Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Agreed, in so far as it applies to those who have access to it; those who don't have access to a private system, would undoubtedly think a socialized one available to them would provide better care than no care at all.

This is where I think some serious reforms in respect to the current healthcare climate here in the US can address this without adding yet another level of socialization. COBRA benefits (which come into effect after one has been laid off of work) need to be revised to be more affordable; in their current form they are outrageously priced. I seem to recall that health coverage wasn't a rampant issue before costs started to spiral upwards, even among low-income families. Let's find a way to get back to this environment.

Long story short, I don't want to force socialized healthcare on everyone, as I'm quite sure a privatized practice would continue to exist and a LARGE percentage of people would opt out of socialized coverage, due to the quality differences. Given my experiences, I sure would.

Do we as a nation try to continually provide for the needs of the minority at the ongoing cost of the majority, or try to facilitate an environment that pushes all to reach towards the majority?

If we can address the issues at hand that we know to have played a hand in spiking healthcare costs here in the US, this in turn can make healthcare more affordable across the board.

Everyone wants the best care available and the US has it for the most part; the fact is they don't want to pay for it. Don't take this as a belittlement to the astronomical rises that the US has recently seen; I'm in agreement that there are problems that NEED to be addressed in it's cost structure.

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Agreed that these factors have a huge impact on the overall health of a nation; but not all metrics, especially those regarding infants and children - infant mortality for example.

I'm at a loss on the infant mortality piece; the US population continues to rise at an aggressive rate past most countries that have socialized healthcare (especially in Europe), so the correlation is somewhat lost on me.


Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
There are those who would argue that publicy funded healthcare systems, being national in scope and being relieved of the requirement to generate profit for shareholders, have much greater latitude to focus on lifestyle and prevention and to direct resources in those areas.

I take issue with this line of thinking, since US lifestyles and diet are vastly different than most anywhere else on the planet. Pushing state-sponsored programs isn't going to change the fast food industry, nor will it change the TV dinner/frozen food culture that seems to have exploded and so many of our citizens partake in.

Many Europeans and Central Americans are eternally thinner than their US counterparts; this has nothing to do with their healthcare system. This is largely due in part to their diet, in addition to the fact that most maintain a level of physical movement that is alien to our population. Living and working in Spain and Mexico, in addition to going to school in France had me walking just about EVERYWHERE. I used to put miles on my shoes every day. Here in the US? If I didn't hit the gym 4-5 times a week, I'd be in serious trouble as my activity level outside of it is close to nill, except on the weekends.

The caloric intake and lack of excercise among all levels of our population is KILLING us. I see this as more of an education issue than a ongoing health issue that needs to be addressed by socializing healthcare and throwing dollars at something that doesn't address the main catalyst behind what is perhaps our largest health issue.

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Given your situation, what advice would you give to a working family that, through no fault of their own, loses their insurance coverage and is forced into bankruptcy in order to try and save a loved-ones life?



Before I answer this, are situations like this the rule of by FAR and away the exception to the rule? What percentage of the US population is going into bankruptcy to responsibly care for their loved ones? Is there an element of the US population that is taking a few isolated yet terribly heartbreaking and disturbing situations and trying to make political hay off of it?

Furthermore, how are we to be sure that socialized medicine would provide the level of care to address the needs of the patient in question? I hear mention of age cutoffs on procedures. I doubt the latest, best and most expensive procedures would be available under a socialized structure, as what incentives exist for R&D in this type of environment?

Now, what would I say to that family? It depends on the situation. I know my wife and I have it in writing to "pull the plug" if either of us gets so bad as to create a situation where it would financially drain either one of us and an acceptable quality of life wouldn't ensue. Other people seem to be happy knowing they are caring for a human vegatable and gladly do so even though it ruins their existance for themselves and the rest of their family. I'm one that places more concern on "quality of life" instead of "quantity of life". I simply don't know what I would say because there exist FAR too many stipulations that can be found within your example.

Last edited by JaTo; 10/21/04 04:29 PM.
JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe