ACA: Are the Dems blowing an opportunity?

[vegas giants]

That's your argument, now? :lamo

I don't even know what your point is?

 

[apdst]

I don't even know what your point is?

Oh, I already knew that. :lamo

 

[vegas giants]

Oh, I already knew that. :lamo

I don't think you know either. LOL

 

[The Mark]

The state, however, can't deny medicle treatment. For now, that's illegal.

That's an interesting thought/question, actually.

I mean, almost anything could be called "medical treatment", but how do you define it so that it actually means something intended to improve the health of a person?

And how do you define improving the health of a person? I mean we have plastic surgery, which in some cases obviously improves the health of a person (reconstructive surgery, etc.), but in others is simply cosmetic.

In the case of that child in the UK, my understanding is that the proposed treatment was experimental, but how do we determine whether it would actually improve things, or not? I mean, my understanding of that specific case is that the hospital thought it was only going to prolong things without any benifit, but...I mean the child was basically going to die in any case, so why not try something that might work, even if it only had a very slight chance? I can only assume the hospital staff thought it was extremely unlikely to work, and would cause more pain before the inevitable ended things.

 

[apdst]

That's an interesting thought/question, actually.

I mean, almost anything could be called "medical treatment", but how do you define it so that it actually means something intended to improve the health of a person?

And how do you define improving the health of a person? I mean we have plastic surgery, which in some cases obviously improves the health of a person (reconstructive surgery, etc.), but in others is simply cosmetic.

In the case of that child in the UK, my understanding is that the proposed treatment was experimental, but how do we determine whether it would actually improve things, or not? I mean, my understanding of that specific case is that the hospital thought it was only going to prolong things without any benifit, but...I mean the child was basically going to die in any case, so why not try something that might work, even if it only had a very slight chance? I can only assume the hospital staff thought it was extremely unlikely to work, and would cause more pain before the inevitable ended things.

I don't except that as a reasonable excuse to refuse the child treatment and let him die.

 

[The Mark]

I don't except that as a reasonable excuse to refuse the child treatment and let him die.

As I understand it, the child was dying.

Because I can't see healthcare professionals denying treatment just to spite someone when a child's life is in danger, which goes against core instincts humans have, I think?
I suspect that the disagreement was over whether the suggested experimental (as in, unproven) treatment was going to only extend an agonizing existence for a short period, rather than provide a cure.

The parents obviously wanted to try anything to keep their child alive, whereas the hospital deciders considered it a bad idea.

I actually don't know the details of this, having only heard/read brief news articles on it.

I'm not saying the hospital was right, only that there is an argument which I think must be considered - possible cure vs. extending pain/agony unnecessarily.
I don't have children yet, but I think I'd want to try for the possible cure...yet if my child was in unending pain and agony due to their condition it would be a hard choice.

 

[cpwill]

You present nothing to back this assertion. It's basic mathematics. Leave out the middle-man (Insurance executives, etc.), and reap the rewards. Shifting current insurance premiums to tax revenue would not only pay for the entire Single-Payer system, it could also make Medicaire and Medicaid solvent.

You haven't, actually, thought much about this, have you?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Oh, the "you hate children" card. Is that your argument? If it is, you're wasting everyone's time.

How many private insurers would have the authority, by law, to tell Charlie Gard's parents they couldn't seek treatment elsewhere? Cite that law.

I am not defending the British National Health Service telling the parents they could not seek treatment elsewhere. The two largest socialized medicine programs on earth, Medicare and Medicaid, work nothing like that, so why should they be compared to the NHS system?

You have nothing but a strawman argument.

Nearly 50% of children in this country are covered by either Medicaid - socialized medicine, or CHIP - socialized medicine. The system you are bitching about provides healthcare to over 35 million children. Get it through your thick head, government healthcare insures over 35 million children in this country alone. There are more children covered by government healthcare in America than there is in the U.K.

Monthly Child Enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You present nothing to back this assertion. It's basic mathematics. Leave out the middle-man (Insurance executives, etc.), and reap the rewards. Shifting current insurance premiums to tax revenue would not only pay for the entire Single-Payer system, it could also make Medicaire and Medicaid solvent.

That middle man accounts for maybe 10% of overall health spending at the most. You could go to a single payer system, and healthcare will still be extremely expensive in this country if there are not measures put in place to control costs. However, those same measures could be put in place even with maintaining private insurers in a heavily regulated market. Everyone wants to blame insurance execs for their high healthcare costs while they ignore the anesthesiologists that double bill for their nurses, the oncologists that slow down the rate of chemo infusions just to increase their billing, the plastic surgeons that come into an ER after trauma and charge 20k for 5 minutes of their time putting in a handful of facial stitches.

 

[apdst]

I am not defending the British National Health Service telling the parents they could not seek treatment elsewhere. The two largest socialized medicine programs on earth, Medicare and Medicaid, work nothing like that, so why should they be compared to the NHS system?

You have nothing but a strawman argument.

Nearly 50% of children in this country are covered by either Medicaid - socialized medicine, or CHIP - socialized medicine. The system you are bitching about provides healthcare to over 35 million children. Get it through your thick head, government healthcare insures over 35 million children in this country alone. There are more children covered by government healthcare in America than there is in the U.K.

Monthly Child Enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

I bring up the Charlie Gard case to point out a good reason why government run healthcare is a bad idea.

Don't give me the "it can't happen here" bull****.

