Premeds: Do you believe access to healthcare is a right or a privilege?

[VneZonyDostupa]

Panda Bear, Premedprincess, and NomoreAMCAS got it right.

For you others:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophomoric

So your contribution to this thread is to swoop in, nod your head, and call names?

Here's one for you, too, by the way:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/juvenile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Caesar]

Let's keep this thread civil and not resort to name calling.

 

[syphon559]

Anything that is free is going to suffer the Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). And, the burden of anything rationed economically is going to fall on the lower class.

I know this is from way way back on the first page, but I just wanted to point out that this is an excellent job of finding an MCAT (or maybe it was Kaplan) verbal passage on social justice and touting it as an actual argument you've learned. Then again maybe you learned it legit. In that case sorry.

But regardless, it's irrelevant. The tragedy of the commons only applies to something that is a limited commodity and something that doesn't have diminishing returns. First off, health is not something you share with everyone and something that each individual wants a larger share than someone else. Only you can have your health and by becoming healthier you do not take away from the health of someone else as you do if you add another cow to shared land.

You could argue that access to physicians is a shared resource capable of hording but that's where the diminishing returns come in. With the shared land, there is no diminishing return; you add another cow, you make more money, period. But with health, you can only get so healthy. At a certain point you become healthy enough that to try to become more healthy would be ridiculous and not to mention a waste of money. At this point no one would try to acquire more health. Thus, there is no incentive for people to try to horde as much health as possible and no tragedy of the commons.

 

[reiterin]

You're either lying, or you made some horrendously poor decisions. Why buy a care that can "only use premium" gasoline? Why live 55 miles away from your school? If your case is accurate, which it very well may be, then you are an extreme, and it s unfair for you to compare your abve averagel fuel costs to average insurance costs.

I guess I make poor decisions as well. I have a MINI Cooper, it takes premium gasoline (but gets great gas mileage!), and we've considered moving ~60 miles from my school so that we could afford a house and so that we'd be closer to my parents (and they could watch my kids). We live in San Diego and we can't afford a house in the city, but we could if we drive out an hour to the city of Temecula. And yeah, it's something we think about. I don't think it's a horrendously poor decision.

 

[jult24er]

I know this is from way way back on the first page, but I just wanted to point out that this is an excellent job of finding an MCAT (or maybe it was Kaplan) verbal passage on social justice and touting it as an actual argument you've learned. Then again maybe you learned it legit. In that case sorry.

But regardless, it's irrelevant. The tragedy of the commons only applies to something that is a limited commodity and something that doesn't have diminishing returns. First off, health is not something you share with everyone and something that each individual wants a larger share than someone else. Only you can have your health and by becoming healthier you do not take away from the health of someone else as you do if you add another cow to shared land.

You could argue that access to physicians is a shared resource capable of hording but that's where the diminishing returns come in. With the shared land, there is no diminishing return; you add another cow, you make more money, period. But with health, you can only get so healthy. At a certain point you become healthy enough that to try to become more healthy would be ridiculous and not to mention a waste of money. At this point no one would try to acquire more health. Thus, there is no incentive for people to try to horde as much health as possible and no tragedy of the commons.

Maybe strictly speaking, its not tragedy of the commons. i dont know, i guess the field might not get completely chewed up. but i think the general point is, when people get benifits from using a resource, and dont have to bear the costs (or even know what they are), theres a big danger of overusing that reource, ie, inthis case, wasteful health spending.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I guess I make poor decisions as well. I have a MINI Cooper, it takes premium gasoline (but gets great gas mileage!), and we've considered moving ~60 miles from my school so that we could afford a house and so that we'd be closer to my parents (and they could watch my kids). We live in San Diego and we can't afford a house in the city, but we could if we drive out an hour to the city of Temecula. And yeah, it's something we think about. I don't think it's a horrendously poor decision.

Why not get a car with similar or better mpg and that doesn't suggest using premium? That would save a ton of money, especially in SD.

 

[BlitzSleep]

You're either lying, or you made some horrendously poor decisions. Why buy a care that can "only use premium" gasoline? Why live 55 miles away from your school? If your case is accurate, which it very well may be, then you are an extreme, and it s unfair for you to compare your abve averagel fuel costs to average insurance costs.



