[Sindriss]

Engineers isn't the one and only way towards innovation and progress Urb

[Urb]

But it lays an excellent foundation.
And also I was not being very serious.
Just a little serious.

Smileyface.

[Pig Iron]

Actually, the US has the highest cost of health-care in terms of GNP in the world. The way most analysts outside the US see it, not having decent health coverage for everyone (as in primary care) is really expensive. It's better to treat early or even prevent than to treat on an emergency basis. For third-world countries it is well known that good health-care lowers nativity rates, and seems to promote the development of basically everything else in the society.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

As to engineers, I've had my fill of them. They clog my math and science classes and can do absurd integrals in their heads and all, but they've not a clue what the theory is, really.

As to the developing world, there are papers upon papers upon papers upon papers on the subject. Education does the same thing. And one of the reasons we don't have primary care physicians for everyone is that there aren't enough doctors to go around. GP's or family practice doctors are underpaid (comparatively) and overworked, and so form a significantly below-demand minority.

I'll get some AMA numbers when I get back on later.

[Pig Iron]

Adjutant Stormy, on 28 February 2010 - 08:37 PM, said:

As to engineers, I've had my fill of them. They clog my math and science classes and can do absurd integrals in their heads and all, but they've not a clue what the theory is, really.

As to the developing world, there are papers upon papers upon papers upon papers on the subject. Education does the same thing. And one of the reasons we don't have primary care physicians for everyone is that there aren't enough doctors to go around. GP's or family practice doctors are underpaid (comparatively) and overworked, and so form a significantly below-demand minority.

I'll get some AMA numbers when I get back on later.

Just read any number of editorials in NEJM, I think there's pretty much a consensus in the (liberal) part of the american medical community ,,

[Fist Gamet]

I will try and go back to Gothos's original point but it seems a very hard question to answer if we are taking into account a number of different healthcare systems from various countries. I think it is fairly accepted that your views and attitudes to healthcare are shaped by the systems in the country you grew up and here in the UK far too many people do not appreciate how lucky they are with the healthcare system we have. It's not perfect but it beats the hell out of most others in the world.
Attitudes probably have changed significantly in the last century or so and its only in the last fifty years where the 'Right' to medical care became universal. However, I can't say I think there is anything wrong with that. Access to healthcare as and when you need it is, to me, humanitarian. It is fundamentally a right and good thing to have. If people expect it and deem it their 'right' then that's fine by me - because I expect it too. It is one of the indicators of a fair and free society. It is often said that you should judge a society by the way it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. Of course, the UK fails miserably in many aspects of that statement but the healthcare system is the one we are discussing here.
Where this attitude has gone wrong here is evident in high profile cases of very expensive drugs and treatments not being made freely available to some people. People confuse the right to medical treatment and care with the right to any and all treatment and care regardless of the cost. Nobody likes to put a dollar value on a life and they don't want to hear about the choices that must be made. When you have a finite amount of money, someone, somewhere, must decide between spending it on drugs that could prolong the lives of a thousand critically ill people, or a new machine that could give early diagnoses of serious illness for ten thousand people - because you don't have the money for both. I am sure it doesn't feel too damned fair if you are on the side that doesn't get picked.

So yes, I think most people have unrealistic expectations of the healthcare in even the wealthiest nations, and I believe the reality for the future is that increasing costs of care are going to force harder and harder decisions that people will find near impossible to accept. Maybe this will force a change in attitude where people will realise it becomes more and more a privilige, than a right.

[Cold Iron]

No time to read everyones post but these are my thoughts. Healthcare is one of the privileges won with apartheid-like modern border policy. Who drew these lines on the map? How do we justify the "I was here first" mentality? How can we sanction racist immigration and refugee policies? What gives you the right to dictate the percentage of the global population that you are willing to share your wealth with?

We perpetuate the inequality behind a facade of false compassion. We do it with guns and bombs. I say open the borders. Let resources like food and water sort out who lives where. Nobody deserves more or less than anybody else. If one person must live in poverty then we all should. Progress through unity.

[Flashwit]

im going to keep this simple, because i have written this thing around three times and each time i get more and more radical. i dont think we have any privilege besides our own life and freedom, and the second can be taken quickly. Why should i have to pay for you to have healthcare, its not like one less person is going to effect this world. We are overpopulated anyways, and i dont think that the government should force people to fork over there hard earned money to pay for methadone treatments for some heroin addict (yes i know that isnt what the whole system is about but i dont really care) you see, freedom is a farce, how are you free when you are required to pay taxes, required to abide by ridiculous laws that some men in crappy suits made up for our own safety?

[blackzoid]

Yes, why should we have to pay for non-fully enabled people like Stephen Hawking or others who can't cope? They can't take care of themselves, why should others do so for them? Even though disabled/critically ill people can as a result over-specialize in fields that could benefit mankind, if they can't take care of themselves, let them starve right?

Its called short-sighted thinking of the highest order. They fact that you pay taxes that provide healthcare to others does NOT mean that your descendents/you will never reap the awards of paying those taxes. The fact that they are not immediately apparent to you does not mean that they do not exist.

Now I can agree on healthcare reform, as there are always individual problems with each countries health system, but no public healthcare at all?
Well at least the gravediggers will be getting good business I guess.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 01 March 2010 - 10:22 AM

[Cause]

I have three somewhat contradictory points to make but I feel all are at the heart of the issue.

People are not born equal and as they grow older and go through life the difference in equality only widens. A more skilled, highly trained, vital worker deserves more respect and money than a lesser worker. I think this is only fair compensation for his greater work and stress.

Rights vs responsibility. I have noted in my own country people are obsessed with their rights bu no one believes they have any responsibilities. They clamor for the right to free tertiary education (Something which in my mind is and should be a privilege) and than they fail four out of four of their subjects, after not bothering to attend the universities emergency extra lesson plan, and believe that I the tax payer should pay for them to have a second go. I don't think so. Similarly many have you have pointed out people who live of benefits without shame despite being able to work a real job etc. A man who contributed to taxes for his entire life should benefit from public healthcare even though as a retiree he arguably does not contribute any further. He has however fulfilled his obligation to society and now society must fulfill his obligation to him

The obligation of socialism. I said that not everyone in life is equal and its true. However some people start life already five steps up the ladder, some start twenty. Just two days ago as I bought myself an Xbox 360 I was thinking how fortunate I was to have the money, the disposable money, to spend on home entertainment when for many people in my country the price of it is not that far different from their entire monthly income. Never mind that they probably could not even afford the electricity. The difference between the have and have nots can be orders of magnitude large.

Whats my point? Yes a country should do what it can to help the less fortunate. This is however not an excuse for the less fortunate to not have to strive for their own self improvement. There must be punishment, even if its only no future support, for criminal behavior, mooching, fraud etc. An alcoholic never deserves a new liver. In the same way a student who fails does not deserve more funding. Its not a free right, its not an in-alienable privilege. In a country such as mine where one in six people have aids they have doomed themselves through their own stupidity. I dont want to pay for their AZTs. Were talking millions, billions of rand rather. On the other hand Im glad there is a system in place that when pedestrians are run over their is a road accident fund to pay for their medical bills. Otherwise for many in my country something as small as a broken arm could mean they will never get on their own two feet again.

[Cause]

blackzoid, on 01 March 2010 - 10:19 AM, said:

Yes, why should we have to pay for non-fully enabled people like Stephen Hawking or others who can't cope? They can't take care of themselves, why should others do so for them? Even though disabled/critically ill people can as a result over-specialize in fields that could benefit mankind, if they can't take care of themselves, let them starve right?

The idea that stephen hawking is a genius because he is in a wheel chair is absurd. As is the idea that others in wheel chairs might be future stephen hawkings.

[Aristai]

One thing's for sure, pharmaceutical companies have very little interest in lowering prices on anything they provide. So living to a ripe old age is turning into a rather expensive proposition.

[Flashwit]

Quote

Its called short-sighted thinking of the highest order. They fact that you pay taxes that provide healthcare to others does NOT mean that your descendents/you will never reap the awards of paying those taxes. The fact that they are not immediately apparent to you does not mean that they do not exist.

