I tend to agree, although you'd also expect to see a lot of "Ooh, if I found that sleeping I'd totally hit it" etc...

Strangely enough, I've seen serious posts/vids etc before dealt with incredibly well by random anons including obits for WoW players, or a community coming together like the building of a playground in EQ2 for a terminal child. We tend to remember the worst, but there's plenty of supportive people out there who's first instinct isn't to heap shit on a person.

I'm just thankful that I've been relatively healthy all my life. I can't imagine what it would be like to have this hanging over your head (or indeed, any one of a number of chronic conditions).

Now factor in all the people in early life going without quality healthcare/dental and the chronic conditions it might lead to later in life that will eventually bite the taxpayer in the ass...

That's the part that never breaks the surface of this debate, keeping your populace healthy (and happy) pays itself back in a more healthy mid-late age person, capable of staying in the workforce (and ergo generating tax revenue) longer, self funding retirement as opposed to "leeching" off the system, less sick day absenteeism (or alternately, sick workers showing up, working below par and infecting co-workers) etc.

That's not socialism, that's smart.

I'd be amazed if no one ever actually quantified this as a cost/benefit analysis, but it wouldn't play well so I guess the point is moot.

And yeah, the state should regulate the medical and pharmaceutical industries against ludicrous profit taking from the most vulnerable. The current state of play in the US seems more akin to a mafia extortion racket than a service dedicated to maintaining and enriching the health of it's clientele...

If you have children with serious conditions, you still have to worry about small to medium sized businesses finding some reason to terminate you due to your child making their premiums go up. I mean they could do it to the employee, but chances are if you have something fairly serious it'll affect your job at some point and have to be mentioned before too long.

Or people who would rather not get treated for conditions because it puts them in a "high risk" category. While their insurance may not know exactly what they have, getting certain scripts will make it clear soon enough. So you run into the situation where the person is putting their health in the backseat to keep premiums low. Something that comes to mind here is Diabetes, and off the top of my head two reasons. 1) CDL Truck drivers and probably as some point in the future, regular licenses have to get tested and approved more often if they have diabetes and have more restrictions on them. Makes you unattractive to trucking companies, you can't conceal it easily since you have to make it known to get your license.
2) It puts you at a higher risk for other health issues or is often linked to other health issues. So your premiums are going to go up because of this. If you're on a tight budget, it might not be within the realm of out of pocket costs if you have to carry your own insurance.


As much as companies bitch about health care costs, they really have some people by the nuts with how it's setup.

And I don't think he's making the point that money should be given to anyone, he's making the point that having it tied to businesses puts you at a severe disadvantage if you have a urgent NEED for healthcare due to chronic conditions. The case and point being the guy who needs "catastrophic coverage" and pays out 10 grand a year before his insurance kicks in. A very large company can absorb people like that, even a medium to large could. Small and even mediums could not without a really lucrative cash influx. It really limits your options, because unless you are making more than the same people in your position...they will find a way to replace you if you get too expensive. They do it all the time, they just need to find one reason to terminate you. And it's pretty damn hard to be perfect, especially when you're sick and have to deal with the issues that come with it.


It's a really messed up situation if you're not a very skilled sick person or a very healthy unskilled person (with no sick family).

Have to look at other government ran healthcare systems for examples of maybe what he wants. I don't think the US is going to get there....too many people with lobbying power making bank on your health. Which is pretty much happening across the board in many markets, they aren't controlling themselves because the people profiting have too much power over them.

1. the real money is in managing chronic conditions and not chemotherapy, and as they say, dead patients don't pay the bills.

2. Antineoplastons sounds like a scam to me simply because it's not been in the news before and as the wikipedia article states - "A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a disproven therapy".
If it was as good as it claims then it would have no problem proving it scientifically.
So go right ahead and use that if you get cancer, you might even want to throw in a bit of homeopathy while your at it.
But i will stick with science.
>> ^marbles:

2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Most importantly, I wasn't suggesting that the current setup is in any way acceptable, only that what @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/ghark" title="member since September 30th, 2009" class="profilelink">ghark alluded to wasn't accurate.
Exactly what sort of life-saving surgery can be done at the GP's office? Or were you just trying to change the topic? Argumentum ad misericordiam.


I admit I was a bit surprised by that...I thought you were one of those unhappy with our system. Apparently I was just reading a bit too much into your statement here.

Is lifesaving surgery the only health care that counts? Many, if not most, types of care can be provided by a GP. Hospitals are for acute care. High blood pressure, diabetes, any number of chronic conditions, for example, are totally inappropriate for hospitals and yet utterly crucial for a healthy life. But hospitals are the only ones required to accept any and all patients, and even a brief look makes it clear that many hospitals do not (they have plenty of ways to game the system, legal or otherwise).

For those whom suffer from illness and chronic condition...
For those whom suffer for a long time (beyond 2-3 weeks)...
For those whom care, for their loved ones, whom suffer...

...the concept of health care reform and a public option, is very good news.

Mr. Winston here has never suffered nor cared dearly for someone who suffers. He has no concept, no real compassion, no real heart. A body without a soul.

The public option, would mean, more competition, not less. It would mean, companies now can not charge out ragous prices for health care. Nor remove those with long term illnesses or chronic conditions. As there will be a base line option. Companies will take these people on, and provide better then a goverment option, since it brings in money.

Right now, Winston, and you can look this up to your heart's content, consider the following. As its quite scary...

What if, the top 10 health insurance companies got together, and decided....they dont like you. Yes, they agree to make your insurance cost you MORE, then it did before. Oh sure, you would try shopping around, but in the end, find they all did the same thing. They dont like the products you buy, since its not THEIR products, or kick-backs they get from other companies for doing 'business to business' transactions. You do not live, where they want you to live. Oh, and the best one. You dont vote, EXACTLY the way they want you to vote.

Yes, companies in the health care industry can do this right now. It would be up to you, to prove conspiracy on their part. After all, there are no laws requiring health care companies not to collude.

Sounds like a story of conspiracy theory when I first heard of it. The more I thought about it, the more ghastly a concept it would be to perform. BUT, some of the thoughts in the health care reform RIGHT now, would eliminate that tactic before it started. The same stuff, you are trying hard to prevent from coming to reality.

So really Winston, one SHOULD examine your agenda and motives in this area. Since the only people against health care reform, and the public option, are the ones who stand to make a fortune, holding Americans over a barrel for health coverage.

As I stated above....you have to have a soul, to have compassion.