Curse

Tullzinski · Aug 14, 2009, 04:03 PM // 16:03

I am wondering if I have been reported to the white house for being against the health care plan? Nothing like having my fellow americans rat you out to the administration....

DreamRunner · Aug 14, 2009, 04:11 PM // 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

I think what you are referring to is really probably not what this thread is about DreamRunner. Not to mention this 13 year old boy had a cancer that is over 90% curable by chemotherapy. I'd take those odds.

My post was meant to be under Tullzinski, but I guess I posted late. I'll add the quote in the post if it helps at any point.

As for the boy, yes lets give away our rights for Chemo which has a fantastic way of dealing with people from side-effects. Chemo is a lot harder on a person than most Doctor will tell you. After Chemo, my niece's immune system never recovered. Anyone should have the right to refuse chemo, whether the parents are correct or not, they are the parents and the government should not be allowed to have a say in medical treatment of an individual.

I really do want to know where the 90% statistic came from. It has been in a few articles, but if you are actually dumb enough to see chemo as a probable cure for this without looking at the side effects that it causes, emotionally and physically, then you are obviously one-sided with your views towards the pharmaceutical companies.

Inde · Aug 14, 2009, 04:27 PM // 16:27

I'd take side effects rather then death.

And I doubt a young child is capable of knowing that death is the end result without the cure if they've been spoon fed other information from their parents. I think it's been proven plenty of times that parents don't always do things in the best interest of their children. Find me another cure that is legitimate that has a 90% success rate. If you believe in alternative medicine then I guess I won't bother to argue what quackery I think it is, but cancer is harsh, nasty, painful and terrible. It needs a medicine that is just as harsh to fight it.

DreamRunner · Aug 14, 2009, 04:43 PM // 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

I'd take side effects rather then death.

And I doubt a young child is capable of knowing that death is the end result without the cure if they've been spoon fed other information from their parents. I think it's been proven plenty of times that parents don't always do things in the best interest of their children. Find me another cure that is legitimate that has a 90% success rate. If you believe in alternative medicine then I guess I won't bother to argue what quackery I think it is, but cancer is harsh, nasty, painful and terrible. It needs a medicine that is just as harsh to fight it.

Chemotherapy is toxic, painful, and can be deadly. It targets all fast-multiplying cells, not just cancer cells. Chemotherapy is not a harmless treatment that will guarantee survival. The government has no right to poison a child with toxins, even if it might slightly improve his chances of surviving cancer. On average, chemotherapy only improves 5-year survival rate by 2.1% in the US.

See page 3 of this PDF for statistics on chemotherapy versus non-chemotherapy 5-year survival rates in Australia. For adults, the Hodgkin’s chemotherapy benefit was 35.8% (much higher than most other cancers), not 90% (no statistics are given for children). here for link

But you said that it has been proven that parents do not always do with the best interest of the child. I guess letting the government decide which medical procedure is best is a much better option, yeh? What a load of rot. What happens to my body is MY decision.

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 14, 2009, 04:44 PM // 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

That's because the vast majority of people already have health care provided by their employers. If socialized medicine existed, the cost of private health care would increase dramatically. Or you could switch to government health care, and we all know how crappy that will be.

If things stay as they are now many companies will not be able to afford to keep up their plans and more will fall upon each person to pay their own way.
The majority of people in this country are employed by small to medium size companies who can not continue to bear the cost of rising health-care plans, when they fail to provide it will just turn into chaos. How many of you could afford to pay their heath-care plan?

EinherjarMx · Aug 14, 2009, 05:00 PM // 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

If things stay as they are now many companies will not be able to afford to keep up their plans and more will fall upon each person to pay their own way.
The majority of people in this country are employed by small to medium size companies who can not continue to bear the cost of rising health-care plans, when they fail to provide it will just turn into chaos. How many of you could afford to pay their heath-care plan?

And do you think that private hospitals cost THAT much?

Don't forget that services got expensive because of the "I'll sue your ass" attitude a lot of people has. Yes, doctors are humans too, and yes, they make mistakes too. But regretably the consequences from theirs are worse. And because of that, they order more and more analysis to cover all the probabilities to avoid a lawsuit.

But still, they don't need a gazillion dollars for their living, I agree that hospitals should cover all the expenses that their screwups generate, but some people go too far.

Ditto · Aug 14, 2009, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

If you have cancer, any cancer, it is by law that you have to go get chemotherapy in both the U.S and UK.

