Socialized "medicine" anyone??

I read that a couple weeks ago.

I hope the guy gets AIDS and dies from his state-sponsored prostitute habit. Not really, but that story is absolutely ridiculous. It should be thrown (and laughed) out of court. "If you want sex, here's some KY and a Jenna Jameson video. Go to town." This whole story shows the entitlement mentality that millions and millions of people have in the US and around the world.
 
Well my mom says I'm insensitive in that I'm pretty hardened when it comes to shit like this. Personally I think I'm just right.:D

My biggest problem with socialized medicine is it is founded on the basis that EVERY HUMAN DESERVES/IS ENTITLED TO MEDICAL CARE. And I just fundamentally disagree with that. I think there are many people whom are better off dead and should be dead. A raging alcoholic who has been told time and time again that he needs to quit drinking or he will develop cirrhosis and die, but fails to heed that advice, should IMO be denied medical care and die!!!!

My cousin is a crackhead who has lost his house, wife (she's a crackhead too), his daughter (she lives with my aunt whom has legal custody of her until she's 18), and everything else in his life. He has cost my family hundreds of thousands of dollars and continues to poison his mind and body with that shit. I have no pity for him (used to, but no longer) and I don't expect CyniQ, Grizz, or Bob Smith to pay for his poor choices in life.

There are some illnesses and diseases that are unavoidable in that they are either genetic in nature or are a result of a bad accident. Those individuals IMO deserve the best medical care possible, even if they need some sort of assistance. However, there are many illnesses like cirrhosis and AIDS that have little to NO genetic pre-disposition and do not result from an accident. They are diseases of choice and should be treated as such.

So, am I insensitive???
 
Kayz said:
There are some illnesses and diseases that are unavoidable in that they are either genetic in nature or are a result of a bad accident. Those individuals IMO deserve the best medical care possible, even if they need some sort of assistance. However, there are many illnesses like cirrhosis and AIDS that have little to NO genetic pre-disposition and do not result from an accident. They are diseases of choice and should be treated as such.

So, am I insensitive???

Slippery slope... What about "diseases" that have debatable origins? Like alcoholism/drug addiction??
 
CyniQ said:
Slippery slope... What about "diseases" that have debatable origins? Like alcoholism/drug addiction??
Personally, I dont consider them to be diseases.

Its your choice to pick up a bottle of JD or down a 12 pack of Bud. No one forced you to jab your arm with a needle full of heroin, or to snort a granular powder up your nose. I wasnt the one that stuffed a pack of ciggs in your mouth everyday for 40 years.
 
CyniQ said:
Slippery slope... What about "diseases" that have debatable origins? Like alcoholism/drug addiction??

Yeah, that's one of the flaws in my thought process....and I have thought about past life experiences that drive people to do what they do today. I'm willing to look at the whole of one's life when deciding things like this. But....only to a certian degree.

Here's my thing. For every person who grew up in a bad environment and had it rough, and became a drug addict and/or alcoholic....there is a person who grew up in a similar environment and went on to beat the odds and became successful. So, it can be done, but it's still up to the individual to make the right choices and go down the correct path.

And to be honest with you, I've never been a big fan of the word "addiction"...I think in many instances (not all, but many) it is nothing more than a cop-out to justify ones actions and behaviour. Maybe because it's that I've never been "addicted" to anything in my life, so I can't fully understand what happens. But at the same time, I have a hard time understanding how an individual...a grown man...can allow an external substance run/ruin his life and everything he loves. I just can't fathom how someone can get to that level where they can't say "no...I'm not doing this anymore."
 
And also, every person in this country does have emergency medical care. Can they go see a doc if they get a cold, not unless they want to pay cash for it. But people shouldnt be seeing a doc for a cold anyway, theres nothing he can do about it! If they fall and break an arm, go to the ER and they have to help you, its required by law and medical ethics.

Another thing to consider, a large portion of the uninsured people in the US CHOOSE TO BE UNINSURED!! And Im not talkin about poor people here, Im talking about people in their late teens, 20s and early 30s, people that make pretty good money but feel like they are young and healthy and dont need to spend $150+/mo for health insurance. They can pay cash when they really need to see the doc.
 
Bob Smith said:
And also, every person in this country does have emergency medical care. Can they go see a doc if they get a cold, not unless they want to pay cash for it. But people shouldnt be seeing a doc for a cold anyway, theres nothing he can do about it! If they fall and break an arm, go to the ER and they have to help you, its required by law and medical ethics.

.

Excellent point Bob. My dad injured his foot very badly back in May and he went to the hospital today to talk to a plastic surgeon about having a vascular flap put on so that they can graft skin on to it.

I was standing there waiting for him to come out and I was reading a sign on the wall that basically said "if you do not have health insurance and live at or below the federal poverty line, you can receive basic life-sustaining health care at this hospital free of charge."
 
Kayz said:
There are some illnesses and diseases that are unavoidable in that they are either genetic in nature or are a result of a bad accident. Those individuals IMO deserve the best medical care possible, even if they need some sort of assistance. However, there are many illnesses like cirrhosis and AIDS that have little to NO genetic pre-disposition and do not result from an accident. They are diseases of choice and should be treated as such.

Just a couple of questions to stir things up:

What should people who got screwed by genetics be given any special preference over people who got screwed by environment?

Also, you do realize that the overwhelming majority of "diseases" and medical problems result from "lifestyle" behaviors (usually dietary/exercise choices). These are essentially diseases of choice. Why should treatment for these have higher priority over other "diseases of choice"?
 
Kayz said:
And to be honest with you, I've never been a big fan of the word "addiction"...I think in many instances (not all, but many) it is nothing more than a cop-out to justify ones actions and behaviour. Maybe because it's that I've never been "addicted" to anything in my life, so I can't fully understand what happens. But at the same time, I have a hard time understanding how an individual...a grown man...can allow an external substance run/ruin his life and everything he loves. I just can't fathom how someone can get to that level where they can't say "no...I'm not doing this anymore."

Addiction, and psychopathology for that matter, are interesting concepts. For one they are highly relative. Most disorders do not meet clinical criteria if there is no dysfunction.
 
administrator said:
Just a couple of questions to stir things up:

What should people who got screwed by genetics be given any special preference over people who got screwed by environment?

Also, you do realize that the overwhelming majority of "diseases" and medical problems result from "lifestyle" behaviors (usually dietary/exercise choices). These are essentially diseases of choice. Why should treatment for these have higher priority over other "diseases of choice"?

You make a good point, and we could talk about all of the illnesses/diseases for weeks and still not scratch the surface.

As far as genetics go, a new born baby really has zero control over a genetic condition. Some birth defects are a result of a random genetic mutation and some are a direct result of the irresponsible actions by the parent. For example, Downs syndrome results when a trisomy of chromosome 21 occurs. This is a totally random event, and the child should not be held responsible for this.

Likewise, if a child is born with a crack "addiction", then he/she should be treated immediately to clean out his/her system so that the problem does not continue or lead to further problems.

Diabetes and obesity may be caused by life controlling factors, but there is also strong evidence that genetics plays a role in these ailments. And we all know that obesity leads to a multitude of other problems. IMO, those individuals who eat themselves into oblivion and suffer from high BP, arthritis, diabetes, etc. should not receive 100% of their treatment for free.

The difficult part in all this is that the patients history must be documented throughout his/her life so that all the pertinent factors can be considered.
 
administrator said:
Just a couple of questions to stir things up:

What should people who got screwed by genetics be given any special preference over people who got screwed by environment?

Also, you do realize that the overwhelming majority of "diseases" and medical problems result from "lifestyle" behaviors (usually dietary/exercise choices). These are essentially diseases of choice. Why should treatment for these have higher priority over other "diseases of choice"?

I was talking to someone about this earlier today, yesterday, whatever.

The American Lung Assoc. was having a hell of a time getting funded because the average persons perception of lung disease is that it comes from lifestyle choices like smoking, etc. So they started an advertising campaign highlighting genetically originated lung disease, like asthma, etc.

