Healthcare is a privilege or a right?

[Revoltingest]

I agree. Nothing ****** me off like a damned shiftless lazy infant with its hand out for free medical care. If those little bums want medical care, they should get up off their lazy ***** and get to work. Baby food ads, for instance. Opportunities are out there. They have no one but themselves to blame.

Infants! Don't get me going on those little parasites! But in their defense,
they don't march off to the polls to vote for gov't largess for themselves.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't know what to say to somebody who lists gathering data, formulating strategies, and creating a Women's Leadership Institute among programs that are available for sick children.

My point was that there are HUGE NUMBERS of state and federal resources in Alabama which address women and children's health issues. I found so many sources that I had to break them down into three posts - and even then it was just the tip of the iceburg -I just got tired of reading through all of them.

You posted a link addressing the rate of infant mortality in Alabama, and it's link to the level and type of insurance that the woman has or doesn't have.

If you can't see how the vast multitude of state and federal programs offered by Alabama, which INCLUDES but is not at all limited to studies and programs which gather data and formulate strategies to PINPOINT AND THEN SUPPOSEDLY HELP women and children who are slipping through the cracks, frankly my dear, I don't know what to say to you.

If you will read ALL my posts that are in response to your link regarding infant mortality and health insurance and medical care available in Alabama, you should be able to connect the dots.

Now, granted - I didn't claim that state and federal programs all all that EFFECTIVE when it comes to infant mortality rates in Alabama. But the insurance coverage is available - the women have to enroll in order to accept it and take advantage of it.

In order to get them to enroll, they have to be REACHED and EDUCATED -and unfortunately sometimes it takes gathering data and formulating a plan to do so.

The good news is that, according to your link, infant mortality rates in Alabama are decreasing. Why is that? How is that being accomplished? Whatever they are doing that's working needs to be expanded and encouraged - but we need to KNOW what's working, and what's not, rather than just shooting in the dark.

 

[Kathryn]

I agree. Nothing ****** me off like a damned shiftless lazy infant with its hand out for free medical care. If those little bums want medical care, they should get up off their lazy ***** and get to work. Baby food ads, for instance. Opportunities are out there. They have no one but themselves to blame.

Ahhh, another infamous SMOKE SCREEN.

Smoke, no one is blaming the children. The programs to help them are out there, but unfortunately they can't just jump in their walker and sign themselves up.

[youtube]MojZ6Ew0Vas[/youtube]
YouTube - Brand New Key- Baby in Walker HP Commercial Roller Skates

Nope, their mamas and their daddies have to do it for them - and therein lies the rub.

 

[Smoke]

My point was that there are HUGE NUMBERS of state and federal resources in Alabama which address women and children's health issues. I found so many sources that I had to break them down into three posts - and even then it was just the tip of the iceburg -I just got tired of reading through all of them.

And my point is that if there were really such a huge number of resources, you wouldn't have to resort to cutting and pasting a ridiculously long list of every pencil pusher you could find who does anything remotely related to healthcare.

You posted a link addressing the rate of infant mortality in Alabama, and it's link to the level and type of insurance that the woman has or doesn't have.

That's right. And you responded with an avalanche of ********. If you don't have a real response, drown them out, eh?

 

[Kathryn]

If you can't fight facts with real facts, resort to insults, eh?

Sorry, I'm not going to play that game tonight. Maybe some other time.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Do you feel the same about a ten year old girl with failing kidneys and no means to pay for treatment?

Basically. Except it would be her parents whose responsibility it is to come up with the money.

I'm not opposed to a safety net for people in cases where they are unable to obtain insurance by no fault of their own, but in general, I feel it's irresponsible to EXPECT healthcare regardless of circumstance.

So, poor parental financial planning means dead girl.

Me, I think statements like "would you let a baby die?" Are just too much. I mean, speaking religiously, God lets babies die, does he not? Why aren't you petitioning to pay for healthcare for those in Africa whose babies are dying? What about the entire world? You don't care about African babies just because they don't live near you? What kind of monster are you???!!!

I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me...

 

[tumbleweed41]

Where in the United States are babies dying because their parents can't afford the medical care they need to live?

The infant mortality rate in the United States is the second highest in the world. Infant mortality rate is much higher in the US among poorer minorities.
One of the main reasons, according to the AMA, is inequitable access to health care. Especially among those who are very poor, and among teens who have children.
In contrast, those countries with free and easy access to health care have the lowest infant mortality rates.
The other common factor was education on, and availability of, birth control. Countries with free and easy access to health care also had better education and access to birth control.
Of interest is the fact that under our existing system, the US spends more on health care than any other country per capita, yet we have the second highest infant mortality rate, and rank 38th in life expectancy, behind every other developed nation.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I suppose it's just my opinion that water is wet, too? When you deny life-saving care, like chemotherapy, people die. That's just facts.

And when you provide care like chemotherapy, people die. Which proves what?

There is no cure for cancer.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you see life as a right, how can you not see healthcare to ensure life as a right?

There are no guarantees to insure life. All of us are going to die.

What you are speaking of is extending life. What happens when we have the capability to extend every life to 150 years for a cost of one billion a person?

Do you have the right to someone else's billions so you can live to be 150?

 

[tumbleweed41]

There are no guarantees to insure life. All of us are going to die.

What you are speaking of is extending life. What happens when we have the capability to extend every life to 150 years for a cost of one billion a person?

Do you have the right to someone else's billions so you can live to be 150?

Come on Rick, your doing it again. The old 'slippery slope' argument.
Let's look at the here and now. America cannot be called the greatest country in the world when we have the second highest mortality rate among infants and rank bellow every other developed country in life expectancy. All the while spending more than any other country on health care.
With these numbers we look like the richest third world country in the world.

 

[Reverend Rick]

With these numbers we look like the richest third world country in the world.

OK, I challenge you to get real then.

I will acknowledge the need for basic health care. There I said it.

Now, can you quit posturing for just a moment and address the issue doctors have?

Malpractice insurance is crazy. Can you get behind tort reform?

 

[Midnight Pete]

There is no cure for cancer.

There's one, but it involves being lowered into the ground to with people dressed in black all around you.

 

[Gunfingers]

There's one, but it involves being lowered into the ground to with people dressed in black all around you.

Interestingly, doctors will sometimes refer to a dead cancer patient as a "healthy tumor".

Doctors can have a pretty dark sense of humor.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Interestingly, doctors will sometimes refer to a dead cancer patient as a "healthy tumor".

Doctors can have a pretty dark sense of humor.

How else would they stay sane?

Btw, a "healthy tumour" wouldn't be healthy for long if its host organism died.

 

[Kathryn]

The infant mortality rate in the United States is the second highest in the world. Infant mortality rate is much higher in the US among poorer minorities.
One of the main reasons, according to the AMA, is inequitable access to health care. Especially among those who are very poor, and among teens who have children.
In contrast, those countries with free and easy access to health care have the lowest infant mortality rates.
The other common factor was education on, and availability of, birth control. Countries with free and easy access to health care also had better education and access to birth control.
Of interest is the fact that under our existing system, the US spends more on health care than any other country per capita, yet we have the second highest infant mortality rate, and rank 38th in life expectancy, behind every other developed nation.

Let's take your assertions one by one.

The infant mortality rate in the United States is the second highest in the world.

Not sure where you pulled this from. The US ranks 33 out of 195 countries, according to the latest UN statistics.

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infant mortality rate is much higher in the US among poorer minorities.

You're right. And the US has a higher "poor minority rate" than most, if not all, of the countries which have a lower infant mortality rate (take a gander at the countries in the list provided by my link above).

One of the main reasons, according to the AMA, is inequitable access to health care. Especially among those who are very poor, and among teens who have children.

Please clarify what you mean by "inequitable access." This smacks of political jargon to me. In numerous posts on this thread and others, I've shown that the programs for free or greatly reduced medical insurance are available. However, for whatever reasons, all those who qualify are not enrolled. Why is this?

Take Alabama for example - with the highest infant mortality rate in the US (and one of the highest low income and minority rates as well). There are PLENTY of state and federal programs in place, but the women and children who qualify are not enrolling in strong numbers.

We have to figure out why, and we have to figure out how to get this information into their hands. Even so, we can't force them to enroll, and we can't force them to take advantage of the wide array of services that are available, at a state, federal, and private level.

In contrast, those countries with free and easy access to health care have the lowest infant mortality rates.

In contrast, those countries who rank above us with better infant mortality rates, also have more homogenous populations, they are much smaller countries, in both population and size, and they have less diversity.

