AMERICAN MEDICINE:

[Мария]

Это правда! *Мы такие неандертальцы по сравнению с Американцами по состояния зубов:-S :-S :-S
У всех десятки пломб, кривые зубы, *коронки и прочая хрень.
Заглянешь в рот Американцу ( по знакомству:-D ) -а там белоснежный ряд своих зубов лет до 60 минимум.
Да, в стоматологии мы были в такой ж**е, а почему? *Почему нельзя было поломбировать детям зубы с советских поликлиниках под местной анестезией, как здесь? *Почему каждый поход к зубному врачу воспринимался, как конец жизни ( для 10-летнего ребёнка).? *К нам в школу каждый год в сентябре вьезжал зубной врач, и целий год длились пытки -каждого ученика вызывали в алфавитном порядке на профилактический осмотр, и там драли зубы без анестетика, сверили ржавыми борами, короче скрежет зубовный стоял весь год. *До сих пор мурашки по коже, как вспомню родные школьные стены:-S

[Yelena Kof]

Стоматологи делают деньги на выходцах из стран третьего мира (каковыми мы тоже являемся). Рождённые в Америке имеют гораздо меньше проблем и занимаются в основном косметологией. *Позвольте не согласиться. *Я работаю в стоматологическом офисе. *Такого насмотрелаааааась!!! *:-O *Русских пациентов нет. *Правда, согласна что младшее поколение сейчас в этом вопросе получше. *Но тоже много проблем. *Часто вижу отбеленные передние зубы, а за щеками: зуб-дырка.

[Nadiya]

Костя, чтоб вы знали.. основная масса выходцев из третьего мира, вообще обходит сторой американских дантистов т.к. за такие деньги можно сделать и получить такое же обслуживание и качество зубов у себя на родине, как и в Америке. За две штуки долларов вам в Киеве целую челюсть вставять. А здесь на коронку, дай бог хватило. Работа и оборудование ни чем не отличается от американских, разве только ценой за работу.

[Лина]

За две штуки долларов вам в Киеве целую челюсть вставять.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
two thousand plus plane fare, time off from work, and the cost of another trip and more ime off, if any complications should arise.

[Зоя Зося]

Мою подругу муж повёз в Коста Рику на челюстную операцию (ch) *Самое дешёвое здесь в Сан Франциском "студенческом" госпитале :-D *она стоила бы ей $5,000, а там ровно половину... Всё бы хорошо, но времени на послеоперационное восстановление у неё было мало, так что обратный перелёт стоил ей серьёзных осложнений, которые ещё неизвестно чем закончатся в конце концов...и какими $$$$ *-)

[Александра Камэ]

Лина, мы тоже платили за перелет из Колорадо в НЙ, там у нас свой стоматолог,по военной страховке. Для меня непривычно было , что надо так далеко лететь, чтобы зубы лечить,но мы совмещали правда поездку к родственникам и прием врача. Стоматология здесь очень дорогая, сужу по родственникам и друзьям, почти у всех были и есть проблемы с лечением, из-за высоких цен.

[Александр Пкас]

Машенька фром сф,извините ,хотел подразнить немножечко,я очень люблю моих американских мальчишек и девченок ,впрочем взаимно,на все сто уверен, что из них вырастут высококлассные врачи:-D

[Игорь Мунт]

Весьма любопытный рассказ с фотографиями о воронежской(российской?) медицине: ********dorinem.livejournal.com/93962.html
Некуда было приткнуть, кроме как форума об американской медицине.

[Мария]

а, история , которая приключается ежедневно с миллионами Россиян. *Бесплатная медицина.
Вот это место мне понравилось:
"Палата была на шесть мест, но ни одного человека в ней не было.
- А где все? – поинтересовалась я.
- Не знаю, видимо, ушли домой на выходные."

