simply because it is free.  You must consider in the cognitive capacity of the “Average American.” In truth, the ratio of complete dumbasses to non-dumbasses is about a 25 to 1, and that’s being generous.  For every one person who would use their health care benefits responsibly and logically, you’d have twenty-five dumbasses clogging up doctor’s offices to schedule appointments for their ingrown hairs and headaches. 

Prescriptions for medicine would be given out like highschool diplomas, and by that I mean like toilet paper.  Competition would be spurned among the medical field due to the fact that there is no longer any incentive to provide “quality care.” The quality of healthcare would subsequently lower gradually, to the point of being complete shit. 

You are proposing giving the government the power to choose which medicines and treatments you can receieve and how often you can receive them.  I don’t know about you, but I most certainly do not trust our government with such responsibility. 

The “right” to healthcare is no right at all.  It’s a privilege.  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are your only “rights” as Americans.  You do not have the right to free health care, and any logical person wouldn’t want it.  The only Americans who clamor for free health care are those unable to earn it themselves, and those who have been affected by the malady of those who were unable to afford it.  In your case, right now, you are the latter.  However, as you are a logical being, over time you will see the truth of the matter; it’s a terrible idea.  While your loss is tragic for you, I’m sure, don’t let it get in the way of reason.

“The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else.—Leonard Peikoff”

My grandfather having been a doctor for years, I’ve been witness to far too many cases of people with fully-government-paid-for healthcare strolling in to receive treatment for the most minor of injuries, simply because it is free.

And that’s a straw man if I ever saw one.

I think the simplest and most efficient plan for health-care would be for the government to go into the insurance business.  Eliminate plans such as medicare, medicaid, the welfare health plan, etc., and charge a flat percentage of income for full coverage.  In this way, retirees of means would not pull funds from those in need, and even the lowliest workers in the USA could afford coverage. 

Such a plan might even force insurance companies to re-evaluate their pricing structures, so as to get customers while competing with an income-based system.

And that’s a straw man if I ever saw one.

Hardly.  You’re obviously not very familiar with the medical community.  This is not only one of the most common complaints, but an even more common occurrence.

Nice of you to comment on quite possibly the least meaningful portion of my reply, though.

I think the simplest and most efficient plan for health-care would be for the government to go into the insurance business.  Eliminate plans such as medicare, medicaid, the welfare health plan, etc., and charge a flat percentage of income for full coverage. In this way, retirees of means would not pull funds from those in need, and even the lowliest workers in the USA could afford coverage.

The system would never work, and it doesn’t even sound that good on paper—let alone in practice. 

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the “fixed percentage” is 7%.  Everyone, according to your plan, is receiving the same quality healthcare as everyone else.  Consider that you are a middle-class man, who makes around $60,000 a year.  At 7% (I am eliminating other taxes in the name of simplicity), you would be paying $4,200 dollars per year for your healthcare.  Now, compare yourself to the janitor at your local Chik-Fil-A, who makes $25,000 a year and only has to pay $1,750 dollars for the very same healthcare that you are receiving.

It is illogical and immoral to punish people for having more money than others, and yet you seem to have no qualms with the government taking $2,450 dollars from the richer man’s pocket for the same quality healthcare that another man is paying 2.4 times less for.

Healthcare is not a right.  It is a privilege.

Healthcare is not a right.  It is a privilege.

Only said by someone who has never had to worry about how they are going to pay their bills at the end of the month.

Too bad you don’t live in the real world.

Hardly.

Really? And if it is such a problem, why is it the least meaningful part of your response?

The straw man comes into play because we’re talking about different things and perhaps ‘universal health care’ was the wrong choice of words on my part. If you see a doctor for a hang nail, you should be prepared to pay out of your own pocket. If you suspect you’ve just had a heart attack, you shouldn’t need to second-guess if you have enough savings to seek treatment. Anything in between is negotiable. At the same time, there should be a concomitant responsibility and financial incentive to maintain your health.

Should the wealthier contribute more? Absolutely. There’s nothing immoral or illogical about it, but that’s not a debate that will go anywhere.

Only said by someone who has never had to worry about how they are going to pay their bills at the end of the month.

Don’t assume; you’re quite incorrect.  Emancipated at 17, there were quite a few years when I had to worry about how I was going to keep up rent payments on the place I was living at, especially after all the medical bills revolving around my back.

I just don’t delude myself into thinking that it’s anyone else’s responsibility to give their money to me, in the form of taxes, so that I can pay my bills at the end of the month.

I said the government would sell insurance, not force people to buy it.  I am not punishing anyone by “having the government take money from the richer man’s pocket.” once a person’s income is at a certain level, he can buy coverage with better “whistles and bells” than basic coverage.  Eventually someone is going to pay for the health care of those who cannot afford it.  Right now the local governments and hospitals are absorbing much of it.  This is one reason why hospital costs are so high.

Healthcare is not a right.  It is a privilege

Under our current system this is quite true, but I don’t see any reason why we can’t change the system. It’s not like there aren’t millions of Americans who wish to argue over which groups should and shouldn’t have the same rights as they do already. What’s one more right to argue over?

The problem with your argument is that I haven’t proposed any particular solution for you to argue against so you’re making assumptions about what sort of system I have in mind and then trying to defeat that argument. That is, as Elwed has pointed out, a straw man fallacy.

Under the proposal you’re arguing against everyone would pay a flat percentage and receive the same level of care. You go on to claim that it is “it is illogical and immoral to punish people for having more money than others” without considering a very simple solution to that quandary.

In my rant I said that there’s no reason a country as wealthy as this one can’t afford to give every American basic health care. There’s nothing that says that the insurance companies can’t continue to offer plans which would give an even higher quality of care to those who can afford to pay for it under such a system.

It seems clear to me, however, that your claims such a system couldn’t possibly work nor would it be desirable are defeated by the comments from others who have experienced such care in other countries. I’m sure the systems used elsewhere are far from perfect, but then few things ever are. I actually care enough about my fellow Americans, dumbasses that they generally are, that I’d prefer a system that doesn’t leave anyone out in the cold when it comes to something like health care.

Socialist Swine, you should feel free to repost this to your blog if you wish. SEB is produced under a Creative Commons License that allows others to make use of the content as long as attribution is given and they release it under the same CC License (click the CC icon in the sidebar for more info).

Double dipping here. Ronaldo brings up a very good point: In many states, including Michigan, it’s against the law for a hospital to turn away a gravely ill person regardless of their ability to pay. A lot of folks don’t realize this, but many do. Where do you think the costs for that care go when these people are unable to pay for the care they receive? How many of those emergency room visits could’ve been avoided if these people had been able to visit the doctor before it developed into something life threatening?

I can totally relate.  My father was recently diagnosed with a condition which is potentially prostrate cancer, yet the veterans administration is making him wait 2 months for a biopsy because of limited resources.  My mom is nearly blind, is diabetic, and recently came very close to dying.  She has no health insurance.  Had my aunt had not taken her to urgent care and paid the bill, it is likely that my mom would have died. 

I also totally understand your frustration with our government on this issue.  They can find money for their pre-emptive wars, but can’t find the money to solve the serious social issues in this country. 

Mohandas Gandhi once said that “Poverty is the worst form of violence.” I think that there were never truer words spoken. 

Mind you that I am normally not taken to quoting Gandhi but in this case, he is right. 

Poverty can be linked to most wars, sickness, heartache, broken homes, etc…

We need to put up the fucking weapons and start working on real social issues.  Spend the money where it really belongs.

Take the fight against AIDS for example, if we spent the money on research for an AIDS cure instead of the war in Iraq, could we have a cure by now?  Possible.

Having said that, I AM NOT AGAINST THE MILITARY.  I do believe that the military has a proper place.  I just think that its current mission is seriously undermined by the questionable motives of the white house.

Really? And if it is such a problem, why is it the least meaningful part of your response?

You took the time to focus only on the fact that it would be an inconvenience for doctors and people with actual problems.  You failed to even mention the economic effect of a lack of competition, the lowered quality of healthcare, and so on.  While it is a problem, it’s not the biggest one.

If you see a doctor for a hang nail, you should be prepared to pay out of your own pocket. If you suspect you’ve just had a heart attack, you shouldn’t need to second-guess if you have enough savings to seek treatment. Anything in between is negotiable.

The problem with the hangnail to heart attack example is that hangnails would still be covered under a universal healthcare plan.. And if you, as you corrected yourself, did not truly mean a “universal” healthcare plan, you are then placing control and regulations entirely into the hands of the government.  You are inevitably letting the government decide what it deems worthy of their coverage, and what is not worthy of their coverage.. And if you are going to be taxing people in order to provide health care, how happy do you imagine citizens being when they discover that the things that they pay 7% of their paycheck to have covered are not covered?  We don’t need another welfare-like atrocity.

Should the wealthier contribute more? Absolutely. There’s nothing immoral or illogical about it, but that’s not a debate that will go anywhere.

You’re proposing that someone lower their quality of life just to make someone else’s better?  What horseshit.  It is completely immoral to ask someone to give up what they earn simply because other people are not capable or do not have the means to earn it.

“For every one person who would use their health care benefits responsibly and logically, you’d have twenty-five dumbasses clogging up doctor’s offices to schedule appointments for their ingrown hairs and headaches.

Prescriptions for medicine would be given out like highschool diplomas,”

“The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else.—Leonard Peikoff�?

Interesting material but not true.
Indeed we are all responsible for ourselves.
But also are we obliged to take care of thos who can’t take care of themselves.
I happen to live in the Netherlands where we used to have a decent healthcare system. However, for january 1st on the government introduced a “no claim”. Meaning that when you don’t see a doctor for a year you get back some 240 dollars.
That’s a lot for someone who’s poor and close to nothing for someone who’s wealthy.
A politician recently said that poor people must be really stupid:"They care more about their wallet then their health: I mean, what’s 40 bucks to see a doctor?” A lot, I can tell you, when you get 700 a month from your job.

You’re proposing that someone lower their quality of life just to make someone else’s better?  What horseshit.

I’ve done it - gladly - in Europe.

It is completely immoral to ask someone to give up what they earn simply because other people are not capable or do not have the means to earn it.

I hear you say you are opposed to paying taxes.

I said the government would sell insurance, not force people to buy it.

Thanks for the reading lesson, but I’m quite adept at it already.

The point is not that they would be “forcing anyone to buy it.” The point is the “flat percentage of income” that you propose.  Higher income people would be paying more for the same coverage under the government plan.  The claim here is that the government should be required to at least offer some sort of healthcare plan to everyone.  However, a flat percentage of income on different incomes for the same service is a ridiculous idea.

However, a flat percentage of income on different incomes for the same service is a ridiculous idea.

That’s right. The wealthier should pay more in absolute and relative terms.

That’s right. The wealthier should pay more in absolute and relative terms.

I disagree. Where does this end? The wealthier should pay more than the poor for the same loaf of bread...the same movie...the same box of bandaids…

Bullshit.