The more congruent a society is, and the less diversity, the easier it is to create and maintain successful programs to meet the less diverse needs of that society. The more diversity, the more challenging this becomes. The US is one of the, if not THE, most diverse nations with one of the largest populations in the world.

Our challenges differ greatly from the challenges of Iceland, Singapore, Japan, or Switzerland, just to name a few countries with lower infant mortality rates.

The other common factor was education on, and availability of, birth control. Countries with free and easy access to health care also had better education and access to birth control.

Education on birth control? Please name a state in which this education is not readily available to teens and young adults via state and federal programs. I don't know - I graduated from high school thirty years ago in rural Georgia, and we had comprehensive sex education, and condoms, readily available in our high school.

From Wiki:

Almost all students in the U.S. receive some form of sex education at least once between grades 7 and 12; many schools begin addressing some topics as early as grades 4 or 5.[1] However, what students learn varies widely, because curriculum decisions are so decentralized. Many states have laws governing what is taught in sex education classes or allowing parents to opt out. Some state laws leave curriculum decisions to individual school districts.[2]

Sex education in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to see the correlation between effective sex education and infant mortality/teen pregnancy rates/venereal disease rates/etc. we would need to look at each state's rates and educational when it comes to sex education. If you have a source for that, please give it.

My point though is that, just as with health insurance, people must USE the available programs in order for them to be effective.

Until we figure out why people who are eligible do not enroll in and participate regularly in available programs, we're shooting in the dark - with tax dollars and our federal and state budgets.

I'm not a fiscal hard ***, I'm just opposed to fiscal irresponsibility.

Of interest is the fact that under our existing system, the US spends more on health care than any other country per capita, yet we have the second highest infant mortality rate, and rank 38th in life expectancy, behind every other developed nation.

For starters, your continued assertion that the US ranks second in the world in infant mortality rates is simply wrong.

You're right about the US ranking 38th in life expectancy. For perspective, let me point out that that is out of 191 countries. That puts us in the top 20 percent worldwide.

Notice the congruity between our infant mortality rate and our life expectancy rate. This is to be expected, and it's for basically the same reasons.

We don't rank higher for the same reasons our infant mortality rate is higher than some countries - we have a more diverse population and a higher ratio of minorities, who have a higher ratio of poverty.

We DO spend a lot of money on healthcare - which is why we are a superpower worldwide when it comes to health research and cutting edge technology. It's also why people flock to the US to take advantage of our health resources.

Free enterprise encourages research, innovation, and resources. Who takes advantage of those available options depends on many factors - not simply availability.

As I've stated repeatedly, when we figure out WHY some demographic groups do not access available programs, we can figure out how to facilitate a higher rate of enrollment and participation.

But first we need to figure out WHY - and that takes objective analysis and a deep understanding of the diverse cultures within our American society.

We can't cloud our analysis with our own agendas or preconceived notions, or we will never accurately pinpoint the reasons and therefore reach a true solution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

OK, I challenge you to get real then.

I will acknowledge the need for basic health care. There I said it.

Now, can you quit posturing for just a moment and address the issue doctors have?

Malpractice insurance is crazy. Can you get behind tort reform?

Absolutely!!!:yes:

 

[Reverend Rick]

Absolutely!!!:yes:

OK, you and I could hammer out a bipartisan deal. A little give and take on both sides would improve things for everyone.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Your right Kathryn. We are doing better than the world average. And we beat the Russians!!!

 

[tumbleweed41]

OK, you and I could hammer out a bipartisan deal. A little give and take on both sides would improve things for everyone.

If only we were the ones running this country instead of polarized politicians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The bottom line for me, as is the case with most political considerations, is how does it compare with my personal values. I hold a value for gratitude rather than expectation. Of providing for myself. It's important to me to avoid feeling entitled to things, just because I want them. This is what parents endlessly try to teach their kids. Why do these things I learned growing up, which serve to make me a tolerable member of society, not apply in the political realm? Why are things which have not been rights before suddenly inherent and natural rights?

I see the idea of entitlement in another way: it's not so much what I deserve, but it's what I have a duty to provide to others.

Ok. So altruism is terrific. But how do you mandate altruism?

For a professional, you can make it part of the recertification process: minimum X hours of professional development training, minimum Y hours of pro bono work, etc.

A similar system could work for a business or organization that needs to be licenced or accredited, such as a hospital.