What are people supposed to do if they get seriously ill?

[Tatyana]

In response to the OP:

Back in the day, the answer was "die"

Nowadays, some folks get another option.


My question to you is: what makes you think that "not die" is a right?

If it is a right, why did my grandfather die of pneumonia in 1938 and my father in law die of pneumonia in 2010?

People still die of infectious diseases.

Sometimes there are complications with pneumonia or underlying pathologies that are beyond the realm of modern medicine.

 

[xjx388]

What is anyone supposed to do when they get seriously ill? In the UK and other Single-Payer systems, some people are denied access to life-sustaining drugs because it isn't "cost-effective" to treat them. What are they supposed to do?

There is a limit to resources in every system and people die everyday whether they had insurance or not. Rich, poor, middle class, UHC, free market . . . it makes no difference.

 

[johnny karate]

What is anyone supposed to do when they get seriously ill? In the UK and other Single-Payer systems, some people are denied access to life-sustaining drugs because it isn't "cost-effective" to treat them. What are they supposed to do?

There is a limit to resources in every system and people die everyday whether they had insurance or not. Rich, poor, middle class, UHC, free market . . . it makes no difference.

Yes, most resources are finite. But why shouldn't we develop systems that allow as many people as possible access to as many of those resources as possible?

 

[Upchurch]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attacks

I thank you for yet another worthless platitude. Go mow the lawn. It would be a better use of your time than keeping up with the stupid.

Wow, DR. Project much?

You, yourself, have provided no better argument than the Scroogian "they had better hurry up and do it and decrease the surplus population". You and prestige couldn't be playing to the "greedy heartless conservative" stereotype any more if you tried.

We already have a backdoor UHC system in this country in the form of elevated medical costs to cover those who can't pay and it is grossly inefficient. I fail to see how UHC is anythingbut the moral and financially conservative thing to do.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

And Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest.

Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. Only one of those was a scientist.

The idea that only the fittest organisms prevail is inconsistent with Darwinism.

 

[Upchurch]

And, as long as we're correcting scientific misconceptions, evolution is applicable to systems of organisms as well as individual organisms.

There is evidence* that a system of organisms prospers with the presence of members who benefit the system in ways other than reproduction. Homosexuals, for example, are evolutionarily advantageous to have in a society as they are otherwise productive and contributing members of the society without adding to the size of population over time, thus diluting the amount of resources per capita.



* or so I am told by a friend who is an evolutionary psychologist. I'll grant you that this is an argument from authority, but it is her area of expertise, making her an appropriate authority.

 

[Bikewer]

It is a strange situation. Folks who are uninsured normally either ignore impending health problems or seek out such care as they can afford (charity-run clinics and the like) or simply wait till it's at crisis point and go to an emergency room.
The quality of care given in such situations will normally be the minimum needed for the person to survive.
Even this can be very expensive; I believe the typical bill for a young gang member treated for gunshot wounds ranges up around 100,000 dollars with nary a hope of payment.
So, hospitals raise the prices of all treatment to accommodate those that cannot pay.
This is well known; 60 minutes did an extensive investigation into this practice years back.
So...Health-insurance providers raise rates and premiums for all, since their subscribers are being overcharged for the services they receive..... And so on.

Those countries which have some sort of single-payer system look at all this with some wonder, I'm sure.
This is the primary issue that the currently-debated health-care bill was supposed to address, of course, the ever-increasing costs of health care driven to a fair degree by the huge numbers of uninsured. (likely increasing due to unemployment/bad economy.
Also a good reason for the young and healthy to pay into the system....
At least in the minds of supporters.
To those against... It's Communism.

 

[GreyArea]

Given that UHC works well in every other modern country in the world, I can only think that the Right is against it because they are fooled into believing that the free-market can do everything better.

Yes, most resources are finite. But why shouldn't we develop systems that allow as many people as possible access to as many of those resources as possible?

I think a better explanation for the current state of affairs is that many Real Americans^TM don't want to pay taxes to support the fake-American parasites infesting Our Nation^TM. If we all belonged to their carefully-patrolled in-group, the Real Americans^TM would have given themselves single-payer universal healthcare decades ago.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, most resources are finite. But why shouldn't we develop systems that allow as many people as possible access to as many of those resources as possible?

Because some versions of that system violate ethical or moral understanding.

 

[Neally]

So much for the progress of civilization. So if someone gets lung cancer, treatable if caught early but fatal if not treated at all, and they can't afford the treatment themselves they are just supposed to suffer and die? That's preferable to pooling resources from the larger society?

That's kind of what insurance is, pooling resources to mitigate risk and there are non-profit health insurance companies that do that. Doesn't work too well though if you are allowed in with a high chance that you will take out more than you put in.

Nothing to stop you from pooling your resources with others. A lot of people don't like it much when you force them to pay for your medical care though. As was mentioned earlier, medical reform needs more that manipulating the insurance piece.

