Quote:
Originally posted by adduncan
I could wait for someone from Canada or another country that "does it" to chime in here but it might take a little while.
What are you willing to pay for? Keeping a patient alive against all odds? Are you willing to set limits on who can receive what care? How about clinical trials or anything not proven to be beneficial for a disease? Would you pay for an organ transplant? Bone marrow? Chemotherapy and advanced diagnostic techniques like PET? What if someone's religious beliefs dictate that they can never ever ever shut off life support? Will you pay for the consequences of their beliefs?
Still in favor of those tax hikes?
|
Who is granted the power to make such decisions? If I'm not, does that mean you are? There are bigger ethical issue here. Will I pay for the consequences of their beliefs? Or would I rather not allow my fellow country men/women to at least HAVE a chance at life? (If they can't afford care at all.) No matter what their religious beliefs or medical situations might be. What if they couldn't pay for Chemo on their own or an organ transplant? What, sorry but there's nothing we can do for you? Bull....
Like I said before, I will be in favor of a tax hike if necessary. Sorry for my bleeding heart but I happen to actually care a great deal for the people of my country, not just about myself or the money that is or isn't going to be in my pocket.
Quote:
Originally posted by adduncan
I
These are not small questions. "Yeah, sure, I'm all for it!" sounds great on a chat board or in college, but IRL it's a lot more complicated than that, and the enthusiasm fades exponentially.
|
I never once stated anything about these being small questions/situations/considerations. You can never dictate what is going to happen in real life, yes real life is complicated, but what statisics have you shown me about the basis of enthusiasm on such a subject, I'm sorry but none. In the same sense that I don't have proof that everyone will be up in arms about a proposal like this. I don't talk from my rear, and I feel like you don't respect my integrity about this situation. I'm sorry but this isn't your "what kate spade should I get thread." My opinions yes, but true to them I hold.
Quote:
Originally posted by adduncan
The reason I mentioned Canada is because of their subsidised health care. All too often we see wealthy patients from that country come to our center because even though they have the money to pay for what they need, they still can not get in to a facility to be cared for!!! Having the government pay for everything comes with a much higher price tag than you think. The experiment has cost lives in Canada and other countries--it has failed. God willing, you won't have to find that out for yourself in your own life.
Is it still a good idea to let the government "pay for it all" with tax money, and dictate to you what care you can and can not have?
Some pretty serious food for thought. Try working in this field for a while..........
Adrienne (PNAM-2003)
|
Ok, so you see wealthy patients from canda come to your center because they can't get treatment in Canada? I can go with that, but aren't you in TEXAS? Why would they go so far as to go to Texas when they could go somewhere closer to the Canadian/U.S. border? Wait, isn't it some sort of special treatment facility, cancer? I just don't understand that....maybe it is because they can't get treatment in Canada due to overcrowded facilities or maybe they feel they could get better treatment in the U.S. - a realistic possibility?!
I never said anything like this would be cheap.....nor did I say that it would be a sure life saver. But what's to say that it wouldn't be better than our system now? Lives are LOST everyday because people can't afford to get the treatment that they need. But is that a better way for these people to die as opposed to "experimenting?" *For those moral individuals*
In my opinion, yes I still feel that the government should pay for it all.