Originally posted by KidRock
Millions of people have health insurance and get treatment..these people brought it upon themselves by not getting adequate insurance.On the other hand the Government just let this person die in the NHS system.
ok, so private care lets you blame the victim?
EDIT: from a psychological stanpoint, this position makes a LOT of sense
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I disagree. Profit is a powerful motivator, if you hurt the people you make money from or drive them away you lose profit. That's the heart of capitalism at any level.
I disagree. Insurance would not be such a big job if it wasn't very profitable.
Besides, corporations have one obligation and one obligation only - to their shareholders.
Putting something as important as one's life in hands of corporation means that their loyalties lie in profit not in your well being - that's why there are departments that exist dedicated to digging into your past to not pay you.
The entire system. If it is motivated by profit, it will take the shortest route to get to it. That means, basically, the best way to make money is to treat symptoms rather than causes, as that is repeatable.
They actually have no interest in people being well, only in treating people, which is not the same thing at all.
Originally posted by KidRockOn the other hand the Government just let this person die in the NHS system.
And so would any insurer, which he also could have got in the UK if he wanted (and could afford it), so again that point is utterly irrelevant.
Youn simply DO NOT GIVE TRANSPLANTS to people in those circumstances. Public or private- irrelevant.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The entire system. If it is motivated by profit, it will take the shortest route to get to it. That means, basically, the best way to make money is to treat symptoms rather than causes, as that is repeatable.They actually have no interest in people being well, only in treating people, which is not the same thing at all.
Well it wouldn't make sense for insurance companies to keep people sick..since they will be footing the bill.
So then it must be the hospitals that are keeping people sick to get more money out of them.
Maybe we should look at hospitals as the reason for the high cost of health care and not the insurance companies?
Insurance companies can simply raise the premiums; people will pay if need be. You can't really deny the basic logic of the point though. if your objective is money, then you need sick people. Without sick people you would go out of business. Therefore you need people to keep being sick. Being sick is the supply of the service you offer to make money, which is treatment. Ideally, people would get as sick as possible and as often as possible.
Whilst in social care, the objective is for as few people to be sick as possible. Treatment is the means to achieve this.
All of this is general talk, of course,. Doctors in any system will (I hope) be trying to do their best for any patient. But the reason the system exists still informs how it will work And it is also why so many go without possibly of treatment in private care- no money to be made off of them.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which position?
kidrock clearly sees the issue with people dying in the streets
he does feel some sense of responsibility, though because he is a "loyal citizen" he has agreed that the government should ultimately have the right to determine health care policy, whether it be private or public.
This last issue is shown in his assumption that a public health system must account for any and all possible problems. This liver transplant issue is tragic, and those of us who live in and understand nations with public medical systems, realize that it is an unfortunate consequence of the human condition. Not all people can be saved, government or otherwise.
However, he is able to essentially dismiss any of this guilt for people who are incapable of getting proper care because his government, the one he is "loyal" to, has determined that health care is a private affair. Only in these contexts, then, does a person have to care for themselves, as opposed to, as he interprets it, the government taking care of everything all the time. By putting the onus of "being healthy" entirely on the individual, because his government has determined that health care is private, he no longer needs to feel any remorse about the illness and injury of his fellow man.
EDIT: basically, living in a nation where health care is privately run, he doesn't suffer any cognative dissonance when he sees people suffer, because he can dismiss their conditions as being their own fault.
or, he could be imitating GOP memes
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I thought the situation was that they didn't transplant an organ cause it came from an alcoholic.
No, the situation is that transplants are diffcult, rare and expensive and you never want to waste them on people that will bugger up the new organ as well.
Therefore, pretty much no system allows liver transplants to people that cannot prove they can take care of the liver. This generally invovlees demonstrating yuo can go withougt alcohol for six motnhs.
Private companeis don't treat under those circumstances because it wastes their money. Public companies don't because it wastes taxpayers money, and also it denies the chance to someone that would live with it.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Insurance companies can simply raise the premiums; people will pay if need be.
Not if a competitor offers a lower cost. But competition is wrong and doesn't work.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I You can't really deny the basic logic of the point though. if your objective is money, then you need sick people. Without sick people you would go out of business. Therefore you need people to keep being sick. Being sick is the supply of the service you offer to make money, which is treatment, Ideally, people would get as sick as possible and as often as possible.
Are we talking about insurance companies? That is completely illogical if so. Insurance companies make their money off premiums, they PAY OUT when you get sick. Insurance companies want people to stay as healthy as possible and paying their dues without having to shell out thousands of dollars for someones treatment.
By that logic it would make complete sense for a hospital to keep people sick and thus keep insurance companies paying more which will inevitably cause the insurance carriers to raise their costs.
Ushgark just solved the healthcare crisis, look at the hospitals not the insurance companies.