That's a flat out lie. I doubt you know anyone personally being treated for cancer. Well I do. And they aren't getting chemo. And not that your argument really has anything to do with this thread topic, but I think you need more knowledge on cancer and chemotherapy as a treatment. Doctors don't just throw chemo at you as soon as you are diagnosed with any type of cancer...there are so many other options. Everyone knows chemo can be a very intense, very invasive treatment. But not everyone that gets chemo has the adverse affects as significantly as your niece unfortunately did. It really depends on the type of cancer, and its progression, to determine how invasive the treatment needs to be. The 13 year old boy's ruling probably had a great deal to do with his age and the cure rate...no one said what kind of cancer it was but with that high of a cure rate it sounds like the treatment was not going to be very extreme.

To come back on topic for a moment, I also wonder like someone else mentioned, how many of the opposed have had to pay medical expenses out of pocket. Or purchase private insurance on their own, not through an employer. Something like this is not an issue until it's actually an issue. Nothing needs to change as long as you're healthy and covered..but then maybe you fall ill or lose your job and your coverage, maybe then you'd wish someone was looking out for you and wonder what you paid your taxes for. Many people in this country are an ambulance ride away from being in debt for the rest of their lives from medical bills. I think that's pretty tragic. And we're they only first world country that does this to our people.

Shursh · Aug 14, 2009, 05:15 PM // 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

If things stay as they are now many companies will not be able to afford to keep up their plans and more will fall upon each person to pay their own way.
The majority of people in this country are employed by small to medium size companies who can not continue to bear the cost of rising health-care plans, when they fail to provide it will just turn into chaos. How many of you could afford to pay their heath-care plan?

^ Agreed.

I was just pointing out why most people don't want new health care and are willing to stick with, in my opinion, "the lesser of two evils".

zwei2stein · Aug 14, 2009, 05:28 PM // 17:28

Ontopic: Socializing medicine is not someting that great for same reason as any excesive social care: It enables 'white trash' lifestyle because it is just way too easy to leech on society and get all benefits of modern world without ever really having to repay anything.

Inde · Aug 14, 2009, 05:33 PM // 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

Chemotherapy is toxic, painful, and can be deadly. It targets all fast-multiplying cells, not just cancer cells. Chemotherapy is not a harmless treatment that will guarantee survival. The government has no right to poison a child with toxins, even if it might slightly improve his chances of surviving cancer. On average, chemotherapy only improves 5-year survival rate by 2.1% in the US.

See page 3 of this PDF for statistics on chemotherapy versus non-chemotherapy 5-year survival rates in Australia. For adults, the Hodgkin’s chemotherapy benefit was 35.8% (much higher than most other cancers), not 90% (no statistics are given for children). here for link

But you said that it has been proven that parents do not always do with the best interest of the child. I guess letting the government decide which medical procedure is best is a much better option, yeh? What a load of rot. What happens to my body is MY decision.

I'm not going to get into a medical link discussion with you because for every article you can provide I can provide the counter. Suffice it to say that anyone with slightest bit of googling skills can see cure rates are much higher with chemo for Hodgkins. And as I said before, I think alternative medicine is quackery, of which Burton Goldberg practices and makes a living on (just like pharmaceutical companies). Any article you would provide by him that is linked on his site I would disregard.

KiyaKoreena · Aug 14, 2009, 05:40 PM // 17:40

Ive been sitting here typing and retyping what I want to say.

I do not think the US can handle a socialized healthcare system. There are too many leeches on the current social programs and the mindset of the public will not support one. There is too much "everyone for themselves" and too many "I don't want to do anything to pay in, but give me all the benefits anyways" out there.

Would I like access to a socialized system? Yes if it meant I could see a doctor, find out whats wrong, treat it, and not worry about losing my home due to the size of the bill. I could really use that right now actually. When I lived in Canada I was quite happy with the system there. I didn't have to weigh stopping pain versus being able to pay for dinner. Our finances here are tight, a major incident could topple things but my husband and I are struggling to be able to get through these kind of things. If I got a job outside the home maybe I could find a company that would pay health insurance but that would mean my children being raised by a daycare because I would have to work so much I would barely see them. That isn't a good life for them.

The price of uninsured health care here is awful. Perscriptions are 2-5 times what they would have cost me in Canada. But hey, at least I learned I could deal with depression/bipolar and postnatal depression without the pills.

When 8 months pregnant with my son I had to go to the ER from puking so hard there was blood in it and I was getting contractions from dehydration. 5 hours of monitoring, an antinauseant, and 1 1/2 IV drips cost me $1200. Thats half our monthly income. Uninsured delivery of a healthy baby with no complications is well over $6000 by they way. Last year I spent over $1000 on visits and tests while the dr guessed "it might be this". I can not afford hundred or thousand dollar scans and hundred dollar 5 minute visits every few weeks for monitoring so I have adjusted my lifestyle and learned to deal with the pain. Maybe I can win the lottery and finally find out whats wrong some day. Thats as likely as getting my husband to move to where we get -40C winters.

