Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Private Healthcare

"Private healthcare is inherently immoral. The basis of healthcare is meant to be getting the greatest gain to human wellbeing with the available resources. Private healthcare makes it about money. It means the rich can use their money to queue-jump. It means that Turia, Katene, Tolley, and Burrows can get stomach staplings because they are rich while poor people don’t and lose limbs, then lives, to diabetes."


Cactus Kate said...

"A private stomach stapling costs $28,000. Well beyond the reach of most. Only the well-off can afford it. The result: allocation on ability to pay, not need".

Ridiculous logic. If people are so poor they can't afford to eat.

No one "needs" a stomach staple as it's entirely self-inflicted. Fat bastards can get off the couch and exercise.

Anonymous said...

Cactus Kate is a fucking odious cunt, and anything she says should be automatically disregarded.

Oswald Bastable said...

Hey Fat Bastard- you forgot to log in!

Anonymous said...

Yep. absolutely.

Being rich you get to eat better, drink better, sleep with a better class of people, live longer in nicer houses and better cars, have a yacht and a few holiday homes, pay no tax whatsoever

and need to have nothing whatsoever to do with leftist scum like you

except, we can go to central america on hols and use you as target practice

If people are so poor they can't afford to eat

yeah in HK and most places. But in NZ...

macdoctor said...

So Diabetics lose their limbs and their lives because they can't get a stomach stapling? That's probably the most bizarre thing I have ever heard.

Anonymous said...

Sure sign of a lefty, rather attack the person than their ideas, because they are bereft of any intelligent
thought at all.

Obesity is caused by the excess ingestion of energy over it's expense.
The problem is the psychological status of the fat bastard going for the bariatric surgery. Some of these people are so dumb that they think that putting a whole cake of chocolate into a blender with a litre of milk, then drink it, then follow it with a very large (double portioned) roast dinner blended and drunk slowly over the next 30 mins is actually going to help them lose weight. This is the reason the Yanks have stopped doing the type of band surgery that this git wants made free to the public.

Libertyscott said...

The argument is that people don't always spend money on things that socialists think they should. Always someone who thinks they know better how to run your life and spend your money.

The ultimate answer is to abolish money and enslave everyone to working from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. You work as hard as you like, and get whatever home, food, clothes and leisure the beloved workers' state gives you.

Of course a lot of people wont do that voluntarily, and many will agitate against this - being immoral - so you need to do things to control it.

It's been a roaring success of course. North Korea started it in 1948 and hasn't looked back since, otherwise it would find the stench of millions of corpses and the death of humanity, aspiration, truth and creativity far too overpowering.

homepaddock said...

" . . . with the available resources. Private healthcare makes it about money."

Those available resources and public healthcare hve nothing to do with money?

Anonymous said...

Healthcare prices would be a supply/demand sort of thing in a free market. How much govt interference in the supply of healthcare is there?
I don't really know myself but I can see that prices of certain medical treatments are far cheaper in some other countries.

Peter said...

Private healthcare is inherently immoral.

Only according to a standard of morality which is artificial in the first place.

Anonymous said...

"Private healthcare is inherently immoral" Why? because after having become qualified (At great expense...to themselves)the idiots at the Standard would prefer them to become slaves to the state?

Psycho Milt said...

Well, before discussing the morality of private healthcare, let's dismiss the example offered as a silly one. As Cactus Kate points out, no-one "needs" a stomach-stapling operation. The idea that it prevents type 2 diabetes is grade-A wishful thinking by people who don't want to recognise that in fact, simply not stuffing large amounts of carbs and fat in your face every day prevents type 2 diabetes.

That said, there's nothing unreasonable about the view that private health care is inherently immoral. I don't agree with it, but you could certainly make a case for it - eg, if we're having to ration the provision of health services, there certainly is an element of unfairness in someone with less need for a particlular service than you able to get it ahead of you, simply because they have more money.

However, that doesn't really hold up against the counter-argument that people who use private health care usually also pay income tax, ie they're paying for their private health care in addition to funding the public system, and at the same time are reducing the load on the public system by not using it. If we're to question the morality of allowing people with money to engage in health services queue-jumping, we also have to question the morality of billing users of private health care for the public system.

Bottom line: no it's not fair, but a means of eradicating unfairness from the world has yet to be found.

Anonymous said...

Heck Milt, you're being reasonable. Where have you been on holiday? Perhaps we should send other lefties there.

I suspect one of the reasons hospitals want to do private work is to obtain economies of scale which would allow them to retain more highly qualified surgeons and specialists.

Psycho Milt said...

I'm still on holiday, but have left the Marlborough Sounds and am now in a place with cellphone coverage and internet access. No doubt regular surly service will be resumed once I have to go back to work.

ZenTiger said...

I'm still on holiday, but have left the Marlborough Sounds and am now in a place with cellphone coverage and internet access.

So, not Auckland then?

That said, there's nothing unreasonable about the view that private health care is inherently immoral.

Exactly so, just like those parents that shower their children with love and attention are being immoral because some kids don't get such "perks" from their parents.

Then again, those people paying in advance, with their own money, and simultaneously contributing taxes into the public health system and yet don't clog the public system really ought to take a good look at themselves for going above and beyond.

JamesP said...

Yes the rich get better healthcare, because they earn more, because what they contribute to society is judged to be more valuable. Therefore providing them with healthcare is providing the greatest gain to human wellbeing. Though exceptions might be made for politicians whose salary is not set by the market.

Anonymous said...

Lets look at it another way. I need a vehicle to operate my business and as a neccessary convenience to life. My toyota is old but not clapped out. All these rich bastards are buying new cars and enjoying them. Thats unfair! What happes when my Tojo claps out? I won't have a car and they'll have a new one. The gummint should step into this and buy me a new one.
The bloody nerve of these rich bastards! Do they expect me to walk or something?


Psycho Milt said...

If you regard healthcare as a mere convenience George, you've got a point. Otherwise, not so much.