Why do you think certain people in socialised systems are given long wait times? It's because their illness is not critical and a poor use of resources. If you live in Sweden and you go to the ER over a cold or sinus problem, you will have to wait while the MI patient is seen, then the car wreck, then the gunshot, the pregnant woman with pre-term cramps, and on and on, and even then you may just be told to go home. This is why home remedies are so popular in the UK and other countries. They know that their condition isn't bad enough to warrant a trip to the hospital, so why bother?

In America, you still have to wait some time, but you will most likely see a physician who will give you some sort of treatment, thus soaking up time and resources better spent elsewhere.

My car is turbocharged (i bought it when i was a teenager, back when racing was cool) and I haven't sold it yet because I still dig the blow off valve (sounds totally cool). Anyways, the reason why i'm not in a dorm is due to a family situation.

You're right, in America we do have to wait some....But in places like Canada, how long do you think they wait for the same treatment?

It would be the same way right now, except we'd have to wait much longer for treatments (of ALL kinds, some will have a longer wait list than others), jacked up taxes, and a lower quality healthcare.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

My car is turbocharged (i bought it when i was a teenager, back when racing was cool) and I haven't sold it yet because I still dig the blow off valve (sounds totally cool). Anyways, the reason why i'm not in a dorm is due to a family situation.

If that coolness is worth a couple hundred dollars a month to you, so be it.

You're right, in America we do have to wait some....But in places like Canada, how long do you think they wait for the same treatment?

I don't know, how long do they wait for identical treatments? For that matter, how much money is put into the average hospital in Canada compared to a US hospital? Also, do you know how underfunded the Canadian system is?

When did Canadian healthcare become synonymous with universal healthcare (I've asked this twice in this thread, and everyone seems to just ignore it because they risk losing their favorite example. It's like the people who fight criticism of Bush with "b-but Clinton....")?

It would be the same way right now, except we'd have to wait much longer for treatments (of ALL kinds, some will have a longer wait list than others), jacked up taxes, and a lower quality healthcare.

Why would it be the same right now? Why would the quality of care be lower? Why would our taxes be "jacked up" instead of just 3-4% higher to match the low end of European taxes?

You seem to make a lot of logical jumps without the logic to back those jumps.

 

[Caesar]

This thread is best suited for the Topics in Healthcare forum. Keep in mind the same rules apply there as do in Pre-Allo.

 

[GassiusClay]

I'm not really an expert on Sweden's health care system. I'm just guessing. I've only heard through anecdotal sources that economic mobility is virtually impossible in Sweden and I thought that might be a side effect. How, exactly, does Sweden avoid the Tragedy of the Commons?

Work as a resident. Then realize its not worth charity. People are not worth that much of my time and for such little pay. Money matters. More in my pocket and less in others is the way.

ANYway, Sweden works because they ban Mexicans (cough cough) meaning they don't allow anyone in. And it's kind of hard to get there. They don't have a poor ass country next door to them or better yet, they don't have immigration culture. Come here and work yourself up to a millionaire. That has been lost in this now beggar society.

I agree in young, healthy, non-failures (drug addicts, alcoholics, others deserving to be judged) to get catastrophic care. If you constantly eat crap and don't exercise, nobody should care for you when you're 60 (I'll give you 1 chance in your 40s and 50s to turn yourself around). This endless treatment of Americas gramps and grandmas a.k.a gomers needs to stop. Why are the young paying taxes to keep people who contribute zero to our economy society alive in an ICU bed?

 

[BlitzSleep]

If that coolness is worth a couple hundred dollars a month to you, so be it.

I don't know, how long do they wait for identical treatments? For that matter, how much money is put into the average hospital in Canada compared to a US hospital? Also, do you know how underfunded the Canadian system is?

When did Canadian healthcare become synonymous with universal healthcare (I've asked this twice in this thread, and everyone seems to just ignore it because they risk losing their favorite example. It's like the people who fight criticism of Bush with "b-but Clinton....")?

Why would it be the same right now? Why would the quality of care be lower? Why would our taxes be "jacked up" instead of just 3-4% higher to match the low end of European taxes?

You seem to make a lot of logical jumps without the logic to back those jumps.

My money is my money, so stop crying about it. End of that discussion.

Healthcare could be lower because hospitals would be overly crowded (like Canada's hospitals), wouldn't you think physicians would hasten things up a bit so that they can treat as many as they can? We all know if we try to hurry, we're more prone to make mistakes. A 3-4% increase? You are terribly optimistic. Did you not see on CNN that they had to fly expectant mothers to the United States from Canada a few months ago so that they could give birth in a hospital?