[Мария]

Вот ещё понравился кусок ( наивная Израильтянка)

"А потом мне провели мастер-класс – сколько что примерно стоит,подробно рассказали, кто сколько дал за диагностику, операцию (они быливсе из хирургии) и последующий уход, на каком этапе следует давать(похвалив меня, что до сих пор не дала, ибо просто дежурным даватьбесполезно), как именно это делать. Потом меня, как и полагается,протестировали – спросили, сколько кому я собираюсь давать. Отругали,что мои суммы слишком высоки, сказали, что если дам слишком много, тобудут у меня деньги тянуть бесконечно, уточнили суммы, рассказали, покаким признакам можно понять, что пришла пора дать следующую взятку.
Яещё пару раз ходила туда же, каждый раз получая от разных людейподобные ответы и цифры, но уже без тренинга. Видимо, в первый раз мнеповезло – сразу попала на коучей. Кстати, отличный старт-ап – делатьдля въезжающих иностранцев тренинги по даче взяток. Я бы на такойпошла, даже за немалые деньги."

[ГАЛИНА МЮТО]

Ппрочитала я весь этот эпос, ссылку на который дал Игорь.. Тем, которые выросли в Штатаx были по всей вероятности незнакомы прелести Совковой медицины, а мне были очень xорошо знакомы, так как я приеxала в Америку в 29 лет.. я имела "удовольствие" пройти через "прелести" того здравооxранения... после чтения све довольно живо всплыло в памяти.

[ГАЛИНА МЮТО]

Да, взятку там в больнице дать очень просто.. нищие люди воспринимают подачки как закономерное правило иx существования.. не во взяткаx дело.. ужасает квалификация врачей: разве это врачи? какие у ниx знания? ЭТО ВЕДь ДИКОЕ СРЕДНЕВЕКОВьЕ! Правильно, что в Америке нашиx бывшиx эскулапов, выучившиxся "за сало", не допускают к практике. Я знаю многиx, здесь в Нью Йорке, которые так и не смогли здесь стать врачами... ибо знаний никакиx + английский нулевой. Я честно не xожу к "нашим", а всегда выбираю врача-американца. Так на всякий случай. Слишком xорошо я знакома с "той медициной".

[Khramaya]

Galina, I hear you.... And I, on my part prefer to work with americans, and when "our" immigrants" come to my office, it almost gives me seizures:-S, especially when they start telling me how their grandma ( who is always "zav otdeleniyem:-D ) is a doctor from Moscow ....But to be fair, us, who passed all the tests easily, got trained here, got all the Board certifications without any problems with high marks - we offer quite comparable services, I know many docs who are actually very good. I think, if one got out of "there" before age 30, is reasonably trustworthy as medical professional here.

[Леонид]

Esli kogo to muchaet nastal'giya - pochitayte eto.
Гражданка Израиля о российских больницах...
***********.kp.ru/daily/24545/723244/

[malluege]

К *Юлии Штейен / Хромая / Спасибо за Ваши меткие замечания но почему по- английски

[Мария]

Мы тут привыкли по-английски. *А что, нельзя? *Мы профессионалы, работаем в англо-язычной среде, зачастую проще выразиться по-английски, а часто просто русских хвонтов нет под рукой.(ch)

[Мария]

Кстати, об этом рассказе про посещение Воронежской больницы: *гинекологические отделения в советских больницах всегда были одним из самых жутких мест для женщих...как там только нас не оскорбляли... *а кровавые сгустки в тазиках и *трупики полностью сформировавшихся человеческих зародышей в мусорных корзинах под столом гинеколога -как вспомню, так вздрогну.... похоже ничего не изменилось...

[ГАЛИНА МЮТО]

Julia, the fact that you are not working on Brighton or generaly in Brooklyn, already places you on a different scale. But most of our so called "doctor" "из Союза" reside exactly in that area, Because they seek patient who speak Russian. I look at thatfact in one way only: if you do not fluent in English you were not able tolearn anything here. Why do I need a doctor who’s knowledge I doubt? I am nottaking about those who grew up here and graduate from American colleges.

[ГАЛИНА МЮТО]

Юля, еще однин момент меня достает: когда я емею удовольствие встречатся со своими родственниками на Украине, то моя тётя, которая вышла на пенсию с должности заведующей отделения эндокринологии областной больницы славного города Николаева, считает за должное поносить американскую медицину, которую она в глаза никогда не видела, о которой она ничего не знает. Надо отдать ей должное, я еще из молодости помню, что ездила она на какие-то симпозиумы, и кажется наскрябала какую-то статью в эндокринологический журнал, которую её собственный муж запретил печатать. Так как он был начальником облздравотдела.( я понимаю как вас коробит читать эти советские сокращения). То ли статья была такая, толи дядю его мужское иго заело, то ли побоялся обвинений в протекционизме собственной жене. :-D :-D :-D

[ГАЛИНА МЮТО]

На сколько я помню то ендокринологическое отделение работало точно также как и описанное в Воронеже. Когда тетка была на дежурстве, а я была в гостяx, я всегда напрашивалась идти с ней. Она напяливала на меня белый xалат и сxодила за интерна. Помню один случай: привезли мальчика 10 лет. Они с братом игрались и он одел себе на пенис гайку, а снять не смог. Так в областной больнице не было чем её распилить. Часа через 3, после десятка звонков, нашли какого-то супер слесаря с 56-го завода( так называли Николаевские судостроительные верфи), очень секретное предприятие было. У того оказался нужный напильник! так потом еще пиляли часа два! Интересно, правда?

[Зоя Зося]

А я даже не подозревала, что областная больница должна быть укомплектована напильниками в широком ассортименте :-D :-D хорошо, что на всей территории быв. СССР в каждом более-менее большом городе было хотя бы по одному секретному заводику (H) а как в сельской местности, интересно, выходили из такого затруднительного положения? (риторический вопрос, так, весело мне стало от этой истории :-D )

[Зоя Зося]

Самое главное, пацан эту историю явно на всю жизнь запомнил и вероятно больше никогда не играл со своим же пенисом...бедный

[ГАЛИНА МЮТО]

Бедный ребенок орал с перепугу и от боли, ведь нежный орган успел распуxнуть за это время.

[Мария]

И естесственно никаких анксиолитиков ему не дали, так как скорее всего их в больнице не было. *А если бы и были, то побоялись бы дать неправильную дозу... так как правильной скорее всего и не знали... *Эх, житуха...

[Sweet]

ох, не хотела эту историю вспоминать....все уже в прошлом: по приезду в США у дочери вдруг начались эпилептические приступы, ребенку 4 года...нас направили в Неврологический отдел Los Angeles Children's Hospital, наблюдались: не буду говорить о многочисленных тестах каждый месяц Blood work, MRI (причем ее усыпляли каждый раз, чтобы ребенок лежал в баро-камере ровно), таблетки под котролем врача (финобарбитал) Dr/Tallie Baram (дай Б-Г ей здоровья) мне предложили оперировать правое полушарие с гарантией на 90 % короче 4 года спустя операция на мозг....длилась 6 часов...не помню уже все было как в тумане в тот день...кажеться Апрель 1995...получила свою дочь обратно(Y)

[Sweet]

скажу, что через 2 дня после операции ас выписали домой, поверите? а что приступы прекратились моментально и ребенок пошел через неделю в школу? шрам на голове, черт с ним..зажил и выросли шикарные каштановые длинные волосы.....а что мне это не стоило и цента? поверите тоже? операцию кстати оплатил Госпиталь...а др.Барам пошла на повышение....вот такая история!

[Рита С]

Ой, девочки и мальчики. Читаю со слезами на глазах то, что вы пишите. Не хочу вспоминать, как мне в Америке с того света вернули мужа, который приехал по гостевой визе без страховок или же каких-либо привилегий..... Спасли не посмотрев ни на что, без денег!!!!! и все!!!! Но как молодой американский доктор спас жизнь моей 81 летней маме, попавшей в emergency с воспаленным до крайней степени желчным.... - он ее просто на руках выносил, зметься, Medicaid, nothing else..... GOD BLESS AMERICAN DOCTORS!!!! * (F) (F) (F)

[Khramaya]

I am also waiting for some comments from those who object "free" on this site.... In the last posts - free, for free.... So, how about this, objectors of M-Caid? It's not medicine, it's healthcare system now ..... most of those who are so grateful for wonderful medicine would never be able to afford those very expensive tests and procedures out of pocket, if not for system of free care for some ( subsidizes by the rest of us) Any comments?

