d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > How Much Should The Government Provide > In Terms Of Health Care Costs
1236Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Nov 16 2014 07:15pm
This is a very open-ended question, but I was wondering what the PaRD community's thoughts are on this topic.

Should they pay for none of it (including no subsidies)? Should they completely nationalize the industry at all levels? Should they subsidize certain treatments only? Should they only subsidize it for poor people? Should they give everyone a set amount of cash per year for healthcare costs?

Where do you stand?


Member
Posts: 63,030
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Nov 16 2014 07:18pm
100% coverage for legitimate medical care (i.e. obviously it shouldn't cover plastic surgery and such)

healthcare should be treated as a human right
Member
Posts: 48,546
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,016.77
Nov 16 2014 07:20pm
Whatever system takes the most money from productive people to keep welfare granny on pain meds til she croaks at 95.

Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Nov 16 2014 07:22pm
In the case of the United States I believe that health care should largely remain private, but health insurance companies should become non-profit with a goal of universal coverage for most goods and services.

The Swiss has a system similar to ours. They did this individual step and they achieved universal healthcare and cut their health care costs by 4% gdp. It is still high compared to other models but it is a good example for a model close to ours and a likely positive outcome.

Also, health insurance actually became more competitive when it became nonprofit.
Member
Posts: 63,030
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Nov 16 2014 07:24pm
Quote (Skinned @ Nov 16 2014 08:22pm)
In the case of the United States I believe that health care should largely remain private, but health insurance companies should become non-profit with a goal of universal coverage for most goods and services.


Unless I'm missing something this seems like the most unlikely thing of all time.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Nov 16 2014 07:24pm
Quote (Voyaging @ Nov 16 2014 05:18pm)
100% coverage for legitimate medical care (i.e. obviously it shouldn't cover plastic surgery and such)

healthcare should be treated as a human right


To what extent though? Suppose someone is 90 years old and a procedure will extend their life by only 1 year. Should they get that procedure? I don't think so. Now, if they can pay for the procedure themselves, they should go ahead and do it. Basically, I think it would be wise to do a risk analysis on each patient in order to determine how much of a subsidy they get from the government.
Member
Posts: 63,030
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Nov 16 2014 07:26pm
Quote (thundercock @ Nov 16 2014 08:24pm)
To what extent though? Suppose someone is 90 years old and a procedure will extend their life by only 1 year. Should they get that procedure? I don't think so. Now, if they can pay for the procedure themselves, they should go ahead and do it. Basically, I think it would be wise to do a risk analysis on each patient in order to determine how much of a subsidy they get from the government.


Yeah I was just giving my general idea. I agree with you that meager life extension for dying patients is different than treating a child's cancer.

I don't have an overarching strategic system for medical care, but I think the general movement ought to be towards more coverage for those who need it and can't afford it.

Your system seems like a solid rough sketch to me.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Nov 16 2014 07:27pm
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Nov 16 2014 07:32pm
Quote (Voyaging @ Nov 16 2014 05:26pm)
Yeah I was just giving my general idea. I agree with you that meager life extension for dying patients is different than treating a child's cancer.

I don't have an overarching strategic system for medical care, but I think the general movement ought to be towards more coverage for those who need it and can't afford it.

Your system seems  like a solid rough sketch to me.


Suppose that the kid has a 2% chance of living with a particular form of treatment. Should he be given the treatment? Is there a cutoff? Who ultimately gets to make these decisions?
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Nov 16 2014 07:36pm
double post

This post was edited by thundercock on Nov 16 2014 07:37pm
Member
Posts: 63,030
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Nov 16 2014 07:41pm
Quote (thundercock @ Nov 16 2014 08:32pm)
Suppose that the kid has a 2% chance of living with a particular form of treatment. Should he be given the treatment? Is there a cutoff? Who ultimately gets to make these decisions?


Good point. As much as it pains me to say, I think giving people a rough "value" in dollar amounts (it hurts me just to type) might be the most practical method. If a treatment costs more than the expected value of the life saved (so if 0.02 * [value of a human life] >= [procedure cost] then the treatment should be made), maybe it needs to be paid out of pocket.

It feels awful, but I can't think of a better option. Luckily I'm not a working bioethicist. Hopefully there are better options I'm just overlooking.

Having a sort of medical judicial committee in place to determine who gets treatments seems far too impractical.

How do the countries with the most successful socialized healthcare handle it? I think taking their lead would be a good start.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
1236Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll