One of the tragedies of our system. I hear people say "People don't have a right to healthcare." But criminals do?
Its really funny this topic got posted because I was just in the Emergency Department when I noticed a Deputy Sheriff on hospital guard with an inmate. I got to talking to the inmate who told me he had the opportunity for early release, but he refused to take it because he was some outstanding health issues he wants fixed on the county dime before he goes. The Deputy Sheriff was telling me this is common practice and his Sheriff's Departments management are disgusted with the situation, but their hands are tied and can't do a thing about it under title 15.
I remember my last 6 months in the army trying to get as much dental work done as I thought I would need to last me through college. Not that I needed a lot, but I got done what was necessary. Here is my take on the upcoming national health care. It's wrong to require people to contribute to the coffers of for profit companies. If the approach taken were increase everyone's income tax by 1% (or whatever figure) and use that amount to provide limited health care (fund county hospitals, health clinics, provide emergency and preventative care, etc.), I would see less of an argument against it. I say limited health care because that's likely what the system could afford, but health screenings that let a person know what to do (lose weight, prevent many cases of diabetes, etc.) would provide care while requiring a level of personal responsibility.
It's not like counties don't have the power to tax. If the local hospital or health department needs funds, why do they have to come from the federal level? -=Steve=-
I'm not saying the funds need to come from the federal government, but that is another discussion entirely. My point is that IF the federal government wants to offer health care, then it should do so and further they should be aware that there is some infrastructure in place to get started. And while we're at it, let's correct the terminology. It's medical care we're talking about. If it were health care they'd be passing out fresh vegetables and walking shoes.
You yourself mentioned offering health screenings that let a person know what to do, e.g., lose weight. The problem with prevention is that it's critically important here, yet there's no clear line where preventative measures stop since so much of what we do or don't do can have eventual medical consequences. I mean, if health screenings that include advice, then why not subsidized yoga and tai chi? -=Steve=-
We have a separation of church and state, at least in theory. Yoga is the practice of Hindu worship poses and as such is part of a religion. It wasn't co-opted to be part of a relgion; it was developed as part of a religion. I know less about the origins of tai chi. Your point regarding where to draw the line is valid. My thought is that the line must be drawn at least for budgetary reasons. Where is something we can vote on. Have several proposals that include costs and benefits and let citizens vote on which they want. One of those options could be for no health care, but rather limited medical care. Another option could be for no care at all. We vote for things like maximum school classroom size and special sales tax to fund special projects. We should be able to vote on a health or medical care option.
Does anyone know if there is any other developed nation in the world that does not have state sponsored healthcare for its citizens?
My system for making my own healthcare affordable is to be as preventative as reasonably possible. Eat healthy, exercise, avoid foolish physical risks, etc. If everyone did that, healthcare would at least be less of a burden than it is now. I recently read in one of my textbooks that if everyone quit smoking, it would be the single most productive health care decision that this country as a whole could possibly take. Amazing. Jack Lalanne, the guy I quote in my signature, died of pneumonia at the age of 96. Up until the day he died, he was energetic, active, worked out for a whopping two hours a day and was on zero meds... compare that to my own grandfather who ate a medium pizza and drank a 2-liter bottle of Pepsi nearly every day of his life. Not even 80, and he is in a nursing home, unable to walk, nor even think straight nor remember most of his children. Not that everyone who lives smart can remain disease and accident free (my grandpa has diabetes- who knows if he could have prevented that), but Jack Lalanne gives us a great example to live by. I want to be the guy at 80 years old who still has 16 or more quality years of life than just a few years of misery at the expense of my family or taxpayers. Jack Lalanne, when he was my grandpa's age Of course, I wish there was a way to exercise my teeth to health :worried:
good point by you as for mc's point about smoking, i think it should be illegal. i understand the whole argument of "it's my body and i can do what i want..." but the piece that's missing is that MY insurance premiums are wicked high because all the smokers require a billion dollars in medical care. why should i have to pay because someone else wants to kill themself?
Twice the other week I sat down on a public bench and was joined by someone who decided to light up. I very, very, rarely get angry or upset but I just couldn't believe their audacity. It's not just their body they were destroying, but were fully willing to take me down with them.
The fact is though the system punishes people for being poor, I know I'm poor. You say eat well I just saw most of the good food in the store I like go up 10% or more in price, good quality ground beef is expensive, canned food is not as good as fresh and that is hard to get a good price on - to be blunt its cheaper to go to a all-u-can-eat buffet like CiCi's and fill up on pizza with some salad and soup than eat at home. And you get a whole days calories and more in one sitting. You want a loaded burger one can go to Burger King, get a basic double chesseburger loaded with some veggies for $1.49. Its fine if you're not on a tight budget but if you are like me one goes for what fills you up and is cheap first. Are you ready to make staple good food price controlled so its cheaper? To the issue of the case mentioned I find it odd as a law-abiding citizen the government deems me unworthy of health care yet an inmate at our local jail gets state-of-the-art primary care at a taxpayer funded Sheriffs medical facility. And they include dentistry and other services. He's right if I did get cancer I'd likely get better care robbing a bank for $1 and get a bed, meals and not have to bust my butt Busking for change. No one thinks this is unfair here?
Food prices are going up, but much more quickly in fast food places than at the supermarket. On Wednesday, the last time I ate away from home, my $1.50 lunch included a large ham/romaine/muenster sandwich on a ciabatta roll, red peppers, peaches, pecans and green tea. The other week, I made 6 servings of a chicken and multi-green vegetable cold soup for less than $5 of ingredients and less than 10 minutes of time. It takes some planning and preparation, but home-made food is nearly always less expensive. At times, I bake my own bread, too, which only costs a few cents per loaf when using generic and bulk-purchased products to make it. It's completely unfair.
I can see your point. There is a reason why you can be a disgusting fried chicken burger for 99cents, and yet a grilled chicken breast sandwich is $4.95!!!! As far as the healthcare debate. I do think it is unfair. We as a country SUDDENLY came up with money to fund the war in Iraq, but heaven forbid you provide some basis health care. There are dead bison all around us. Abner
Even if it worked to ban stuff that millions of people want -- and we have sufficient experience from alcohol and drug prohibition to see that it doesn't -- why smoking and not unhealthy food? And if a ban on smoking, why not a mandate to exercise? I mean, that's good for you too, right? But I agree that you shouldn't have to pay for smokers' self-induced ailments. But do you? Even now smokers and non-smokers do not pay the same premiums from insurance companies. If there are regulations that prevents insurers from charging different premiums that accurately reflect the different in expense of insuring smokers, then yes, those regulations should be repealed. -=Steve=-