[Mihail]

мысли в слух:
- Медицина и система здравохранения вещи связанные, но не одно и то же;
- Бесплатность медицинской помощи для небольшой части населения - это часть американской системы здравоохранения;
- Система здравохранения нуждается в реформе. Причина - Более 15 лет сохраняется тренд, когда при инфляции в 2-3% расходы на медицинское обслуживание растут 5-6%.Т.е. расходы непрерывно растут;
- По непонятной мне причине считается, что причина этого - в этой бесплатности. С моей точки зрения, причина в жестком регулировании количества докторов и больниц. Чтобы цены упали надо увеличивать предложение, а не спрос;
- Основной смысл обамовской реформы - Контролировать цены будут страховые компании. Они на это согласились, увеличив законодательно число клиентов.
- Результат - количество клиентов возросло (спрос выростет), а предложение сохранилось тем же (количество докторов и больниц). Есть только два варианта или цены полетят вверх, или уровень обслуживания упадет. Ну, или комбинация этих двух.
Юлия, в где я не прав?

[ГАЛИНА МЮТО]

Если медицина станет бесплатной для всеx, то через 5 лет от американской медицины ничего не останется. Обамовский закон имеет в себе большие "ножницы": медицина у нас страxовочная, а страxовочный бизнес - это дело штата, а не федерального правительства. Если пересмотреть все штатные ограничения и правила о работе старxовыx компаний и сделать более свободный рынок, то тогда дело утрясется само собой... И существование систем Медик ейд и Медик каре для определенной категории граждан вполне допустимо и необxодимо. Я думаю, что было бы больше пользы, если бы государство больше спонсировало разработку новыx препаратов. Тогда лекарства были бы дешевле и было бы лучше всем.

[Khramaya]

"в где я не прав".
Миша, не в где, а по чем.:-D You are right, but private hospitals are almost impossible these days. It is, as you point out, a function of supply of demand, but out system is so cumbersome and top-heavy, so overburdened with bureaucratic apparatus, so profit-driven and so defensive, that I am now at a total loss as to what it might take to reform it. Some genius reformer? I amdvery unhappy with the way this reform was conducted,but - we'll wait and see.... The only way I see to make it cheaper is to provide some universal Catastrophic coverage and make insurance totally independent of your place of employment. If you want to buy more - buy more, otherwise - just pay cash for anything no-urgent or preventive. I wrote on this idea of 3-tier insurance ( 1st- universal *basic for all, 2nd- buy coverage for illness, 3rd - "fancy- shmancy" policy for those who want it). Unfortunately, this reform was totally hijacked by insurance and Pharma lobby, and *, in this country, to paraphrase "кто платит, тот заказывает музыку", - кто держит кошелек, тот диктует законы.....Грустная ситуация.

[Khramaya]

oops - sorry - I meant to say that basic should cover only urgent and preventive ( really basic preventive). It should not cover lifestyle related illness. You got yourself Type II diabetes from eating junk or COPD from smoking - you buy yourself Insurance to pay for it. I know,it's a debatable position,but this is how I feel. Preventive basic care SHOULD be covered.

[Лина]

Если медицина станет бесплатной для всеx, то через 5 лет от американской медицины ничего не останется.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
в каком смысле бесплатной для всех? кто это предлагает? как она может стать бесплатной для всех?

[Mihail]

Юлия,
Проблема в ограниченном предложении - количество докторов и больниц. Ситуацию не изменить заменой системы страхования. Слишком много бюрократов в системе? 11 процентов. Даже если их под ноль извести, цены восстановятся за 3-4 года (рост расходов на мед. обслуживание 3-4% с учетом инфляции). Не говоря уже о том, что для контроля за ценами страховым компаниям надо будет увеличивать штат, а больницам в ответ увеличивать количество бюрократов.
Некоторое время назад проскользнула цифра - для выполнениые обамовской реформы понадобится 1 миллион докторов дополнительно. За сколько лет удастся восполнить ТАКОЙ дефицит? Не меньше десяти, наверное. Дефицит приводит к росту цен и ухудшению сервиса. Вроде бы задекларированная цель реформы была другой.
Я не спец и был бы искренне рад, если бы мне указали (в) где я не прав.

[Андрей Павэ]

Найти ещё миллион врачей просто нереально в ближайшие десятилетия. Но я не знаю, откуда взялась эта цифра. Во всей стране сейчас нет миллиона врачей. В связи с реформой вряд ли понадобится больше чем несколько десятков тысяч дополнительных врачей.

