'Evil and Orwellian' – America's right turns its fire on Britain's NHS - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674075]So smokers who get lung cancer get surgery with no prefferential treatment above or below someone who has lung cancer who does not smoke.[/QUOTE] Hmm, I don't think so. All my knowledge of American healthcare comes from Scrubs, but does the same thing not happen in private healthcare with organ transplants etc?

[QUOTE=James*;16674140]Hmm, I don't think so. All my knowledge of American healthcare comes from Scrubs, but does the same thing not happen in private healthcare with organ transplants etc?[/QUOTE] Yes. Then again, if you don't get treatment, you don't pay for treatment. If taxpayer money pays for it, there is NO EXCUSE for denying someone access to that service. That's like if you were to fund churches with state money who in turn say faggots can't come in. Neither is their excuse to discriminate on a federal level.

To be fair I prefer non-smokers being given preference over smokers to rich people being given preference over poor people

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674075]Snuwoods is arguing a rhetoric. I am arguing purely rational downfalls to an NHS like: -Government Mandated Health -Detriments to Drug legalization -Clear and approaching danger of Social Engineering -Egregious violations of an individual's right to live their life by their own accord. -The heavy taxation of those individuals. He is arguing: Health is not a right because even though I do not have a firm understanding of what rights are and what rights we enjoy in the united states and even though I am not engaging in the creation of logical counterpoints to MY OWN argument I know this shit is for real. We are not on the same side.[/QUOTE] That's what I thought.

[QUOTE=James*;16674199]To be fair I prefer non-smokers being given preference over smokers than rich people being given preference over poor people[/QUOTE] Then you are in favor of private healthcare. Discrimination in the private sector is legal. Discrimination on a federal level is illegal on at least twenty different levels. [editline]04:03PM[/editline] And rich people do not get preference in organ transplants.

There are taxpayer groups and stop smoking groups who want prefferential treatment to be given to non smokers, but I'm pretty sure the NHS has never implemented this (arguments like these pop up on TV and in the news now and again but nothing ever happens)

[QUOTE=James*;16674199]To be fair I prefer non-smokers being given preference over smokers to rich people being given preference over poor people[/QUOTE] From what I heard, you wouldn't get knocked down the list for a lung cancer operation in the NHS if you smoked, only if you needed like.. an organ transplant, and they were in short supply.

[QUOTE=toxicpiano;16674243]There are taxpayer groups and stop smoking groups who want prefferential treatment to be given to non smokers, but I'm pretty sure the NHS has never implemented this (arguments like these pop up on TV and in the news now and again but nothing ever happens)[/QUOTE] I was under the impression that heavy smokers and drinkers do not get lung and liver transplants.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674075]So smokers who get lung cancer get surgery with no prefferential treatment above or below someone who has lung cancer who does not smoke. [editline]03:59PM[/editline] Snuwoods is arguing a rhetoric. I am arguing purely rational downfalls to an NHS like: -Government Mandated Health -Detriments to Drug legalization -Clear and approaching danger of Social Engineering -Egregious violations of an individual's right to live their life by their own accord. -The heavy taxation of those individuals. He is arguing: Health is not a right because even though I do not have a firm understanding of what rights are and what rights we enjoy in the united states and even though I am not engaging in the creation of logical counterpoints to MY OWN argument I know this shit is for real. We are not on the same side.[/QUOTE] Surely the system of the UK (A private and public sector) would bypass at least some of these problems?

They don't here.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674220]Then you are in favor of private healthcare. Discrimination in the private sector is legal. Discrimination on a federal level is illegal on at least twenty different levels. [editline]04:03PM[/editline] And rich people do not get preference in organ transplants.[/QUOTE] I'd prefer no discrimination at all.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16674263]Surely the system of the UK (A private and public sector) would bypass at least some of these problems?[/QUOTE] No. That defeats the purpose. It is the lower class that consumes the most alcohol and tobacco. You would be forcing them to pay for the NHS in tax hikes and then be denying them service, essentially costing them even MORE money to get treated. [editline]04:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=James*;16674269]I'd prefer no discrimination at all.[/QUOTE] Then how do you decide who gets organs first? Don't tell me you think a lottery is literally a good idea.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674262]I was under the impression that heavy smokers and drinkers do not get lung and liver transplants.[/QUOTE] George Best got given like two livers But then I guess he was famous [editline]09:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;16674277]Then how do you decide who gets organs first? Don't tell me you think a lottery is literally a good idea.[/QUOTE] Picking people at random would be the fairest way :v: First come first served?

[QUOTE=James*;16674293]George Best got given like two livers But then I guess he was famous [editline]09:08PM[/editline] Picking people at random would be the fairest way :v: First come first served?[/QUOTE] That's because the first liver was rejected by his body. He didn't destroy it with alcohol, the liver just wasn't compatible. And if we go to first-come-first-served what happens when the first is an 80 year old man and the second is a 13 year old girl?

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674277]Then how do you decide who gets organs first? Don't tell me you think a lottery is literally a good idea.[/QUOTE] Do you believe that the richer person should be given the organ?

