Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve M on January 23, 2011 at 7:37pm

Smoke if you want to. Drink if you want to. Ride a motorcycle with out a helmet if you want to. Just sign a waiver so that when you get cancer or need a new liver or spill your brains on the highway the rest of society doesn't have to come up with the money  to treat your lifestyle induced ailments.   I can't tell you how many times I've heard the saying "I'm here for a good time not a long time." Then that individual gets sick and wants all the highest tech shit there is to fix the problem. So take all the risks you want. Just don't leave me with the bill.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 23, 2011 at 7:51pm

Sounds like a strong argument against socialized medicine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on January 24, 2011 at 12:22am

Not sure if I'm understanding the point, but all of those people that can't pay for care get it at the end of life anyways. So you can have planned and structured socialized medicine or you can have haphazard socialized medicine. If you want more care than what the socialized medicine pays for, you can still get the extra care in the capitalist manner. Factually, those that don't pay for care now will be given the opportunity to pay for care and in some cases be obliged to pay so that we don't have to pay for them 100%. This eliminates some of Steve's concerns, not exacerbates it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cecilia on January 24, 2011 at 8:03am

Right and what we have now is haphazard socialized medicine.   For years we've all been paying for the smoker who gets ephysema and the guy riding the motorcycle without a helmet who gets in an accident  - we just don't realize it because we have very little information about how the whole health insurance thng works or how we pay for health care in this country.  We'd all be better off with, as you say, a planned and structured health care delivery system (with a side option of buying extra in a private transaction) which is the system that every single modern country has.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 24, 2011 at 8:37am

Actually in Canada the option of paying for extra care is a very sticky one.  You can get cosmetic surgery privately, or you can fly to the US and pay for private care for other matters, but doctors here can't legally offer private medical care to those who want to pay extra - it goes against the 'equal care for all' spirit of Canadian health care.  Crazy, but true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve M on January 24, 2011 at 6:01pm

Just to be clear I would like a medical system that runs like the Japanese model. They have private care but it is heavily regulated just like the utility companies are here.  The logic is you don't have a choice on the power company that brings you the power so there has to be a system to keep them from gouging you .  Unfortunately we have healthcare for profit and that stinks to high heaven. Do you really have that many choices when you are sick.  Can you just opt not to be sick.  Why should someone make a ton of money off of you when vulnerable. When did that become the moral thing to do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on January 25, 2011 at 12:55am

I was disappointed that the Bismarck System wasn't raised as a potential. It could have been shaped to solve many problems. Germany, France, and Japan are all using different versions of this model.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve M on January 25, 2011 at 6:03pm

Europe spends about 7 to 8% of GDP on health care and it is universal. We spend 15%  and even people with good insurance run into road blocks trying to get medical attention.  There are no doctor shortages in Japan and no waiting time to see a physician. The only drawback is doctors are salaries are pretty abysmal. But since we are already spending twice what everybody else is the money should be there to do this thing right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on January 25, 2011 at 9:27pm

95% of all medical needs were preventable in the first place. A single payer, no hassle system, is able to reduce the obsession with generating revenue by healing desperate people and refocus on prevention. Of course the Canadian system may not be perceived as terribly efficient in the area of prevention. Because so much of our policies are based on bogus pseudo-science studies like those demonstrating that cyclists' lives are saved by helmets... Yep, lots of bogus science around.

 

Nonetheless, the Canadian system, tho certainly not the top system in the world, on a basis of health/investment, but it certainly has nothing to envy of the USA medical system. The only factors relevant to the debate are total money spent in exchange for total health achieved. Everything else is moot.

 

We must also realise that there never would have been so many smokers in the first place had good medical systems been in place. We've known for generations that smoking regularly significantly shortens the life-span and increases medical costs. But the nicotine corporations controlled the minds of the weak and the minds of government and kept nicotine in everyone's face. OUR nicotine companies are still aiming all their advertising in the third world at hooking children.

 

So it's NOT always about individual decisions and responsibilities, the role of a responsible government and a responsible preventative healthcare system is not to prohibit an unhealthy practice, but to make it unappealing and to take power out of the hands pushing the harm onto the population in the first place.

 

On another thread regarding legalising of drugs there is much discussion about addiction. People with addictive personalities do not have control over their propensity to get hooked. As a society, we can either incur the additional cost to cure the harms done, or spend less money on pharmaceuticals and focus on prevention instead. Single-payer, hassle free medicine has this as a goal. General health and happiness.

 

We need to strip away all regulations favouring nicotine sales, regulate it as a drug, along with a decriminilisation of the presently illicit drugs and create a comprehensive harm mitigation policy for all addictive substances.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken on February 8, 2011 at 5:47pm

Im sorry. I didn't realize my medical bills were being sent to your house, and causing a detrimental effect on your salary... Cause I'm pretty sure no one has ever knocked on your door and said, "here, pay this asshole."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 23, 2011 at 7:59pm

I don't think fear should be used to make people think that lighting up once will undoubtedly give them cancer. However, I feel that education is important here. While there is no guarantee that cigarettes will give you cancer, I think that letting people know that they may increase your chances of getting cancer is important.

 

Personally I've never smoked (anything of any sort) once in my life. It wasn't from fear of cancer, or my parents, or anything like that. Just the simple fact that from a very young age I couldn't stand the smell of the smoke. It could give me a headache, feel sick, etc. (When it came time to buy my first car, I had to walk away from otherwise nice cars, because they smelled like a chimney). So smoking was the last thing on my 'to try' list. As time went on, I grew to consider it to be an expensive and dirty habit from viewing my relatives and others I knew that smoked. That said, I don't view the smokers themselves as 'dirty', but the habit is very unappetizing top me. I have since grew to tolerate the smoke much better, but would still never consider giving it a try.

 

I see it as very beneficial to quit or not smoke to begin with. I don't know that the fear card should be played as it is, but maximizing the public understanding of potential implications can't be a bad thing.

 

Cheers!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joli on January 23, 2011 at 11:42pm

I have not watched the video yet (need headphones) but in reading the comments, I get the jist of it. I am a smoker, I have been smoking since I was 14 and I'm now 26. It really does hurt your quality of life. the only times I have quit is when preggo. Then I started right back up after my babies were born (please note: I'm an outside smoker, I don't smoke in the caar either).  Every time I have kicked myself in the ass. I am gearing up to quit, this time for myself and my own health. reading this thread gives me even more motivation :) Thanks!! and wish me luck on my scary journey lol

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page