Liberal view of Government.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:33 pm

Oh, also why are you talking about government control?
Or do you talk about private security forces paid by East India Company, oops, I meant Philip Morris (who will happily help with the distribution of the legalized Opium), that will make sure that the laws regarding the distribution of Opium will be kept.

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:58 pm

Skipjack wrote:
For Car insurance, there is a "high risk" pool for clumsy drivers. A series of car accidents doesn't mean you can't get car insurance. Why not something similar for individuals and "pre-existing" condition situations for health care? It's simple, and it has been done before.
Because unlike car drivers, a person is not always (or lets say usually not) responsible for the bad things that happen to them healthwise. If you are driving like a nutcase, then you deserve to pay more. If you had childhood leukemia, or lung cancer caused by the coal plant next door, then you dont.
Or what if you have a preexisting condition because of the said nutcase car driver running into you and thus giving you an artificial hip?

In those cases you'd be deemed "high risk" but go into the high risk pool instead of flat out being denied.

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:39 am

Skipjack wrote:
Other than that, if they really want coverage, they should serve a tour in the military to earn access to the VA system, like I did.
Sorry, but that is a very bad option.
First of all the US is in a war somewhere all the time. So this is very risky business.
Second the military will get you more health problems than what you would be dealing with otherwise. Like doing drug tests on their personell and stuff (my wifes other cousin can not get pregnant because of this).
Third, the VA hospitals and the general VA healthcare in the US is shamefully inferior to others. They definitely dont pay for my wifes cousins fertility problems that they most likely caused.
And yeah, I should probably not be knowing about this, but I do, bite me!

You evidently have absolutely NO Idea what the hell you are talking about. I've used several VA hospitals and found them to be no different than private hospitals members of my family have worked at and been patients at.

Drug tests cannot interfere with fertility, its merely a piss test, so thats BS. I've had a few. You piss in a cup just like any place else. Get real.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:33 am

JohnSmith wrote:Maybe I'm wrong about current US health care, but what happens to people who can't afford cancer meds?

Well, our life expectancy is just a year short of yours. Amazing considering that so many of us are dying because we can't afford our meds. No really, that year is all because of us throwing our cancer patients into the gutter and it has nothing to do with our admittedly terrible crime and murder rates and our propensity for driving each other off of the road. Yep, that year is because we are killing our poor by denying them treatment. Really, most poor people get treatment, although inefficiently. We should improve our system and help to subsidize insurance for those who can't afford it. I am just not for a government take over.

JohnSmith wrote:Bleh. The US has no monopoly on liberty, and they don't even have the best track record. Yeah, you love liberty, and all those nastys in government are the problem, but only US citizens could possibly understand the ideals! Give me a break.

Your statement above proves to me that you don't understand. Yes, those nastys in government are the problem. Our founding was based upon the notion that government is nothing more than a necessary evil. Our founding documents are based on what government is not allowed to do. We have strayed from that notion and I fear it will be our downfall.

I am not claiming a monopoly on liberty. Just a unique perspective on it. I am not sure why that offends you. Nor am I sure why someone in another country saying they don't like the way their country is headed and wanting to separate from it (a joke about amputation related to a silly picture of the US) would offend you. It doesn't involve you. You like your system. Fine. Don't tread on ours.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:47 am

JoeOh wrote:WTG Slipjack in showing IntLibber (and others) that reality isn't always as simple as it seems.

I tell yea, these people live in ideological la-la-land. Definitely more so than others.

Better word is pragmatism. I don't pay for something I don't need. If I get some freak unforseen accident like Skipjack's heart attack, then yes, that changes the situation. Not wanting to pay for something that has, as far as you can tell, nil chance of happening, isn't ideological wonderland. Reality indeed isn't ever simple, so every bit of simplification helps. Like taking care of everything yourself, esp if you save money doing it.

JohnSmith · Post by **JohnSmith** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:13 am

Yep, that year is because we are killing our poor by denying them treatment. Really, most poor people get treatment, although inefficiently. We should improve our system and help to subsidize insurance for those who can't afford it. I am just not for a government take over.

Good point about life expectancy. I'll have to look into it. Off the top of my head, though, is it likely that the person who can't afford their cancer meds has to pay as much as they possibly can before they get any help?

If you can improve your system without government involvement, I'd be ecstatic. I'd begin pushing immediately to get that system here. I don't see how you'll do it, but believe me I'd love to do this without government.

Your statement above proves to me that you don't understand. ... We have strayed from that notion and I fear it will be our downfall.

Ok, did you miss my point? Everyone, and I mean everyone outside the US hates that attitude. The US never was perfect. You started with lofty ideals, and it went downhill from there. Just like everywhere else. You say you're fighting to return to those ideals. Great! But saying that nobody else can understand those ideals is like an emo kid saying how nobody understands how terrible his life is.

Betruger, I don't get it. So say you don't get insurance, because hey, you'll never have a heart attack. Freak occurrence happens, you don't have the money. Are you saying that this is a good scenario?
It's like crashing a car - you think it has a nill chance of happening to you, but if you look at the numbers, it's a lot higher than you think.

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:23 am

Betruger wrote:
JoeOh wrote:WTG Slipjack in showing IntLibber (and others) that reality isn't always as simple as it seems.

I tell yea, these people live in ideological la-la-land. Definitely more so than others.
Better word is pragmatism. I don't pay for something I don't need. If I get some freak unforseen accident like Skipjack's heart attack, then yes, that changes the situation. Not wanting to pay for something that has, as far as you can tell, nil chance of happening, isn't ideological wonderland. Reality indeed isn't ever simple, so every bit of simplification helps. Like taking care of everything yourself, esp if you save money doing it.

It just shows he hasnt' read what I wrote. I stated that the main problem is that everybody wants a cadillac plan for no cost to themselves that is padded with monkey grooming stuff that is not necessary for life and working ability but which always gets overconsumed when its free, when in reality most people only need catastropic coverage. A heart attack is a catastrophe, as is cancer, organ failure, and other major life-threatening issues.

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:33 am

JohnSmith wrote:
Yep, that year is because we are killing our poor by denying them treatment. Really, most poor people get treatment, although inefficiently. We should improve our system and help to subsidize insurance for those who can't afford it. I am just not for a government take over.
Good point about life expectancy. I'll have to look into it. Off the top of my head, though, is it likely that the person who can't afford their cancer meds has to pay as much as they possibly can before they get any help?

If you can improve your system without government involvement, I'd be ecstatic. I'd begin pushing immediately to get that system here. I don't see how you'll do it, but believe me I'd love to do this without government.

The point is that 95% of the health care you consume in your entire life happens in the last five years of your life, and only extends life by 1 year. Overall, life expectancy as a whole is far more a matter of low infant mortality, good nutrition, education, low crime, vaccinations, and avoidance of high risk activities. Health care does little to extend life expectancy and in fact actually makes people more prone to take risks and engage in risky activities and life style choices which are detrimental to society as a whole.

As an example, when antibiotics were shown to cure STDs like syphillis, gonnorhea etc. the sexual revolution happened because people could get cured of the diseases that had previously stigmatized promiscuity. As a result HIV, herpes, and other new uncurable STDs arose.

Your statement above proves to me that you don't understand. ... We have strayed from that notion and I fear it will be our downfall.
Ok, did you miss my point? Everyone, and I mean everyone outside the US hates that attitude. The US never was perfect. You started with lofty ideals, and it went downhill from there. Just like everywhere else. You say you're fighting to return to those ideals. Great! But saying that nobody else can understand those ideals is like an emo kid saying how nobody understands how terrible his life is.

Betruger, I don't get it. So say you don't get insurance, because hey, you'll never have a heart attack. Freak occurrence happens, you don't have the money. Are you saying that this is a good scenario?
It's like crashing a car - you think it has a nill chance of happening to you, but if you look at the numbers, it's a lot higher than you think.

Catastrophic occurence, again, which you continue to ignore. Catastrophic coverage is all people really need. They dont need the mollycoddling cadillac coverage plans that people demand which are expensive to deliver and do little to extend life because they are mostly just monkey grooming.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:39 am

You evidently have absolutely NO Idea what the hell you are talking about. I've used several VA hospitals and found them to be no different than private hospitals members of my family have worked at and been patients at.

Ask McCain about that! He shares my opinion, as do many americans, including many of those that I personally know that were even POWs and that are still suffering while NOBODY gives a darn about them and their problems. People that got fixed up so badly at your VA hospitals that they still have issues decades later. So dont tell me bullshit about the quality of your VA hospitals.

Drug tests cannot interfere with fertility, its merely a piss test, so thats BS. I've had a few. You piss in a cup just like any place else. Get real.

I meant drug experiments. As in: They TESTED experimental drugs ON them.
A language barrier problem, I appollogize.

MirariNefas · Post by **MirariNefas** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:56 am

IntLibber wrote:Catastrophic coverage is all people really need. They dont need the mollycoddling cadillac coverage plans that people demand which are expensive to deliver and do little to extend life because they are mostly just monkey grooming.

Are you sure a little monkey grooming won't make things cheaper in the long run? You go to a dentist regularly, and he gives you a little filling or tells you to floss more and hands you some flouride toothpaste. If you wait until your teeth are killing you, you get a bunch of root canals.

I keep hearing that our society needs to move more towards prevention than treatment. Find out that your cholesterol is high before it causes a catastrophe, and all that.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:59 am

In those cases you'd be deemed "high risk" but go into the high risk pool instead of flat out being denied.

You would get limited coverage at best and then for way to much money.

The point is that 95% of the health care you consume in your entire life happens in the last five years of your life, and only extends life by 1 year. Overall, life expectancy as a whole is far more a matter of low infant mortality, good nutrition, education, low crime, vaccinations, and avoidance of high risk activities. Health care does little to extend life expectancy and in fact actually makes people more prone to take risks and engage in risky activities and life style choices which are detrimental to society as a whole.

Not true. A lot of the health care money here is actually spent on prevention. People have the freedom to go see a doctor in order to prevent catastrophic events later. Given some things, such as in my case still can not be prevented. However, one needs to add, that if I had had to pay for each doctor visit, I would have probably decided to stay at home that day. After all why waste money going to the doctor for some pain in your back, right? Had I not decided to go that day, I would not be sitting here right now.

Vaccinations are actually part of preventative medicine. It is paid for by our government in order to prevent catastrophic problems.

Also, I would say that you probably need just as much in the first years of your life. Many children have all the child illnesses like shingles, etc.
They need their tonsils removed and many have ear problems, etc.
Ignoring them can cause massive problems later in life.

As a result HIV, herpes, and other new uncurable STDs arose.

Nope, they came to us from Afrika via sex tourists and aid workers from there. That was in the late 70ies probably. The first recorded case was in Mount Sinai medical center in New York in the beginning of the 80ies.
The sexual revolution as some call it, was in the 60ies. It did undeniably have a share in the spread of HIV, but it is not solely responsible.

Catastrophic occurence, again, which you continue to ignore. Catastrophic coverage is all people really need.

So you have said catastrophic occurence and they fix you up and you go home and that is all you will need?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Usually in case of a catastrophic occurence you will need additional treatments afterwards. E.g. I had 4 weeks of rehab after my heart attack, fully paid for by the government. In those 4 weeks they did additional tests. They slowly got me started again, so my heart would not get scarring from to much strain, but still enough so the muscle would slowly get trained to get stronger again (when you have an infarkt, some of the heart muscle dies off). With training collateral blood vessels can form that will help mitigate the effects of the attack.
I have another walk in rehab right now, twice a week. Again monitoring and training. All this is good for PREVENTION of another catastrophic event. This costs less than them having to fix me up all over again.

Same goes with cancer, you have to go in for frequent checkups.
Or if you were injured in a car accident. A life of pain and treatments can be the result of that. Do you think that you will be done with a few stitches and a plaster? Sure it is a catastrophic event, but that is not a once and done situation.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:00 am

I keep hearing that our society needs to move more towards prevention than treatment. Find out that your cholesterol is high before it causes a catastrophe, and all that.

Exactly!

MirariNefas · Post by **MirariNefas** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:16 am

Skipjack wrote: Many children have all the child illnesses like shingles, etc.

This is likely a translation error. In English we have two words for the same virus depending on the age of the infected because it has different symptoms in adults and children. Shingles refers to the adult variant, and chickenpox refers to the childhood variant. Well, actually, I suppose I don't know that children can't get shingles. Maybe it happens once in awhile that they skip through chickenpox early to a more serious infection, but mostly it's an adult thing.

That said though, yes, children get diseases rather often. They have an elevated mortality and can get various complications from normal things like the flu, too.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:27 am

This is likely a translation error. In English we have two words for the same virus depending on the age of the infected because it has different symptoms in adults and children. Shingles refers to the adult variant, and chickenpox refers to the childhood variant.

Ah yes, I am so silly. Chickenpocks was the word I was looking for, but I only came up with shingles, sorry. Thanks for correcting me.

That said though, yes, children get diseases rather often. They have an elevated mortality and can get various complications from normal things like the flu, too.

Exactly! Also, dont forget that children are prone to injuries. What child did not at least have one broken bone? I dont even want to think back of all the injuries I had.

Of course in the US it goes like that:
Child plays with other children in their yard. Child tobbles over root. Child gets injured. Parents are not insured propperly and left with huge medical bill. Parents sue parents of other child because of the root in their backyard.
Result: Poor children that can not play with each other, rich lawyers and a sad society of overprotective idiot parents.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:16 am

Skipjack wrote: ... Parents sue parents of other child because of the root in their backyard. ......

You have identified the single most damaging thing about the American health provision system, lawyers. This can be fixed by three simple changes, but since Congress is filled with lawyers, they will never happen.

* Compensatory damages should be limited to real, demonstrable damages.
* Punitive damages should not be insurable.
* Insurance company profit rates should not be artificially limited.

If anyone is interested in the logic behind these statements, ask. Until you understand them, you are just farting in the wind.