 

[vegas giants]

I bring up the Charlie Gard case to point out a good reason why government run healthcare is a bad idea.

Don't give me the "it can't happen here" bull****.

It can happen here because that is current law. LOL

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I bring up the Charlie Gard case to point out a good reason why government run healthcare is a bad idea.

Don't give me the "it can't happen here" bull****.

We have had government healthcare for over 100 million Americans in this country for over 50 years, and it hasn't happened here. We have the 2 largest socialized medicine programs on the planet and it hasn't happened here.

 

[apdst]

We have had government healthcare for over 100 million Americans in this country for over 50 years, and it hasn't happened here. We have the 2 largest socialized medicine programs on the planet and it hasn't happened here.

We have government subsidized healthcare. We don't have a system where the government can say who gets what. Anyone who isn't happy with medicade, or medicare isn't legally bound to use them. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[apdst]

It can happen here because that is current law. LOL

Cite the law that gives the government the authority to deny healthcare to anyone. Thanks in advance.

 

[vegas giants]

We have government subsidized healthcare. We don't have a system where the government can say who gets what. Anyone who isn't happy with medicade, or medicare isn't legally bound to use them. You're comparing apples to oranges.

We have a government in every state that can stop you from getting medical treatment for your child if it is considered abusive

 

[vegas giants]

Cite the law that gives the government the authority to deny healthcare to anyone. Thanks in advance.

Sure. Its the child abuse laws. Different statutes in every state. Mine are the NRS

 

[apdst]

Sure. Its the child abuse laws. Different statutes in every state. Mine are the NRS

There you go again. :lamo

Cite the child abuse law that would give the government the authority to deny anyone legitimate medical treatment, or the law that gives the government the authority to force parents to do nothing and let their child die.

I can't wait to see this. :lamo

 

[ALiberalModerate]

We have government subsidized healthcare. We don't have a system where the government can say who gets what. Anyone who isn't happy with medicade, or medicare isn't legally bound to use them. You're comparing apples to oranges.

I am not comparing apples and oranges at all. Medicare and Medicaid are socialized medicine. The government is your insurer. They collect taxes to fund the programs. They then determine what the programs will pay for and will not pay for. That is how socialized medicine works. What you are comparing that to is the system in the U.K. where the government not only provides for your health coverage and determines what treatments it will pay for, it also employees virtually all the providers.

What is being discussed in this thread, and what everyone is proposing, is a single payer system. Which would be like Medicare but for everyone. Providers and health systems would remain in the private sector as they are in the majority of socialized medicine programs around the world. So you are the one making and apples to oranges comparison by comparing single payer to the U.K.'s fully nationalized system.

 

[apdst]

I am not comparing apples and oranges at all. Medicare and Medicaid are socialized medicine. The government is your insurer. They collect taxes to fund the programs. They then determine what the programs will pay for and will not pay for. That is how socialized medicine works. What you are comparing that to, is the system in the U.K. where the government not only provides for your health coverage and determines what treatments it will pay for, it also employees virtually all the providers.

What is being discussed in this thread, and what everyone is proposing, is a single payer system. Which would be like Medicare but for everyone. Providers and health systems would remain in the private sector as they are in the majority of socialized medicine programs around the world. So you are the one making and apples to oranges comparison by comparing single payer to the U.K.'s fully nationalized system.

Cite the law that forces anyone to use medicaid, or medicare.

 

[vegas giants]

There you go again. :lamo

Cite the child abuse law that would give the government the authority to deny anyone legitimate medical treatment, or the law that gives the government the authority to force parents to do nothing and let their child die.

I can't wait to see this. :lamo

Well we have had patients that were brain dead and the state ruled that the plug could be pulled and no further treatment would be given. Terry Schiavo is one such case

 

[apdst]

Well we have had patients that were brain dead and the state ruled that the plug could be pulled and no further treatment would be given. Terry Schiavo is one such case

In the case of Terry Sciavo, her husband sued to have the right to take her off life support, against her parents's wishes.

The government didn't force Terry Schiavo to be denied medical care.

Try again.

 

[vegas giants]

In the case of Terry Sciavo, her husband sued to have the right to take her off life support, against her parents's wishes.

The government didn't force Terry Schiavo to be denied medical care.

Try again.

But the government over rode the wishes of her parents and denied her further medical treatment

 

[apdst]

But the government over rode the wishes of her parents and denied her further medical treatment

No, a court decided that her husband had the right to take her off life support. She was taken off life support by his request. After the court made it's decision, the government no longer played a roll.

Try again.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Cite the law that forces anyone to use medicaid, or medicare.

What the hell is the point of doing that? Medicaid and Medicare are socialized insurance programs. This is a thread about single payer. Which would be a socialized insurance program.

You are trying to compare that to the National Health Service in the U.K. where the government doesn't just pay for your health coverage, it owns the hospitals and employs almost all of providers. So why do you bring it up when it is a completely different system than what anyone in America is proposing?

 

[apdst]

What the hell is the point of doing that? Medicaid and Medicare are socialized insurance programs. This is a thread about single payer. Which would be a socialized insurance program.

You are trying to compare that to the National Health Service in the U.K. where the government doesn't just pay for your health coverage, it owns the hospitals and employs almost all of providers. So why do you bring it up when it is a completely different system than what anyone in America is proposing?

Single payer and medicaid/medicare are two different animals. You don't seem to understand that.