Ditto · Aug 14, 2009, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Socializing medicine is not someting that great for same reason as any excesive social care: It enables 'white trash' lifestyle because it is just way too easy to leech on society and get all benefits of modern world without ever really having to repay anything.

It disturbs me that someone would consider a persons right to health care as a "leech on society". As if people are going to be kicking back, quitting their jobs and living the good life now that they don't have to fear for their financial welfare if they or a loved one get sick or injured. I'm not denying that there aren't people in society that feel they don't have to work for anything in life; you will find that ANYWHERE.

People like that do exist but you can't make prejudice statements like that and apply them to the general population. You're basically saying that you don't think some people deserve a fair and balanced health care system...so NOBODY should get it.

Inde · Aug 14, 2009, 05:59 PM // 17:59

Oh crap, zwei. I screwed up. I deleted out some of your post. Sorry there, hit edit instead of quote.

Snow Bunny · Aug 14, 2009, 05:59 PM // 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ditto

It disturbs me that someone would consider a persons right to health care as a "leech on society". You're basically saying that you don't think some people deserve a fair and balanced health care system...so NOBODY should get it.

Not at the expense of me, no, they don't deserve it.

I am not going to college, putting myself into $210,000 debt for law school, studying 5 hours a day for law school, then working 12 hour days in a law firm, so that I can pay 50% of my taxes for some people to get health care.

No.

That is a shitty deal. They are a leech on society. They're getting significantly more than they're putting in.

They don't deserve it and shouldn't get it, I don't care how sick they are.

Eskimoz · Aug 14, 2009, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Ontopic: Socializing medicine is not someting that great for same reason as any excesive social care: It enables 'white trash' lifestyle because it is just way too easy to leech on society and get all benefits of modern world without ever really having to repay anything.

"Ok class billy here made a mess with his yogurt so none of you get to have yogurt from now on. blame Billy."

Inde · Aug 14, 2009, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Snow Bunny, I've put in as much effort as you. Yeah I've been screwed by life and it sucks. But I PAY INTO a system that can't help me, that won't help me because.... I PAY INTO IT. Irony. If I'm going to pay, I'd at least like it to help everyone.

Eskimoz · Aug 14, 2009, 06:05 PM // 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Not at the expense of me, no, they don't deserve it.

I am not going to college, putting myself into $210,000 debt for law school, studying 5 hours a day for law school, then working 12 hour days in a law firm, so that I can pay 50% of my taxes for some people to get health care.

No.

That is a shitty deal. They are a leech on society. They're getting significantly more than they're putting in.

They don't deserve it and shouldn't get it, I don't care how sick they are.

Why not?

You already do that for welfare.

Aleta · Aug 14, 2009, 06:05 PM // 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Oh please.

Left wingers are allowed to protest whatever they want - protest wars, corporations, rallies, you name it, they'll protest it.

People don't want socialized medicine and the left goes, "OH MAN OH GOD THEY'RE PROTESTING THIS IS SO UNCALLED FOR."

Seriously. Millions of Americans do not want socialized medicine. We as a nation DO NOT OWE 1/6 OF OUR COUNTRY SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is "healthcare" a provision, nor is it even mentioned. Gun ownership is, but that won't stop the left from trying to quash it eh?

EH?

Hypocrites.

Ya that in spades for sure. I don't want Socialism in any form and being older I don't want to be told when I need to die tyvm. And no I don't owe anybody a living.

Shursh · Aug 14, 2009, 06:11 PM // 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ditto

People like that do exist so you can't make socialized health care like that and apply it to the entire population. You're basically saying that you don't think some people deserve a fair and balanced health care system...so NOBODY should get it.

^ fixed that for you.

It's not that they don't deserve healthcare, it's that socialism's endgame is a lazy, stagnant, and unproductive society that eventually destabilizes into a GIGO type situation as people realize they don't need to work hard to get the same healthcare as the next person.

Do not underestimate the power of incentive in the capitalist world.

Quote:

"Ok class billy here made a mess with his yogurt so none of you get to have yogurt from now on. blame Billy."

"Ok class, 3/4 of you hate blueberry yogurt and are allergic to it, but billy here really likes that flavor so we are all going to have it for lunch today. Oh and you all owe me 75 cents."

Starting to get the point?

Eskimoz · Aug 14, 2009, 06:21 PM // 18:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

^ fixed that for you.
"Ok class, 3/4 of you hate blueberry yogurt and are allergic to it, but billy here really likes that flavor so we are all going to have it for lunch today. Oh and you all owe me 75 cents."

Starting to get the point?

No.

Explain.