Health Care - the issue that got away

[alw 0]

Definition: Socialized medicine - keeping "productive" members of society alive.

Along with delaying or denying things like breast cancer screening, here's a novel idea. Just don't let them come into the country.

http://us.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/31/australia.residency.denied.ap/index.html

---------------------------------------------
Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure.

[tkhayes 140]

sounds like an immigration issue, not a 'socailized medicine issue'

Lots of countries have similar requirements for residency, INCLUDING the USA

sad, but the way that it is. I am sure if the family returned to Germany, their home country, they would have no issues getting the social assistance needed to help raise someone with Down's syndrome.

And I am sure they doctor could find a good job in Germany as well - he is a doctor afterall. I do not see very many unemployed doctors out there.

[kallend 1,651]

Throwing stones from a glass house is generally considered a bad idea.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

The point of this is that people are considered for the burden they cause on society. Yes, this kid with Down's Syndrome is a burden.

Last year, I posted "In a sense, a inexpensive health care system would e a cold, hearltess system for anyone who is not providing any further societal benefit.

But if society is going to be covering it, society ifs going to get the benefit. " (I had the worst typo day in history that day).

This is an example of how social medicine works. Society makes choices about what it will pay for. A kid with Down's? We ain't gonna cover that unless he was born here. And since we are socialized, there's no other way to alleviate that burden on society.

It is, indeed, cold, cruel and heartless. Dad is the only internal medicine physician around his area.

Proof - the status and benefit that a person may bring is not reason for keeping him. Socialized countries are interested not in the benefits, but the burdens that a person may bring. This doctor can benefit the residents. Not the government. His family is a burden. We don't need that.

This brings up the issue of immigration in the US, as well. The most common complaint is the drain on resources - particularly by illegal immigrants.

The problem is not immigrants in the US. The problem is socialism. Take away the gravy train and there is no burden or drain on resources. In Australia, this immigrant's family will drain resources so his permanency is denied.

Nice system, eh? And here we have libertarians proposing a system where people are judged by the benefits they provide and good they can do. We are considered cold and heartless because we don't support systems where governments consider people on the basis of their burdens to society.

To the nationalists - perhaps if immigration is your issue, you should support socialized healthcare. It'll be a way to keep them all out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tkhayes 140]

Let me fix some of that for you:

The point of this is that people are considered for the burden they cause on insurance companies (society). Yes, this kid with Down's Syndrome is a burden.

Last year, I posted "In a sense, a inexpensive health care system would e a cold, heartless system for anyone who is not providing any further societal benefit.

But if society is going to be covering it, society ifs going to get the benefit. " (I had the worst typo day in history that day).

This is an example of how private (social) medicine works. Insurance Companies (Society) make choices about what it will pay for. A kid with Down's? We ain't gonna cover that unless he was born here. And since we are socialized, there's no other way to alleviate that burden on society.
etc etc


I am not sure where you are getting your information from. Canada (for example) does not discriminate within it HEALTH CARE system whether or not you have Down's or anything else. But yes it does when you want to immigrate.

The PRIVATE health care system here in the USA most DEFINITELY discriminates on who gets what, not based on your burden to society, but based on your burden to THEM. I am going through that right now, trying to find a policy when I broke my neck 8 years ago, even though I have made a 100% recovery - they still want to (and often do) deny ANYTHING to do with my spine.

The gravy train that you talk about exists in either system. Socialized or not, if someone shows up in the ER with whatever life/death emergency - they are going to get at least some treatment, whether or not society, the insurance companies or no one is paying for it.

That issue has nothing to do with immigration or the number of people that are immigrating. The USA is not the only country with an immigration problem. Canada, Europe, socialized and non-socialized countries that have a higher standard of living that the country-of-origin of the immigrants will see an influx of immigrants into those countries. Just because the standard of living is higher, not because the health care system is better.

That is merely one of dozens of factors.

So yes, if I run a country and I have to pick and choose my immigrants, I am going to most likely choose the ones that are doctors and scientists, the healthy and the wealthy, over the poor sick, uneducated and such.

But there will still be poor, sick, uneducated people that are allowed in. Just not all of them. And countries allow int eh wealthy, educated and healthy - but just not all of them.

Again, it is an immigration issue - NOT a healthcare issue. Nothing of the sort.

TK

[lawrocket 3]

I understand your point. But the policies themselves are interrelated. They have no problem covering the doctor, his wife and other kid but they'll refuse to cover the down's kid. Sound familiar?

The same considerations that affect private industry affect the government because the government is in the business of making money. What other company can run deficits of more money than the top Fortune 500 company is worth?

Exxon/Mobil posted a record profit of $14.83 billion this last quarter. A big number. A HUGE number.

Then stop and think that the US government is estimated to bring in $2.6 TRILLION in 2008. That means that federal government rakes in Exxon/Mobil's record profits in, oh, about two days.

In 2007, Exxon's revenue was $404.5 billion.

Now, Exxon managed to pull a profit. Imagine how much you have to do to have $2.6 trillion not be enough. The US Government has done it.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment eat up $1.5 trillion dollars of it. Add another $260 billion for INTEREST on national debt, and the picture looks more incredible.

So the Government has already whittled down $2.6 trillion to a mere $800 billion left to spend. But why limit yourself to $800 billion when you've got $1.1 trillion you want to spend? You spend $1.1 trillion.

It's only $300 billion you're borrowing. And this is only what Bush proposed.

And the attack on earmarks. Yeah, it's "only" 18 billion, right? $18 BILLION, folks. To me, that's a lot of money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.