If limited treatment is available. It is proper, IMO, to treat those with ailments of a genetic origin, all other things being equal. Like in the case of Liver transplants, for example.
 
Attacking the Heart of Medicine
Sunday, November 24, 1996
By: Richard M. Salsman

Rational, independent doctors are vanishing, as socialism threatens to destroy American medicine.

One vital fact was omitted in the news accounts about the success of Boris Yeltsin's recent heart surgery: the failure of socialized medicine. And this fact underscores the question of whether America's health-care policies are courting a similar failure.

Competent physicians with specialized technical skills are scarce in Russia. Yeltsin, because of his privileged position, had access to qualified cardiologists--an access unavailable to most Russians. And even Yeltsin's doctors had to rely heavily on the training and advice of American heart specialists. For example, Dr. Renet Akchurin, the head surgeon on the Yeltsin operation, was trained by an American pioneer in the field, Michael DeBakey. While DeBakey did not apply the scalpel to Yeltsin, he was called on to make the crucial decisions not only about the diagnosis but about the timing and the method of Yeltsin's surgery.

But the rest of the country has virtually no modern health care. Bypass operations, now routine in the U.S. (300,000 per year), remain rare in Russia (3,000 per year). Most are done by American-trained doctors at special facilities reserved for political leaders. Heart surgery is "free" for Russian citizens, but 98 percent of those needing bypass operations die without getting them. Patients suffer and die on interminable waiting lists. Some choose not to even seek needed care. Dr. Yevgeny Rogozin, of Moscow's Cardiology Center, reveals that "Many people in this country are afraid to let someone take a knife to their heart." What they fear are the scalpels wielded by socialists.

Why is this so? Because decades of socialism have replaced conscientious medical professionals with low-skilled, mindless bureaucrats. Scrupulous rationality and independent thinking are the key traits of a good doctor. But these are the very traits penalized, and then destroyed, by socialism. Under socialism, doctors have no freedom to choose the terms under which they work: not whom they treat, nor how, nor at what price. They must surrender their private concerns and serve the "public interest." There is no profit in being a good Russian doctor--so good doctors disappear. Patients are thus left in the incompetent hands of those who are skilled--not in advanced medical procedures--but in obedience to government directives.

In medicine, as in other fields, the socialists must turn to the capitalists for help. American medicine has been the envy of the world, because at its heart stands the independent doctor, left free to think and act by the standard of his own rational self-interest. His judgment is not subordinated to the dictates of government bureaucrats.

But freedom is now under attack. Capitalist doctors are being replaced by medical bureaucrats--and medical care in America is slowly vanishing. When Medicare and Medicaid subsidies were initiated in the 1960s, it was claimed that doctors would retain their freedom. But when government foots the bill, it first inflates costs, then realizes it must control the spending of the "public's" money. In order to cap skyrocketing costs, the government now herds doctors and patients into HMOs, where care is rationed. Doctors are under "gag orders" not to alert patients to alternative, life-saving--but costly--procedures.

HMOs are increasingly staffed by generalists, medical specialization is declining--a big step down the socialist road to medical incompetence and barbarism. Tragically, the results of this socialization of medicine--rationing and deteriorating care--are now blamed on private doctors and the profit motive.

Even as it deteriorates, American medical care is being made compulsory. The Kennedy-Kassenbaum bill, for instance, imposes fines and prison terms on doctors who fail to comply with regulations governing subsidized tests and treatments. Many conscientious doctors are quitting. The capitalist doctor--independent, expert, caring--is an endangered species.

Dr. Thomas Hendricks, the brain surgeon in Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, who flees from socialist medicine, explains his choice as follows: "I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind--yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it--and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."

Americans will see more and more of this sort of doctor--unless we categorically reject government involvement in medicine.
 
Grizzly

I love you man!! Or at least you last post!!! Plus I'm not into man love I like the ladies!!! I think all those who whine and complain about the USA and capitalism should be forced to spend a year in some of these wonderful places like the former soviet union. After going one week with out their starbuck latte they would change their minds real quick.
 
Back
Top