Health Care Debate

[_The Nehor]

You mean things like roads, the military, police, the court system, etc.????

Apples and oranges.

Tax money is tax money.

So in other words we will let people die if they don't get the right coverage?

No. People might die only if they risk it. Their own choice.

You expect the free market to provide reasonable and affordable health coverage for the chronically ill? There's no profit there.

Also, how about high-risk patients?

You mean those who smoke, drink heavily, gorge at McDonalds and/or engage in risky sexual behavior? Why should I be forced to pay for them? Such is even contrary to the gospel plan which makes it even more suprising that you would support it.

Contrary to the Gospel?

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just--

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

-King Benjamin's address (emphasis mine)

Are we going to let insurance companies set their own prices based on the patient and make medical coverage impossible to acquire for those whose costs are prohibitive?

Yes. The market will insure those will be very few; much less in fact than say, those on a single payor/buyer governement plan. remember the concept of insurance (the real one, not the one we have today), people will band together to share costs. I happen to belong to one of those already. Much cheaper than insurance and I have two kids with asthma.

Yes, but an unregulated insurance situation this WILL not work. A basic health screening would disqualify all of those whose risks are high or at least make the costs prohibitive. Suppose you are born with a congenital defect or suddenly acquire a serious illness before you're old enough to get your own insurance. No profit-seeking insurance company will help you.

This won't work. It means that those who can't pay the right price die.

It's always worked. Perhaps your public schooling was much worse than mine was (when public schools were great) and you've been raised on left wing propganda.

If you consider Scrooge's admonition to get rid of the surplus population 'working' then I concede the point.

If I were Darwinian this would be great. I'm not and neither is the Gospel I follow.

State welfare is contrary to the gospel in every way.

I disagree.

17 Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore king Limhi commanded that every man should impart to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this they did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain.

Mosiah 21:17

Here we have a righteous king issuing a directive with full government authority commanding that the welfare of others be seen to.

[_richardMdBorn]

Here's a good video showing BHO's dishonesty about Health Care.

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/ ... house.html

[_Paul Osborne]

Crashing in!

What we really need is the Muslims to tell us how to run our healthcare system. Islam has all the answers!



Paul O

[_The Nehor]

Crashing in!

What we really need is the Muslims to tell us how to run our healthcare system. Islam has all the answers!



Paul O

The first step is to get rid of usury.

[_Brackite]

http://www.60plus.org


http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/Index.html

[_Always Thinking]

So in other words we will let people die if they don't get the right coverage?

No. People might die only if they risk it. Their own choice.

What if the only reason they "risk it" is because they simply can't afford it. It is either feed the family or get extra insurance to cover the possibility of cancer in the future. Of course, they are going to feed the family, and hope they don't get cancer. But, hey, it is just a personal choice. No biggie.

You make it sound like picking insurance it is no different than picking out the new paint color for your kitchen wall. Do I pick blue or yellow? Hell, I'm gonna risk it all, and go with yellow!

Also, how about high-risk patients?

You mean those who smoke, drink heavily, gorge at McDonalds and/or engage in risky sexual behavior? Why should I be forced to pay for them? Such is even contrary to the gospel plan which makes it even more suprising that you would support it.

I'm going to have to side with Nehor on this one. He hit the nail on the head.

There are plenty of people out there who have very healthy lifestyles and suffer from conditions that need expensive and continual treatment. In your pure capitalist world, these people would be excluded from private insurance. From a profitability perspective, it makes absolutely no sense to insure them. They would have to pay 100% out of pocket for their medical needs, and it would be expensive, to say the least. Or, if there was, by some chance, an insurance option available for them, it would be exorbitantly expensive.

In their case, the only other choice they would have available to them would be to make sure they eventually make enough money that they can afford to pay every penny of their own health care as an adult. Of course, that is if they are still alive as an adult, considering the fact that their parents would also have to be wealthy enough to afford the medical cost of keeping them alive to adulthood.

My son is one of these unlucky people. He is very healthy. He eats a lot of fruits and vegetables. Hates fast food, etc. He is only 13, and so it goes without saying that he does not smoke, drink, or have risky sex. Even if he did, his condition is not caused by any of those behaviors, but that is beside the point. One day, his pancreas stopped making insulin. We don't know why, since there is no genetic tendency toward it in either side of my or my husband's family. Without insulin, your body cannot flush out the excess sugar in your blood, and eventually your blood becomes toxic and you die. He requires insulin from an outside source, since he can't get it from his pancreas. He can eat healthy foods, exercise like crazy, etc, but without insulin, he will not survive longer than a few days (if that long). No amount of healthy behavior will change that fact.

Type 1 diabetes is only one example of an expensive lifelong disease that is not caused by risky/lazy/whatevah behavior. There are plenty of other examples out there.

So are we just going to let people like this die? Bad luck for them, huh?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Well, your son obviously wasn't valiant enough in the premortal existence. His diabetes doesn't have anything to do with that genetics crap that liberal scientists made up so they could lie about how the Lamanites really got here. Trust me on this: we shouldn't interfere with the markets, because unhealthy people, like your son, are just getting what's been coming to them for a long, long time.

[_bcspace]

Canadian Healthcare System Imploding says president of the Canadian Medical Association....Privatization is the answer

[url]SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.[/url]

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

Ouellet is wrong. Private delivery is the only way to do it without throwing ever more money at it (and when that's done it can never be done right).

[_bcspace]

Type 1 diabetes is only one example of an expensive lifelong disease that is not caused by risky/lazy/whatevah behavior. There are plenty of other examples out there.

So are we just going to let people like this die? Bad luck for them, huh?

No need. When the market is truly private and those who incur the expensive lifestyle claims which comprise the lion's share of medical expenses begin to bear their fair share of the cost because of that market, then the rate in your case wil be much lower. It was like that in the past (or much closer to it) until the lefties tried to "fix" everything.

[_The Nehor]

Type 1 diabetes is only one example of an expensive lifelong disease that is not caused by risky/lazy/whatevah behavior. There are plenty of other examples out there.

No need. When the market is truly private and those who incur the expensive lifestyle claims which comprise the lion's share of medical expenses begin to bear their fair share of the cost because of that market, then the rate in your case wil be much lower. It was like that in the past (or much closer to it) until the lefties tried to "fix" everything.

This assumes that the price of the care is affordable in any market. I mentioned before a guy I know who needs about $100k a year for medical treatment. Let's assume that the expenses incurred by the medical profession in terms of tests, equipment, and hiring competent doctors is $50k a year. Now let's assume my friend makes $45k a year. If he gave his entire income to the medical community and lived in a box and ate at soup kitchens it would still be UNPROFITABLE to treat him. In a free market, he would die. The market can't adjust enough.