[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;16674353]Do you believe that the richer person should be given the organ first?[/QUOTE] No, and they aren't right now. The current transplant system used doesn't include wealth. It is based entirely on age, responsibility and future health. If you are a 13 year old with no history of alcoholism you get it before a 47 year old alcoholic with bad lungs as well.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674381]No, and they aren't right now. The current transplant system used doesn't include wealth. It is based entirely on age, responsibility and future health.[/QUOTE] In that case : From what I've heard about the NHS, being a smoker or drinker doesn't put you down on a "priority list" for operations, only on the list for organ transplants. So it's no different at all. [editline]09:14PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;16674381]If you are a 13 year old with no history of alcoholism you get it before a 47 year old alcoholic with bad lungs as well.[/QUOTE] That's precisely what happens in the UK, and no more than that.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674381]No, and they aren't right now. The current transplant system used doesn't include wealth. It is based entirely on age, responsibility and future health. If you are a 13 year old with no history of alcoholism you get it before a 47 year old alcoholic with bad lungs as well.[/QUOTE] Hmm well even though it seems morally wrong with nationalised healthcare, practically I don't see an alternative.

[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;16674429]In that case : From what I've heard about the NHS, being a smoker or drinker doesn't put you down on a "priority list" for operations, only on the list for organ transplants. So it's no different at all.[/quote] It does in the plan here. [quote] [editline]09:14PM[/editline] That's precisely what happens in the UK, and no more than that.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is the government has no place discriminating. Everyone is paying for the service equally, everyone should get equal preference.

[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;16674429]That's precisely what happens in the UK, and no more than that.[/QUOTE] Yeah but what he's saying is that any discrimination by a public-funded organisation is wrong.

[QUOTE=James*;16674498]Hmm well even though it seems morally wrong with nationalised healthcare, practically I don't see an alternative.[/QUOTE] The alternative is improving upon our current insurance system and punishing insurance companies for the shit they pull. We don't need a national healthcare system, just a better method of insurance. I would treat insurance companies like private companies but with how many different laws they have lobbied into place, I consider them an effective branch of the government. [editline]04:18PM[/editline] Fuck insurance companies honestly. They've gotten away with too much bullshit. If they wanted to be able to pull this penny counting shit they shouldn't have lobbied so many laws into place.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674504]It does in the plan here. The problem with that is the government has no place discriminating. Everyone is paying for the service equally, everyone should get equal preference.[/QUOTE] What I'm trying to say is, everyone DOES get equal preference in the NHS. People don't get knocked down a list for operations because they smoke or drink. It just doesn't happen. Unless it's a queue for organ transplants, and then, as you yourself said (even in privatized healthcare), the list depends on future health, age, and responsibility.

They don't get equal preference in the plan here. Here it will be paid for with Sin Taxes and people who pay those Sin Taxes will be put to the back of the line. [editline]04:20PM[/editline] And transplants themselves should not be discriminatory in any way whatsoever if taxes are funding them.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674504]It does in the plan here.[/QUOTE] Well, in that case, I can see why people would be opposed to the reforms. But those idiots in the OP don't have any business in attacking OUR healthcare system.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16674543]The alternative is improving upon our current insurance system and punishing insurance companies for the shit they pull. We don't need a national healthcare system, just a better method of insurance. I would treat insurance companies like private companies but with how many different laws they have lobbied into place, I consider them an effective branch of the government. [editline]04:18PM[/editline] Fuck insurance companies honestly. They've gotten away with too much bullshit. If they wanted to be able to pull this penny counting shit they shouldn't have lobbied so many laws into place.[/QUOTE] I need to read up on America's health insurance system

[QUOTE=James*;16674516]Yeah but what he's saying is that any discrimination by a public-funded organisation is wrong.[/QUOTE] I really don't understand why it'd be any different from a privatized healthcare organisation discriminating.

[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;16674640]Well, in that case, I can see why people would be opposed to the reforms. But those idiots in the OP don't have any business in attacking OUR healthcare system.[/QUOTE] Honestly I rarely reference the UK NHS because I don't know fuck about it and it isn't my country so you guys can do whatever the fuck you want. [QUOTE=James*;16674663]I need to read up on America's health insurance system[/QUOTE] Essentially our insurance companies are treated like private companies, meaning they can do the refusal of service and shit, and they spend more money trying to prove your claims fraudulent than they do actually paying the claims. But they also have lobbied several laws into place that make it effectively illegal to, say, drive a car without car insurance. They are a legal abomination.

[QUOTE=Neolk;16648729]YES, YES WE FUCKING HAVE! This is fucking MIND BOGGLING.[/QUOTE] STOP CAPPING words THAT you THROW some RANDOM emphasis on IN your SENTENCES!

[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;16674695]I really don't understand why it'd be any different from a privatized healthcare organisation discriminating.[/QUOTE] Privatised organisations are allowed to discriminate because we don't HAVE to give them money, like we do a government one.

[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;16674695]I really don't understand why it'd be any different from a privatized healthcare organisation discriminating.[/QUOTE] Because you pay for what you get in privatized health. You aren't responsible for the system, you are responsible for your health. And as a private company, you ensure your right to refuse service and dictate service on your terms.