Healthcare: An Entitlement or a Privilege? - Discuss

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

If we had proper competition in the health insurance sector then most people in the country would be able to afford health insurance anyway.

Need to be very careful to avoid a cartel or a govt-insurance company pact, which is more or less what opperates in Germany.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Look, it you are brought by ambulance tomorrow to a hospital to have emergency life saving surgery, the hospital isn't going to reject you at the door because you don't have the sufficient funds. You'll probably pay after the operation.

Depends on how much it costs. However, the conservaties amongst you would peobably say he probably did something to deserve the accident and so should not be helped.

Amhran Nua

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

why make it the force burdens on other people just because of your own emotions? That's wrong. If you wanted to help them, donate voluntarily to a charity to help them out... It also makes people too reliant on the welfare state.

Sigh. I didn't realise this was a tired old libertarian drum banging thread. You're in favour of abolishing social welfare too, right?

drkpower

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Look, it you are brought by ambulance tomorrow to a hospital to have emergency life saving surgery, the hospital isn't going to reject you at the door because you don't have the sufficient funds. You'll probably pay after the operation.

You wont. In this country, emergency treatment is free (subject to paying a nominal per night fee).

gcgirl

caroline1111 wrote: »

If its free for anyone it should be free for ALL, not the current ridiculous situation where someone on the dole gets as many GP visits and free medication as they want whereas eg their next-door neighbour works hard and has to skimp about to fork up the money to pay for their own care and even puts it off. Its kinda sick when you think about it, working taxpayers are funding healthcare for people on the dole but then mightn't be able to afford to pay for themselves. Needs to be sorted out.

But when it comes to operations and consultants if your public be prepared to wait over a yr,

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

This is exactly what is going to happen why FG/Lab's plan for healthcare. If the government had absolutely no intervention in the healthcare sector you wouldn't have the problems it has.



The individual can pay back for the operation in installments.

1 - That's what they said about the banks and FF
2 - Here, I disagree. If it's life threatening, money should not be an issue.

Amhran Nua

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yeeeep!!

The only function of government should be to provide internal security (policing), external security (military) and to help solve internal disputes and throwing the book at criminals (judiciary).

So lets be completely clear on this, you want to abolish social welfare, state pensions, all that sort of thing completely?

flutterflye

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

If we had proper competition in the health insurance sector then most people in the country would be able to afford health insurance anyway.

No. Just no!

I see what you mean.
You seem to think that gp rates would all lower their prices to something somewhat reasonable so people could then afford it.

(I want to make the noise here. The 'X' noise from 'Family Fortunes', but I don't know how to spell it phonetically!)

Okay, let's go with your point for a second.

Let's say a trip to gp is €20.
Great.
So I get an infection, off I go.
But my husband and 4 children get sick too.
Okay, so that's €100 more needed.
Oh wait, we also need to each go to the pharmacy and get antibiotics - more money.
2 of the children have gotten worse - €40 more for gp.
Back to the pharmacy for more medicine.
Myself and husband now need inhalers - €40 for gp + €200 in pharmacy
Neither myself of husband have been in work in 2 weeks and don't have a health plan.
Sleepless nights and run down immune systems cause me to get depression.
€100 per month for the next 6 months for the anti deps the doctor prescribed, plus requisite monthly gp visits at €20 each time.
Oh no, my son fell out of a tree in his friends house - hospital visits, leg operation+cast, crutches, pain killers, anti inflammatories, dental appointments.
Whooops! Condom split - up the duff again - gp appointments, hospital visits, midwife visits, scans, tests etc.. for the next 9 months.

You get the gist I'm sure.

Now, our disposable weekly income is €250 due to the loss of my high earning job 2 months ago and now I only have a part-time job as a waitress in a small cafe.

2 kids in childcare and 2 in school, mortgage, bills, food and so on.

We can't cut down any more than we have done, and we are already scraping the bottom of the piggy bank.

How do we afford healthcare and all it entails on that?

Not to mention a serious, fatal accident or illness?

(The above scenario is all hypothetical and not based on me or anyone I know)

Amhran Nua

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What about "Yeeep" don't you understand?

I don't speak budgie.

<Bishop Len voice>I leave it as an exercise for the readers to contemplate the state of the Dickensian shitemare that these people would drop us in given half a chance.</Bishop Len voice>

I wouldn't mind but libertarians do have a couple of good ideas. If you'd focus on those rather than trying to bumrush the country into the 19th century with completely demolished arguments you might get somewhere.

robinph

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yeeeep!!

The only function of government should be to provide internal security (policing), external security (military) and to help solve internal disputes and throwing the book at criminals (judiciary).

What about education, infrastructure...

JohnMarston

21 people voted privilege

The mind boggles

Sanjuro

I think this whole idea comes down to your view on altruism. For me, I think healthcare should be an entitlement. I believe in universal healthcare and have no problem with the concept of contributing to a healthcare fund that benefits everybody.

Unfortunately we're stuck with a system that is purely profit driven. Those who can afford the best healthcare get the best healthcare, and to hell with everyone else. It seems that the notion of equality, and the basic human right to health and happiness are being eroded. We elect governments to benefit the people. They should strive to provide the best healthcare for everyone, no matter what status they are in and what the can afford.

robinph

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

All private.

So you'll have to pay a toll operator to drive your car in and out of your estate?

IngazZagni

robinph wrote: »

So you'll have to pay a toll operator to drive your car in and out of your estate?

There are many privately built estates across the Country where the council are not responsible for. The roads in these estates were built privately in conjunction with the housing. I do agree with general road infrastructure though, I'm not agreeing with him.

Amhran Nua

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

It's very unlike that this will happen though. Roads will be commissioned by corporations, industrialists or conglomerates/ cooperatives of other private enterprises to sure a purpose.

Awe inspiring. So the only people you see having the ability to shape infrastructure are ones that nobody voted for, whose only imperative is their own profit? What a utopia!

You'd swear some of these people were being paid to post this stuff, as indefatiguably impervious to logic and rational arguments as they are.

flutterflye

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

That would all be the consequences all the unrealistic scenario you mention above.

Yeah, I though it was alright.

If you want personal experience;

I have a husband and 2 children.

For 4 weeks (ending 2 weeks ago);

Child 1 - Chest infection, followed by ear infection, followed by chest infection again (3 gp visits)

Child 2 - Asthma, allergies, athletes foot (2 gp visits)

Husband - Chest infection and gastritis (2 gp visits)

Me - (I'm not going to go into the details as personal)
But; Problem A - Quite bad (3 gp visits alone for this)
Problem B - Very bad (1 gp visit and 2 Gynae visits)
Problem C - Very bad (2 gp visits (1 same as visit for problem A) and 1 wellwoman visit)
Chest infection, and gastritis (1 gp visit but combined it with
another visit)

None of that including medicine costs.

The thing about illness is that when you are run down, you are more susceptible to further illness.
Another thing about many illness's is that when one person gets it, everyone in the house gets it.

Edited to add: And another thing about illness - stats show time and time again that lower income families have more health issues

flutterflye

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

All this and no health insurance ...
If you can't afford because of the present system then I wouldn't blame you but introduces universal healthcare to help fuel this system doesn't solve the overall inherent problems in the health sector.

The problems with the health system are that the health system is a pile of shyte, and this most certainly will not be solved by causing wide spread illness, disease, and a high mortality rate - which is a consequence of what you suggest.

Sanjuro

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

You mightn't have a problem with forcing people to buy other people's healthcare but some of the people you're forcing mightn't want to pay it, what then? It's wrong to force your emotions on people.

I don't see how a healthcare fund and the idea of me having no problem contributing to it is forcing my emotions on people. Where did you get that from?

All I'm saying is, care of people should always come before profit. I don't have any solution as to how this should be balanced. I'm no economic expert by any stretch of the imagination. But I believe in equality before money.

flutterflye

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

How exactly will my suggestions cause any of the above things you mention. The states control of the health sector has caused all the problems you see nowadays. If everything was privatised you would see more quality healthcare.

That low income earners could not afford, therefore would consequentially become ill, and possibly die.

Amhran Nua

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Democracy has it's place in protecting a free society. Democratising the economy just confuses things.

Democracy is the foundation for a free society. Democratising the economy doesn't even make sense, its like saying apple-ising an orange.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Although I don't see why such a system would be bad, it will be a free society without much government control. If people have problems with certain infrastructure being built then they can voice their concerns in court.

Sorry, that's not how you plan infrastructure.

What might be of benefit to one area might not be of benefit to a larger area, and so might not get paid for in your libertarian utopia, despite that enhancing the infrastructure of areas unable to afford it will cause their growth and ultimately benefit the entire country. Without this longer term view, which for-profit groups are notably unable to take, all you get is stagnation and centralisation.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The the profit from the parties I mention above will contribute to employees wages and creating more jobs - it's called trickle down economics.

Trickle down economics has been proven to be a pile of manure since Reagan first came up with it to justify giving tax breaks to his republican party buddies. Which is why the teabaggers, Randians and hence the libertarians have been pushing it as hard as they can ever since, to keep the contributions flowing in. And you, my friend, are one of the sock puppets.

Every single argument you make and are going to make has been repeatedly demolished in this and other forums. Just bringing them up again isn't going to make them any more right.

flutterflye

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I explain this in the edit to that post. See above.

Oh yes, what a great explanation that was.
You have it sorted so! (NOT!)

coffee_cake

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Competition between other private health providers will drive down prices. Plus, your health insurance will cover it.
.

If there is no public care at all they have no reason to drive down prices because they know people will have to pay it

Haelium

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Competition between other private health providers will drive down prices.

As seen in the US healthcare system... oh wait.
Or in Irish super-markets... oh wait.

But let's say we had completely privatised healthcare, according to the laws of supply and demand, the price of healthcare would always go up when it was most needed. Doesn't that sound absolutely great?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yeeeep!!