 

[xjx388]

Yes, most resources are finite. But why shouldn't we develop systems that allow as many people as possible access to as many of those resources as possible?

Everyone is allowed to access healthcare in America. People are limited only by their individual resources and there are programs to help people with especially low incomes. There are also charities to assist in other cases. The same is true for every other necessity in American society (food and shelter), so why should healthcare be any different?

 

[Upchurch]

A lot of people don't like it much when you force them to pay for your medical care though.

Correction: A lot of people don't like it much when you explicitly tell them that they are forced to pay for others medical care. If you bake the costs of other people's medical care into higher medical costs without making it clear of the reason, then they are apparently fine with it.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Shalamar]

Everyone is allowed to access healthcare in America. People are limited only by their individual resources and there are programs to help people with especially low incomes. There are also charities to assist in other cases. The same is true for every other necessity in American society (food and shelter), so why should healthcare be any different?

And yet, we still see reports that people are denied care. Or that they are well off, have full insurance, and still lose everything when their insurance provider says 'nope'. Where are the charities? Where are the programs? Why should people have to place themselves into poverty.. just so they can live?

Why, when every other first world country does *not* have these problems?

So, tell us, what is Travis supposed to do? he cannot afford Healthcare because of a pre-existing condition? He will likely not have the care he needs if he again becomes seriously ill? Oh sure, the hospital will stabilize him, then send him home with a great big bill that will never get paid.

What about follow up care? Therapy? Prescriptions? Where are these magical charities to help these people?

Why are people allowed to be denied the care they need, in the name of magical insurance company profits?

 

[Travis]

What about follow up care? Therapy? Prescriptions? Where are these magical charities to help these people?

Why are people allowed to be denied the care they need, in the name of magical insurance company profits?

Some charities exist in some places for the poor or old. As I am really neither that is of little help. Nor does it help others who, like me, are young and nominally healthy now but face very, very bleak choices if the unthinkable happens. This is part of the problem. Young and productive people are not paying into any system for everyone right now. The only system we pay into is one that takes care of only a fraction of the people and not us if we get sick.

Is this really the kind of dysfunctional system we want to keep around in the sake of ideology? Just to prevent some sort of nebulous socialism that people are afraid of even if they don't know why?

 

[Shalamar]

Some charities exist in some places for the poor or old. As I am really neither that is of little help. Nor does it help others who, like me, are young and nominally healthy now but face very, very bleak choices if the unthinkable happens. This is part of the problem. Young and productive people are not paying into any system for everyone right now. The only system we pay into is one that takes care of only a fraction of the people and not us if we get sick.

Is this really the kind of dysfunctional system we want to keep around in the sake of ideology? Just to prevent some sort of nebulous socialism that people are afraid of even if they don't know why?

I know. It's a big problem. You don't qualify for most of the 'charities' because you are likely to be a little too well off, too old, but you still are unable to get Insurance.

I'm in an odd position. I live in the US, but I have not a citizen. I have insurance, but I know that someone at the company could decide to deny a claim, for any reason should I become seriously ill. At that point, I may have the option to return to Canada for my care.

I think it might be a good idea to see if you could move to a civilized country that cares about it's population.

 

[DavidJames]

I think it might be a good idea to see if you could move to a civilized country that cares about it's population.

While the term "civilized" may be a bit of hyperbole, the debate really boils down to something that simple.

I believe a society is best served if it's citizens have ready access affordable health care similar to most every industrialized country on earth.

 

[Tatyana]

So is it your opinion people shouldn't have access to life-saving healthcare and should be left to the whims of Darwin's law?

And for the record: I wasn't offering a platitude. I was stating a position. If you disagree with that position, please make your argument.

Yah, no.

As most humans are removed from our natural environment, natural selection is not entirely applicable anymore.

Darwin even made such comments in one of his books.

 

[Upchurch]

I believe a society is best served if it's citizens have ready access affordable health care similar to most every industrialized country on earth.

off topic, but I would add education to that short list, which we already do. (You can argue the effectiveness of that education, but that is yet another off topic topic.)

 

[Upchurch]

As most humans are removed from our natural environment, natural selection is not entirely applicable anymore.

Yes it is. "Nature" vs "urban" is an arbitrary distinction. We still exist in an environment. We still adapt based to changes to that environment. The fact that we can directly manipulate some of those mechanisms doesn't change the fact that those rules are still in effect.

From a meta point of view, it is entirely possible that how we choose to shape our own evolution is a product of adapting to the current environment we find ourselves in.

Darwin even made such comments in one of his books.

Darwin wasn't correct about every aspect of evolution.

 

[DavidJames]

off topic, but I would add education to that short list, which we already do. (You can argue the effectiveness of that education, but that is yet another off topic topic.)

I agree. I wasn't trying to imply the list was exhaustive.