Medicine is for the ill not for the healthy and treatment should be done only upon the patient’s given agreement. Social healthcare should be available to all if it exists. But it cannot be enforced on the patient ever. Since any provider to healthcare is a potential patient than taxes cannot be inforced on people to participate in social healthcare. If they want private healthcare alone they should be allowed to do so.
What do we do with people who don’t make enough to afford healthcare then?
Charity hospitals. Most hospitals were started by religious institutions that provided charity care.
Most chronic conditions are not treated at hospitals, unless the condition is unmanaged. Frequently the biggest expense is medication.
Right, you’d have charity care outside the hospital as well.
From what I’ve seen, people are not willing to contribute nearly enough to cover the needs out there. Charity care can’t keep up and funds are reserved for emergencies. And the charities can’t negotiate drug prices so they have to pay much more for medicine than big companies do.
The part you isolated is part of a larger discussion with another poster. To be fair to me, I was talking about insurance companies being required to cover people with pre-existing conditions. That is a critique of private insurance.
My comments about Canada and the U.K. had to do my friends’ experience. It’s anecdotal. I was indicating that socialized medicine isn’t an ideal situation for them.
I was comparing my experience to theirs. That’s all.
I think the idea of vouchers for the poor make a lot of sense.
Rats. Ours covers both. Lugging a nebulizer around is not really an option.
No, the government should not take care of people with “pre-existing conditions”
The citizenry (through private charity) should take care of people with “pre-existing conditions”
The reason is that private charity can always do more than the government can do, since it more efficient and less wasteful. And also because private charity is based on voluntary contributions (consistent with Jesus’ teaching of voluntary choosing to do good) as oppose to involuntary contributions (not consistent with Jesus’ teaching, which never said one should be forced to do good)
Yes many were and my mother worked in one as I pointed out for many years. She would also point were she still here that health care for the poor in the area was virtually non-existent and that the religious sisters and medical personnel in the hospice were overwhelmed from day one prior to the NHS and even after its creation they still remained so as you had a backlog of people in chronic need. Infant mortality in London in some areas was appalling, as it was in some other British cities until the institution of at least some level of basic care. This area still had TB sufferers popping their clogs well into living memory and rickets and malnutrition and sight defects that could easily be cured for a small price were endemic.
What happens to people when voluntary contributions aren’t enough? Around here there are thousands of dollars more of need than people will give voluntarily, and this is a very well off area.
I’d be more concerned with avoiding big gaps. The trouble is many conditions can run hundreds of dollars a month. So people who might otherwise have plenty of money still can’t afford care.
Circular logic since people will give less voluntarily when the government is in charge of healthcare/welfare/etc since government takes more of peoples money to pay for the programs and hence they have less to voluntarily contribute.
Plus, government automatically covering people w/ pre-existing conditions itself creates more people w/ pre-existing conditions, since many who can afford insurance logically conclude “if I can’t be turned away for pre-existing conditions, I might as well not get insurance until I get sick”
Plenty of people here have money, it’s not like everyone’s poor just because they pay taxes.
Also, you can’t just buy insurance whenever, you still have to get it within predefined periods.
Money isn’t a binary quantity. Its not whether one has it or not that dictates whether they donate to charity. Its how much one has that affects if and how much they can donate to private charity. And how much taxes they pay affects how much they have.
Ok so government doesn’t cover pre-existing conditions, so this talking point needs to go away.
The point is, people who get more money back don’t typically turn and spend it all on charity. Many won’t give at all; most who do give will give only a small portion. Many also prefer to give to flashy problems that they can feel are solved. Donors tend to find conditions that don’t really go away more frustrating because their donation doesn’t actually fix anything.
And the point with preexisting conditions is that you can still get insurance under the same rules as everyone else - which isn’t “you can buy this whenever.”
I have not observed that there are sufficient beds in charity hospitals to provide for the health care needs of all of those who cannot afford health insurance, or afford to pay cash (as is often suggested as an alternative to insurance here at CAF).
And yet the citizenry isn’t doing it. And has never done it.