[Khramaya]

yes, an extra million is a bit much... what is happening is that 1) baby- boomers generation of doctors is retiring, and it's estimated that in the next 15 yrs we will lose about 250,000 of them - and this is already taken into an account with increasing med schools enrollments and increased residency quotas and 2) - a huge number of docs is going into specialty care and primary care is largely undeserved, especially in some urban and rural areas.... what to do about this? - hey, pay us better, more folks will stay in primary care.

[Мария]

More and more prime care docs and internists are going into boutique practice. Ylia, did you think about it for yourself?
With Obamacare even more docs may chose this path if the Congress does not pass a law prohibiting all forms of private practices.

[Андрей Павэ]

What do you call somebody who graduated from medical school at the bottom of his class?
A doctor.

[Андрей Павэ]

My point is there will probably always be just a minority of doctors in purely private all-cash practice. And there will always be plenty of doctors willing to work in any kind of state-sponsored system. Remember that whenever the government starts picking winners and losers, it picks plenty of winners. That's why socialism is always very popular.

[Олег Сах]

Раз на то пошло, у меня тоже есть история. Из за неё я в общем то и был против обамовской реформы. Не знаю где и когда происходили страшные истории когда люди умирали от отсутствия страховки. Вот вам случай. У меня был водитель. Американец. Банкрот. Курил три пачки в день. Ел ночью чизбургеры из дайнера каждый день, не пил, правда. В один момент подскользнулся и ударился локтем. У него начала расти шишка, я ему говорил пойти к врачу, он отнекивался что нет страховки и денег. Когда она доросла до размера грейпфрута, пошел. Ему там же в оффисе оформили emergency Medicaid. Начали лечить. Это была саркома. Рак. Назначили химию. Операцию. Приставили сиделку на 12 часов в день. Прооперировали.Когда стало хуже, положили в Memorial Sloan Cattering. Потом перевели в Hospice. Он ушел на тот свет, оставив кое какие сбережения, машину, дорогущие часы. Он работал всю жизнь на кэш, ничего не показывал. Если существующая система так позаботилась об этом человеке, чем она плоха?

[Лина]

Он работал всю жизнь на кэш, ничего не показывал. Если существующая система так позаботилась об этом человеке, чем она плоха?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Тем что тому кто работал бы всю жизнь на чек, не скрывая ничего, но не смог себе позволить купить страховку, она (система) бы не помогла... И нам (taxpayers), все таки, будет дешевле оплачивать или субсидировать страховку малоимущим, чем потом платить за их медицинские расходы.

[Khramaya]

Right, Oleg... this guy was poor on paper. When you are poor in this country ( legally poor or like this guy) - you are taken care of. And then there are working poor. People who work honestly, and even make more or less reasonable living, but , as Lina said, medical expenses are prohibitive for them. I see this every day. Somebody's employer changes polity to a "high deductible" and people think twice about going to see a doctor. Just today I saw a kid who was walking with fractured arm for 4 days while his mom was thinking whether his pain was severe enough to see a doctor. They have this high deductible account, pay $600 per month for a family of 4, and now she has to pay about $ 300 for this fracture....Ridiculous, don't you think?

[ГАЛИНА МЮТО]

Ему-то как раз эта система помогла, так как он всю жизнь работал на кеш, ничего не показывал, даже имел официальное банкротство. То есть, за ним ничего не числилось, официально конечно. Он не платил и поимел. Так почти половина нашиx имигрантов живет, ничего не платя, ничего не показывая, работая на кеш, получая велфер. Тогда им дают Медик Эйд, лечат, и оформляют на тот свет за деньги теx, кто платит. Дети иx учатся в коледже за государственные гранты. А вы попробуйте получить эти гранты когда у вас доxод $50К в год или выше. Только заем. Мое мнение, теперешняя система не лучше, трутней которые её доят - полно. Беда с Обамовским законом в том, что на него просто нет денег. И не будет в обозримом будушем. И работы надо вернуть в страну, а то одной работой денежнопечатного станка "дырку" можно селать еще больше. А так мы щедро поделились своим богатством с арабами и китайцами. А на ниx все мы не заработали. И не заработаем уже.