Also what are they going to do about prescription drug abusers? Look how many there are now, imagine how many more there will be when people off the street will have access to it. I guess they should start setting up back alley pharmacies now....

 

[MOHS_01]

Work as a resident. Then realize its not worth charity. People are not worth that much of my time and for such little pay. Money matters. More in my pocket and less in others is the way.

ANYway, Sweden works because they ban Mexicans (cough cough) meaning they don't allow anyone in. And it's kind of hard to get there. They don't have a poor ass country next door to them or better yet, they don't have immigration culture. Come here and work yourself up to a millionaire. That has been lost in this now beggar society.

I agree in young, healthy, non-failures (drug addicts, alcoholics, others deserving to be judged) to get catastrophic care. If you constantly eat crap and don't exercise, nobody should care for you when you're 60 (I'll give you 1 chance in your 40s and 50s to turn yourself around). This endless treatment of Americas gramps and grandmas a.k.a gomers needs to stop. Why are the young paying taxes to keep people who contribute zero to our economy society alive in an ICU bed?

I completely understand the background anger -- but posts like this only serve to lessen your credibility on other posts.

The underlying question is a good one, however -- what constitutes proper end of life care? We clearly do not handle this well here. Societal anchors need to be addressed as well, but this should start at the ground up, not at the endpoint of healthcare.

My single best advice to you would be to try to take a deep breath during residency -- then when you are done, move to a nice small to mid-size community, probably somewhere in the midwest, where you will not have to deal so much with these societal leeches (and the pay is better in the midwest, even moreso when hours worked and productivity are factored in).

Then you will find yourself only bi*****ng about taxes..... and administrative hassles.... and unrealistic, suit happy patients and their families.... not to mention these clueless, experience deficient, bleeding heart pie in the sky liberals whose only reason for existence, apparently, is to champion causes without understanding them and to take from you what they are unwilling to give of themselves....

 

[nsx]

I didn't read through the whole thread as the tragedy of the commons argument kinda made me ..but it would be quite interesting if this were a poll, and the votes were separated by income source.

 

[danzman]

I completely understand the background anger -- but posts like this only serve to lessen your credibility on other posts.

The underlying question is a good one, however -- what constitutes proper end of life care? We clearly do not handle this well here. Societal anchors need to be addressed as well, but this should start at the ground up, not at the endpoint of healthcare.

My single best advice to you would be to try to take a deep breath during residency -- then when you are done, move to a nice small to mid-size community, probably somewhere in the midwest, where you will not have to deal so much with these societal leeches (and the pay is better in the midwest, even moreso when hours worked and productivity are factored in).

Then you will find yourself only bi*****ng about taxes..... and administrative hassles.... and unrealistic, suit happy patients and their families.... not to mention these clueless, experience deficient, bleeding heart pie in the sky liberals whose only reason for existence, apparently, is to champion causes without understanding them and to take from you what they are unwilling to give of themselves....

Great post.

 

[a d00d]

Health care is not a right.

 

[ChandutheMagici]

It's neither.

A right means your government has to protect it. Which means (in this case), they have to provide it. I'm not sure I like what that implies. Being a government employee sucks. I know, I was a government employee for 6 years.

It's not a privilege though. A privilege implies that some people get it and others don't.

In short, it's a service. One that should be provided at the most reasonable cost.

I really hate questions like this, because they force you to pick between two choices when there are plenty of other options.

Josh

 

[swartz23]

I've read a lot of the posts in this forum. Please allow me to pose a question...
How will healthcare policy reform today, affect us long term?... Say in 10, 20, 50 years? For perspective, consider our current trend.

I believe that policy-makers should seek to be proactive as opposed to reactive. We need to make policy changes that will improve the system long term. If this means feeling some short term pain now so that our children don't have to expericence something 100 times worse, then I'm all for the short term growing pains.

Two things I know for certain:
1. If the cost goes to zero, demand goes to infinity.
2. People adjust their actions according to incentives (Let's be wary of how we reward oursevles).

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[saylorsdad]

i agree it technically isnt a right but it isnt a privlege only to the rich either

what would the effect be on the cost of medical education/doctor pay if our country made the switch to tax payer funded healthcare system? i know in enginering world civil engineers are grossly underpaid compared to other engineers with similiar education due to government.