The only function of government should be to provide internal security (policing), external security (military) and to help solve internal disputes and throwing the book at criminals (judiciary).

How about taking care of the weaker members? Both responsibilities, technically, of the police, military and judiciary. Why stop there?

Or, as I stated earlier in the thread, are you saying **** the weak as they have nothing to contribute, thus invoking Godwin`s Law as promised earlier in the thread?

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yes, if the government wasn't so involved with the banks then the country wouldn't have build up such a debt.

If you have a truly competitive health insurance sector then most people will be able to afford insurance coverage. The amount of people who can't afford this cheaper health insurance who suddenly develop a left threatening illness would be low. I sure that their are charitable organisation out there to help these people.

The problem there is the quality. What happens when your insurer tries to wriggle out of its responsibility by claiming act of God or some such crap? Competive just means the prioirty one is profit - even if it means cut corners or use loopholes. Priority two is people. Not something I want healthcare professionals indulging in.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

It's very unlikely that will be the case.

Imagine this;

Let's say I wanted to go from A to B. There are two roots from A to B. Both of these roots have a toll operator that are run by two different companies. One toll operator A charges €2.00 and toll operator B charges €1.00.

And you complain about my spelling???!

The rest of the argument is pointless, as this is not a matter of life and death which healthcare could well be.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Competition between other private health providers will drive down prices. Plus, your health insurance will cover it.

See point above. Like most right wing "solutions" it only suits the weathy and has not thought through the consequences.

Haelium

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Scenario A) One oil company who provides all the oil in the world.
Scenario Several oil companies who provide all the oil in the world.

Under what scenario would the consumer spend less on petrol?

You're changing the topic, we know that state run hospitals operate differently to private hospitals(In terms of administration obviously). But let's say that situation A is under a legal monopoly, we had this case with the ESB at one stage, and now that we have opened the market they are actually charging more(And yes, I know that this is artificial so that other companies can compete, but in the end the other companies are still charging more adjusting for the value of the Euro).

But it's a bad example, because eventually it won't matter because oil is a maximum capacity good.

Haelium

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yeeeep!!

The only function of government should be to provide internal security (policing), external security (military) and to help solve internal disputes and throwing the book at criminals (judiciary).

So you pretty much want a system where rich people can do what they want through capitalism and police protect them from everyone else rallying together to stop them by force.

RussellTuring

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The profit form the activities of the parties I mention above will contribute to employees wages and creating more jobs - it's called trickle down economics.

I actually laughed out loud at this part. Weren't you a hardcore social democrat a few weeks ago? You've had some change of heart.

Haelium

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Usually competition encourages the businesses to lower their prices and improve the quality of their products or services. I don't see why it should be any different with healthcare.

Because if there was a single epidemic prices would surge and people would die. And again, competition doesn't always work like that, only in perfect competition, but this situation would most likely be an oligopoly(Prices in oligopolies being uniquely difficult to predict).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

So you're trying to say libertarian philosophy could lead to Nazism or some other form of fascism.

Are you denying that **** the weak is not a form of Nazism?

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Usually competition encourages the businesses to lower their prices and improve the quality of their products or services. I don't see why it should be any different with healthcare.

I´ve already pointed out why that would be different. What you are incorrectly assuming as that the customer is priorty number one. You are already proposiong a society where the weak and vulnerable are left to fend for themselves, now all you´re doing is introducing vultures to the mix.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well at least it isn't as bad as some leftist short term, spur-of-the-moment, emotion driven nonsense.

What spur of the moment emotive driven nonsense propsals? Specifically? Making **** up and attributing it to the left dopes not really consitute an argument.

If you want an accurate portrayal of leftist policy, I suugest the Scandanavian system of one-tier but good quality healthcare funded by taxes? I´ll take that over the vultures thank you very much

RussellTuring

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I was actually. I was even a member of the labour party a few months ago and canvassed for them in GE'11. I've seen now how much I was brainwashed by their union driven nonsense.

While Labour aren't exactly what I'd called socialists, it's still some step to go from that to right wing minarchism, as you seemingly have. How can a corrupt Labour Party change your opinion on public services like healthcare, education and infrastructure so dramatically?

and I know what you're thinking

I'm not good at subtlety

Haelium

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

If there was an epidemic people would be covered by health insurance if they were smart enough. It's the same thing with home insurance in a natural disaster.

So people suddenly have no choice of whether or not to buy health insurance. Of course, you do realise that a ****ton of people can't get health insurance. People in the US can't get insurance due to a "Pre-existing condition" anything from diabetes to autism. The reason being that insurance companies have decided not to give insurance to people who are more likely to get sick(Which is kind of obvious).

As for this home insurance for a natural disaster, perfect example, in new-orleans many people were ****ed over by companies refusing to pay out because they weren't covered for flood damage, before you say "Well why should they" yeah, that's my point, many people won't be covered for gunshot wounds or the flu or whatever they get.