[Мария]

They have this high deductible account, pay $600 per month for a familyof 4, and now she has to pay about $ 300 for thisfracture....Ridiculous, don't you think?
Why is it ridiculous? People would pay $300 without even blinking to take a pet to a doctor.

[Khramaya]

Maria, people don't pay $6-10K /yr for pet insurance. In fact, my pet insurance costs me $80/yr:-) . And I only got it once, when anticipated some pet related expense.:-) It saved me $160. You can't do this with "human" insurance. And, I'm sure those folks wouldn't mind paying $300 if they didn't already pay $600X 7 months. Their insurance only will save them money if they will get some devastating disease, G-d forbid.

[Светлана Гэмм]

have no idea how many times it has to b repeated - that the ins. co's profit is ~3.5%.. if the policy costs that much, it's because it covers a lot of expensive treatments (and $300 is a fraction of the cost).. we are over-insured, we don't policy that covers "oil-change" and every scratch (we should pay it out of our pockets, and use ins. for really expensive stuff).. yes, medicine is expensive, but so is everything else.. and people who make a living in healthcare should not be surprised..

[Лина]

have no idea how many times it has to b repeated - that the ins. co'sprofit is ~3.5%.. if the policy costs that much, it's because it coversa lot of expensive treatments (and $300 is a fraction of the cost)..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
you can repeat till you're blue in the face (even draw pictures, if you so please), but if the informationpresented fails to make sense (all insurance companies' profit iscoincidentally 3%?), or is not perceived as credible, nobody willlisten. what some here fail to comprehend, is that numbers in thefinancial statements are easily manipulated, and insurance companies (and other corporations)will under-report their profits when doing so is fiscally advantageous.the policy might cover a lot of expensive treatments, but if youcompare what the patients paid in premiums against the benefitsreceived, the insurance company comes out as the obvious winner in this situation.

[Лина]

unless you're one of the accountants responsible for compling their financial statements, you couldn't say with any kind of cetrainty that that the numbers they report is an accurate representation of their annual profits. even independent auditors can be deceived.

[Khramaya]

what I'm trying to say - is when you are a family on the fixed budget, with a bunch of kids and lots of expenses, like most of the working class , as well as middle class, any rhetoric is just that - rhetoric. You don't care about what portion of what you need to pay is anybody's profit, and whatever, you care about thousands of dollars you have to pay upfront, even before your insurance kicks in. That's about it. To insurance Co. your $300 is whatever idiotic term they use on paper to call it, to you - it's your $300 out of pocket, now. I simply find it embarrasing that in this country when you come to the hospital, the first question is: what is your insurance? - not "what can we do to help you" ( unless you are unconscious or bleeding all over the floor:-D )

[Андрей Павэм]

Why is it embarassing? When you come to an hotel, one of the first things they say is ask you for your credit card. Same at a car rental counter or an airline counter. You won't get any service at any of those places unless you present means of payment upfront (and mind you, full payment, directly from you to them, without any delay - not a promise that after weeks or months after doing a lot of paperwork they will finally get a reduced payment and then will have to send you bills for your part, which you may or may not pay promptly). The difference is the hospital will treat you anyway if you are in a threatening condition, and other places won't provide their services without payment no matter how desperately you need them.

[Лина]

The difference is the hospital will treat you anyway if you are in athreatening condition, and other places won't provide their serviceswithout payment no matter how desperately you need them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
you can live without the other services...

[Khramaya]

Andrei, the difference is very simple: it is really not your right , but your privilege to rent a hotel room, to drive and rent a car, to travel or to buy whatever you want, for that matter. But I just want you to think if you would consider it a privilege or a simple human right to seek medical attention if you arrive to the hospital with your child in serious condition, and you are - not you, but someone quite , hmmmm, unfortunate, impoverished, poor....Your Child still has this basic right to health care, right? - And , yes, you are right, it will be delivered, but after much humiliation..... and it really is not necessary. We are quite lucky that most ( not all) people who work in healthcare are quite compassionate, and we do treat plenty of people pro bono ( trust me,more then we can afford to) , but our healthcare should not rely on individual compassion, it should be, in it's very basic form, really a basic right.

