Slow Road To Hillarycare

[dustind]

Slightly off track, but if you train someone that person owes you for it, not the person that benefits from the training such as your employer. If I give you a car you owe me, not the person who you decide to give a ride in the car. Same thing with borrowing money.

Here is my experience. When I was in the tenth grade I had constant stomach pain, for months I was seeing doctors and specialists. I was finally diagnosed with partial malrotation in my intestines. My intestines did not go under my stomach and loop back, instead they made a tight loop that almost kinked off the line. Anyway it cost ten dollars a visit because we had insurance, my five day hospital stay after surgery was also cheap, I doubt we spent over a thousand dollars for the whole four month ordeal. I made a full recovery by the way.

I think forcing someone to pay for someone else is simply stealing, but I do see the difference between legitimate health care and people throwing money away because it is free which is much worse. I hate to be cruel but it comes down to "whos money is it?" I guess you could also ask "is quality of life more important than freedom?" or "is it right to steal to save a life?"

I hope you get better St Johns.

 

[Iain]

I'm not ever going to get better dustind, unless they do make 'gene therapy' work. Congenital and eventually terminal.

'Is it right to steal to save a life?' They had this argument in New Zealand when they did away with cradle-to-grave. They found that people were in such desperate poverty situations that they were needing to steal to live, this being odd as NZ is a very large exporter of food.

Where does US healthcare leave people like me? I suggest you guys go out and have a look for people like me in your community and ask them how they function and if they think the Canadian, French or UK systems would serve them better.

And don't be thinking that these diseases will go away under 'natural selection'. The genetic mutation that causes my disease is believed to have originated in Europe in the 15th Century - so people have had this disease for near 600 years - the gene hasn't disappeared, people are still being born with the gene and others with the disease pretty much everyday. This is despite the fact the disease used to kill in infancy and certainly before reproductive age. In fact it is quite likely that someone you know or have met carries the gene.

Some hard questions for US healthcare.

 

[fallingblock]

Er, St. John.....

"The genetic mutation that causes my disease is believed to have originated in Europe in the 15th Century - so people have had this disease for near 600 years - the gene hasn't disappeared, people are still being born with the gene and others with the disease pretty much everyday. This is despite the fact the disease used to kill in infancy and certainly before reproductive age. In fact it is quite likely that someone you know or have met carries the gene."
************************************************************

Two questions which may seem a bit pointed, but are to the point:

1. Are you planning to reproduce?

2. Are you willing to accept the responsibility for promoting the gene?

Why should taxpayers pay for specialist care for your offspring?

 

[Iain]

Those questions are perfectly fine. As I said the disease used to kill sufferers before their teens so it wasn't them passing the gene on.

Recessive genetics. Not the best picture but here goes:

Obviously red and blue indicate gender, the letter 'r' underneath indicates the copies of the gene the individual has. 'R' is the normal and dominant gene. 'r' is the mutated and recessive gene. You have two copies of this gene, one from mother and one from father. Majority of the population have the following:

'RR' - they are healthy.

Some have:

'Rr' - they are healthy, but they 'carry' the disease.

So if two people with that 'genotype' meet then they each will pass on one copy of that gene to a child. There are 4 copies available (mother - Rr and father Rr) so each child has the following possibilities available:

RR - fine, non-carrier
rR - carrier
Rr - carrier
rr - sufferer

If a carrier meets and has children with a non-carrier then the children have the following possibilities available to them:

RR - non-carrier
Rr - carrier.

Thus the disease continues to pass through the generations without sufferers having children. CF is the classic recessive inheritance model.

As to me, I am 22 and have thought long and hard about children. I can categorically state that I do not want to have children, it is unfair to knowingly pass my dodgy genes (all my children would be carriers as they have to inherit one of my 'r' genes and I have two). Besides in 95% of CF males the disease causes infertility and in females the stress of pregnancy can cause severe decline.

Children aren't a right is the way I view it.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Thanks for the thought-provoking perspective, SJ.

As to the original post, it should be pointed out that the Clinton healthcare proposal was a far cry from "universal coverage." Even that tepid reform effort was shot down by the insurance companies alarmed by the loss or revenue from their free money machine.

Unfortunately, this country won't have anything like a British or Canadian system until we reach a real crisis. The poor are already there, of course, but who cares about them, they don't make big campaign contributions.

 

[fallingblock]

Thank you, St. John......

Your civility is appreciated .

"Children aren't a right is the way I view it."

My own view is that any 'right' (and act in general) confers responsibility. I tend to the point of view that IF one chooses to be a parent, then one bears the responsibility of that act. You are actually taking the high ground responsibility-wise by weighing carefully the consequences of passing on a known problematic recessive gene before rather than after the fact. Of course it is modern medical science which allows us the choice in this case.

What do you think about so called "chronic" users of public health funds-
those who to choose to abuse their health with substance use and criminal lifestyles? Should they be allocated all the health care that a responsible citizen should?

It is after all their continuing choice of an self-abusive lifestyle which brings them into the health care facilities more frequently than the responsible citizen.

************************************************************
"And don't be thinking that these diseases will go away under 'natural selection'. The genetic mutation that causes my disease is believed to have originated in Europe in the 15th Century - so people have had this disease for near 600 years - the gene hasn't disappeared, people are still being born with the gene and others with the disease pretty much everyday. This is despite the fact the disease used to kill in infancy and certainly before reproductive age. In fact it is quite likely that someone you know or have met carries the gene."
************************************************************

I'm a botanist, a plant taxonomist to be specific, but I have studied genetics a bit along the way. It seems to me that if the 15th Century is the earliest known occurence of the disease, then it has been around for an insufficient time for natural selection to have been effective in reducing it, especially given the selection-thwarting nature of human society. My guess would be that it is one of those conditions that affect too few of the population at large to be a large player in selection. Those THR members who work with or are more familiar with human genetics and epidemiology perhaps could shed some light on this.


************************************************************
"'Is it right to steal to save a life?' They had this argument in New Zealand when they did away with cradle-to-grave. They found that people were in such desperate poverty situations that they were needing to steal to live, this being odd as NZ is a very large exporter of food.
************************************************************

I am also a New Zealand citizen, having lived there right through the Lange/Douglas years, during the inevitable demise of "cradle-to-grave" social welfare.

My wife in fact was employed the Christchurch Department of Social Welfare (now WINZ) office for 12 years before we shifted to Australia. I do not know where your information about "desperate poverty" in N.Z. was sourced, but it is not correct .

IF any New Zealander is in desperate enough straights to steal food, s/he has only themselves to blame, as everyone who is unemployed in N.Z. and willing to at least pretend to look for work is still entitled to a full benefit (dole) of unlimited duration...until their age superannuation kicks in if need be, as are those with disabilities which prevent them from working.

The much-publicised-by-the-left cases of desperate poverty were linked to chronic drug and alcohol abusers who spent their benefit on substances, then stole for food, as well as de-institutionalised mental patients who opted to 'disappear' from the system.

You can check this info yourself at:

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/get_financial_assistance/index.html

New Zealand is still wrestling with the effects of the crippling expense of decades of outrageous social welfare spending, and the changes which curbed some of the most egregious examples were in fact, just in time to avoid a collapse of the N.Z. economy.

 

[fallingblock]

And if were are really lucky....

"Unfortunately, this country won't have anything like a British or Canadian system until we reach a real crisis."
************************************************************

We'll NEVER have one like the British or Canadian system...now THAT would be a crisis

 

[JoshM]

Fallingblock, Well said

St Johns

'Is it right to steal to save a life?' They had this argument in New Zealand when they did away with cradle-to-grave. They found that people were in such desperate poverty situations that they were needing to steal to live

Rubbish, The most stolen items from NZ stores/supermarkets are condoms, candy, CD's, tobacco, and booze.

Even the poorest people in NZ have problems with obesity. During the neoliberal period of the 1980's there was economic and social turmoil, but nobody starved and I don't remember any serious arguments about the "right to steal to live" either.

 

[Iain]

An offhand comment about something I read from a NZ methodist minister about five years ago - maybe that info was wrong.

What do you think about so called "chronic" users of public health funds-
those who to choose to abuse their health with substance use and criminal lifestyles? Should they be allocated all the health care that a responsible citizen should?

As I understand it tobacco taxes pay for a lot of the NHS in the UK, in a way the NHS needs smokers, then again smokers are a large proportion of those who are 'irresponsible' with their health.

CF genes - no, not a major player in natural selection so they're not going away and will always be there costing some health service somewhere money. Unless of course pre-natal testing and compulsory abortions of 'diseased' foetuses comes in. Do we want to see that?

I'm still wondering what kind of health situation I personally would be in if I was born in the US.

 

[Khornet]

What do we do with those who can't afford care?

We treat 'em. Simple as that. Every damn day. Every day I treat people who will never pay me. All us docs in the US do.

I'm one of those specialists, St John. A gastroenterologist. When my phone rings in the middle of the night because someone is puking blood, I get up and go fix it. There is no question about what his insurance coverage is, or what his income. There is no discussion about payment plans. I just treat him. Later, he'll get a bill of course. The honorable ones will come to my office and work out a plan; there are lots of folks paying me $10 a month on a $2000 bill. The others just skip. Some of these others have recurrent problems, and I've treated them without pay repeatedly. All of us have patients like that.

To qualify for Medicaid, which is health coverage for the poor, you have to be....POOR. Is that the fault of the health care system, or the doctors? No one need go untreated here, but you can't drive up to the hospital in a Cadillac and expect Medicaid to pay for your care.

St. Johns, good to hear from you again. My equivalent of you is a chronic hepatitis C patient. I have loads of them. Most of them are pretty poor. Some I treat for free, though I am legally obliged to bill them. Most I treat for a pittance. I can do this because the other patients who have money or insurance do pay me, so I can make a living. Thus the 'haves' take care of the 'have nots', without a big govt. bureaucracy in the middle.

 

[fallingblock]

"CF genes - no, not a major player in natural selection so they're not going away and will always be there costing some health service somewhere money. Unless of course pre-natal testing and compulsory abortions of 'diseased' foetuses comes in. Do we want to see that?
************************************************************

With the ongoing debate concerning the release of genetic profiles to government and various private agencies, it may be a matter of sooner rather than later regarding pre-natal testing...or perhaps 'permission to parent' genetic scans. The Chinese haven't been all that successful with forced abortions as a population control measure, but with information technology improving at its current rate, such a scenario is not unlikely.