[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by albed

SOCIALIZED MEDICAL CARE!!! Are you insane?

No. But if I was, I'd be treated for it.

You seem to be confused about the word "paid" - and "deposit" (national debt)...

I wasn't aware I'd used either word in this thread? I mentioned 'paying' in another health-related thread, but the use of particular language and it's cultural context could take a long time to decipher.

...But socialism "takes". It isn't hard to figure that the people who take care of their health will be punished and the people who ruin their health will be rewarded.

On the one hand, you are correct. Such economic unfairness does occur. Some people - unfortunately, relatively few - will go through their lives never once requiring medical care. How unfair it must seem to have to pay for "another person's" care.

However, you seem to be labouring under a delusion regarding the social ettiquette or intelligence of illness. You seem to believe that your health is largely in your hands - which it is, and that all other factors are perhaps negligable - which they're not.

I'll tell you a little story. My beloved girlfriend is a pharmacist. In the course of her dispensary duty, she'll hand out quite a few medicinal prescriptions for cancer and, amazingly, quite a few of those who have cancer, have it through no fault of their own. Get this, some people who have lung/throat cancer have never smoked a cig in their life, some people who have skin cancer aren't sun worshippers nor have they spent half their life under a UV lamp. Some people whose liver has packed up haven't lived life with a bottle of scotch in their hand. Some people who have blood diseases didn't contract them through their own actions - they didn't 'ruin their own health'. If the equation were as simple as:

OWN ACTION = STANDARD OF HEALTH

... then I'd agree with you. I'd be right alongside you demanding that people pay their own way - after all, if I can stay healthy, then why can't others? And if others can't stay healthy, then why should I pay for them?

Unfortunately, as I suspect you're aware of, life often throws many of us a 'curl ball'... (are you impressed with my mastery of American colloquialism?)... which you comment on below...

...The U.S. has all sorts of voluntary insurance programs for people to protect themselves from large unforseen medical expenses but the term insurance has been hijacked to mean subsidy and since someone has to pay the subsidy the premiums have gotten exorbantly large and it really ends up shifting the cost from the recipient to the premium payer(usually employers and government) until the payers rebel, the providers get shortchanged and start gouging and things degenerate into a mess.

OK. At this point you appear to be saying that the premiums are subsidized by Government so that people can afford them, and that this...

I could really get into the economics and fairness but it simply boils down to the old maxim: if you want more of something subsidize it and if you want less of it tax it. If you want more sick people, even people pretending to be sick and scamming the system and hypochondriacs wasting money and resources, subsidize them.

... encourages people to be ill? Hm. Errrr, I agree with the part about 'pretending to be ill' - sure, you'll get more scammers and sick leave if the opportunity is there, however, you're missing a fundamental point regarding an increase in 'actual illness'.

If subsidisation actually leads to an increase in reported illness - what does that tell you? Putting aside the scammers for a minute, is it logical to assume that increased subsidizing actually encourages the growth of micro-organisms and causes the spread of cancer? No. However, it is perhaps logical to assume that when people can afford coverage, they'll use it. In other words, there is an underlying 'unmet need' within the healthcare system. When people have no coverage - they suffer in silence. When there is cover, they claim. It is, believe it or not, a quality of life issue - and that is the basic principle of a socialised system of healthcare, the basic philosophical difference between an insurance and socialised system. That the shared economic burdon is worth it because:

1. we are all human
2. all humans are susceptable to disease, pain and 'bad luck'
3. not everyone within a commerce-based healthcare system will be able to afford coverage
4. life's too short to be suffering physical pain due to an inherant econmic imbalance

Don't get me wrong - it aint perfect. Far from it. But there's something disctinctly inhuman about turning someone away from treatment, sending them home to suffer or die, simply because they don't earn enough for coverage or, better yet, their coverage doesn't 'cover' pre-existing illness.

Jesus... imagine that. "Sorry, you were born with AIDS. Looks like you're shit out of luck".