[Светлана Гэмм]

there is no human rights to basic or any other healthcare.. rights are something you are born with (unless there are additional rights quaranteed by laws or constitution like 2nd amendment rights).. if u are turned away by a hotel and there is a subzero temp outside, u will die just as u will die if u r having a heart attack and turned away by a hospital.. but those are not rights, it's compassion of our society to help people when people r in a desperate situation.. just like we feed the hungry or homeless to help them stay alive, we pass laws not to turn away people in such emergency situation and even agree paying for it through paying high healthcare costs and sometimes taxes.. not having a healthcare coverage is not a desperate situation in most cases, but a choice by many that they chose it for different reasons (to save money for some or if those u can't afford it on your own and failed to find an employer providing health insurance).. demanding this (expensive) necessity from your countrymen, government is just feeling entitled and not wanting to provide for yourself.. and politicians exploit it to buy votes, others repeat their lies as a prayer learned over many years..

[Лина]

there is no human rights to basic or any other healthcare.. rights aresomething you are born with (unless there are additional rightsquaranteed by laws or constitution like 2nd amendment rights)..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
spoken like a true humanitarian and a mother of three

[Лина]

if u are turned away by a hotel and there is a subzero temp outside, uwill die just as u will die if u r having a heart attack and turnedaway by a hospital..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
only if there's no other shelter around and the hotel is run by someone like you

[Лина]

but those are not rights, it's compassion of our society to help people when people r in a desperate situation..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
no, it's called humanity, or living in a civilized world, and it's not restricted to our society... in fact, the United States is probably the only wealthy industrialized nation, that does not provide universal health care... unfortunately, some of us are doomed to remain trapped in the dark ages...

[Khramaya]

Well, we just see philosophical differences here. The fact that Sveta doesn't consider healthcare a human right is just her opinion. It is not just HER opinion, it is many others opinion. But, there are organizations and individuals who do hold a different opinion ( UN, Amnesty International, many NGO's, such as Gates Foundation) . This is actually one of the basic philosophical differences that did make healthcare debate so inflammatory

[Светлана Гэмм]

what I'm trying to say - is when you are a family on the fixed budget, with a bunch of kids and lots of expenses, like most of the working class , as well as middle class, any rhetoric is just that - rhetoric. You don't care about what portion of what you need to pay is anybody's profit, and whatever, you care about thousands of dollars you have to pay upfront, even before your insurance kicks in.
exactly! don't buy it if it's too expensive for u.. buy the less expensive coverage and save the money not "wasted" on premiums for times like that one (broken arm).. u may actually end up with an impressive sum for your healthcare needs AND would pay less to the horrible insurance companies.. (tr) and more to good compassionate healthcare workers who are compassionate but don't want to provide basic human rights to others for free.. :-(

[Лина]

exactly! don't buy it if it's too expensive for u.. buy the lessexpensive coverage and save the money not "wasted" on premiums fortimes like that one (broken arm)..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe Julia mentioned that the family in her example had a high deductible policy - those tend to be less expensive... also there are many states where the choice of individual health insurance is pretty limited...

[Лина]

healthcare workers who are compassionate but don't want to provide basic human rights to others for free..
-----------------------------------------------------------
then what exactly is your definition of compassionate?

[Лина]

The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienablerights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (1)There is no question that in order to have life we must have health.Yet there has been only limited constitutional language specific tothis right.
The "crueland unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitutionhas been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as partof their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the rightto health care. (2)
Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to health care.

[Лина]

It is probable that the founders of our country, if they could havepredicted the importance of health care, would have granted that thesame standard of humane treatment be extended to every citizen.
At the time of the framing of the Constitution--though meager in itsscope compared to today's standards--health care was generallyavailable to all citizens. There was no major issue of lack ofaffordability or lack of access to care.

[Khramaya]

Sveta, I am sure you know that most people who are employed by large companies have very limited choices of insurance options - only what their employer offers. ( Unless they qualify for SCHIPS or Family health plus) . That's why it would be really good to have insurance that is not tied to one's place of employment.

[Khramaya]

"healthcare workers who are compassionate but don't want to provide basic human rights to others for free.."- not sure you are aware what is the usual proportion of services provided for free, or what percentage of bad debts in most hospitals is, or what the rules are ( to see all patients if they are ill, but to reschedule their preventive appointments if they don't have insurance, but to still provide immunizations from VFC fund )....so,yes, we take care of lots of folks for free.....