Short sightedness? in what way, we pay for universal health care, inflate the population even more and yay, we can drain our planets resources just a tad more than if those people werent alive. china has the right idea in limiting how many kids people can have.

[blackzoid]

Cause:
My example was an extreme one, but it was meant to show that people in wheelchairs/disabled who require plenty of help, can also give back to the community, whether its because they are an above average genius, or someone working as a call reciptionist. They are not total spongers. And if they specialize in a field of Science/engineering where their handicap isn't an issue, they can provide great benefits. Or they could just get drunk in a bar the whole time. The thing is, if they are born that way and they require a lot of healthcare, that doesn't mean they won't pay some of that back in later life.


Flashwit:
universal healthcare does NOT equal unlimited population growth. Its in fact worth pointing out that many countries with universial healthcare are experiancing very little population growth at the moment (Germany, other parts of Europe. Nordic countries?). A lot of developing countries where there is certainly little to no public healthcare have population booms. No, i'm not going to claim thats down to Healthcare, (I think its education, cost of raising children in developed countries versus undeveloped countries, women working longer etc), but it is an interesting trend.
Perhaps poeple work more to pay taxes to provide healthcare and thus have less time to rear kids? I don't know.

And if Universal Healthcare were to provide Abortion on demand, I'm sure that that would ease population overgrowth at the moment too.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 01 March 2010 - 06:00 PM

[D'rek]

blackzoid, on 01 March 2010 - 05:57 PM, said:

Flashwit:
universal healthcare does NOT equal unlimited population growth. Its in fact worth pointing out that many countries with universial healthcare are experiancing very little population growth at the moment (Germany, other parts of Europe. Nordic countries?). A lot of developing countries where there is certainly little to no public healthcare have population booms. No, i'm not going to claim thats down to Healthcare, (I think its education, cost of raising children in developed countries versus undeveloped countries, women working longer etc), but it is an interesting trend.
Perhaps poeple work more to pay taxes to provide healthcare and thus have less time to rear kids? I don't know.

I'm sure there's the whole having-more-kids-so-there's-more-helping-hands-around-the-house is a factor, and coupled with that the have-lots-of-kids-because-some-will-die-and-we-need-kids-helping-on-the-farm

[Adjutant Stormy~]

blackzoid, on 01 March 2010 - 05:57 PM, said:

Cause:
My example was an extreme one, but it was meant to show that people in wheelchairs/disabled who require plenty of help, can also give back to the community, whether its because they are an above average genius, or someone working as a call reciptionist. They are not total spongers. And if they specialize in a field of Science/engineering where their handicap isn't an issue, they can provide great benefits. Or they could just get drunk in a bar the whole time. The thing is, if they are born that way and they require a lot of healthcare, that doesn't mean they won't pay some of that back in later life.

Also - Hawking was born fine. He's got ALS, which presented well into his education at University. And most cripples can't do n-dimensional path integrals in their head. The fact of the matter is that most severely handicapped people don't produce anything. They're nice people, don't get me wrong, but comparing them to Hawking is both a bit hairbrained and kind of insulting to the man himself.

But the argument stands as fairly weak. You're straw-manning the other side a bit. It's not their goal to systematically euthanize the handicapped, or to throw them to the wolves, etc. Those opposed to universal public healthcare have legitimate concerns, not bloodlust.

Quote

And if Universal Healthcare were to provide Abortion on demand, I'm sure that that would ease population overgrowth at the moment too.

That's not an argument, that's a grenade. Whoops, where'd the pin go?

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 04 March 2010 - 01:32 AM

[Flashwit]

yes the whole abortion issue is a very hot one, like IRA pipebomb hot. here in america if they had a universal health care bill with that clause in it i think most of the Christians would be likely revolt lol.

[Morgoth]

our UHC covers it for the most part. Abortion that is.

Not really been any revolt from the religious crazies as far as I know.

[Aptorian]

[Shinrei]

That graph tells me 2 things. 1) COST is the number one problem with US Health Care. (I think this is pretty well established).

2) The big fat line confirms my observation that clinics are social clubs for old people in Japan. Got the sniffles? Get an IV. Leg ache a little? Get electric stim treatment.