[Светлана Гэмм]

Julia, people can get on their own, change the laws to allow more insurance companies in the state, etc.. there are ways to make it better, unless u believe it's a "basic human right" and there has to be universal coverage even forcing people who don't want it which is a violation of their rights, don't u think?

[Светлана Гэмм]

not sure you are aware what is the usual proportion of services provided for free, or what percentage of bad debts in most hospitals is, or what the rules are ( to see all patients if they are ill, but to reschedule their preventive appointments if they don't have insurance, but to still provide immunizations from VFC fund )....so,yes, we take care of lots of folks for free.....
I know they do (don't know about many private doctors, but many hospitals, many are built on philanthropic money, there are many societies that help the indigent)..and it's the way it should be! but rights can't be something that others have either to work for free, provide for free or pay for others.. taking care of the needy sick people comes from the heart and should be forced on anybody.. especially when it will affect the quality of healthcare for the rest of the society..

[Лина]

taking care of the needy sick people comes from the heart and should beforced on anybody.. especially when it will affect the quality ofhealthcare for the rest of the society..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wouldn't having a large family also affect the quality of health care for the rest of the society? what about their impact on environment? should we charge those families higher taxes, rather than giving them tax breaks? should we ban multiple children families all together? what about people who were born sick or lead unhealthy life styles? aren't they a drain on our society?

[Андрей Пав]

Julia, I will fight to the death against the so-called "right to health care". I am willing to kill and be killed over this issue. Are you?
It is a matter of principle. Economic rights - such as right to health care, food, housing, job etc. are totally, absolutely, completely incompatible with freedom. Those "rights" imply that somebody must provide them. And who is that somebody?! You cannot have any rights that impose any obligations on anybody else. Just hypothetically speaking, suppose you have a right to health care but nobody wants to be a doctor. Do you realize that the only way for the government to provide such a right to you then is to force somebody to become a doctor against his will, and that means enslaving that individual.
That's the philosophical difference between economic "rights" and real rights. Real rights are purely negative in terms of what the government has to do - e.g. it merely has to refrain from persecuting you for speaking your mind (however your free speech right does not impose any obligation whatsoever on anybody else).

[Лина]

"The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed withunalienablerights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit ofHappiness." (1)There is no question that in order to have life we musthave health."

those who don't agree are free to leave the country or "kill" over the issue (hope you meant that figuratively, anything else will land your butt along with your principles in jail)

[Светлана Гэмм]

60% of Americans don't agree with it (that's why they want to repeal Obamacare).. and will land the butts of those who voted for it back to where they belong - on their coaches.. :-)

[Лина]

Economic rights - such as right to health care, food, housing, job etc.are totally, absolutely, completely incompatible with freedom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aren't you also forced to pay taxes, buy car insurance... are yor rights being violated? do you feel enslaved by these laws?

[Лина]

60% of Americans don't agree with it (that's why they want to repealObamacare).. and will land the butts of those who voted for it back towhere they belong - on their coaches.
------------------------------------------------------------------
are those the same 60% who can barely read and write?

[Лина]

"A negative right to life allows an individual to defend his life fromothers trying to kill him, or obtain voluntary assistance from othersto defend his life"

so if someone tries to kill you by preventing you from having access to food, shelter, and yes, even health care, you have the right to procure the aforementioned items, by any means neccesary.

[Лина]

critics go further to hold that any right can be made to appeareither positive or negative depending on the language used to defineit. For instance, the right to be free from starvationis considered &39; on the grounds that it implies a starvingperson must be provided with food through the positive action ofothers, but on the other hand, as James P. Sterba argues, it might justas easily be characterised as the right of the starving person not tobe interfered with in taking the surplus food of others. He writes:
What is at stake is the liberty of the poor not to be interferedwith in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what isnecessary to satisfy their basic needs. Needless to say, libertarianswould want to deny that the poor have this liberty. But how could theyjustify such a denial? As this liberty of the poor has been specified,it is not a positive right to receive something, but a negative rightof non-interference.

[Лина]

Real rights are purely negative in terms of what the government has todo - e.g. it merely has to refrain from persecuting you for speakingyour mind (however your free speech right does not impose anyobligation whatsoever on anybody else).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
or one can argue that real rights are positive "Positive liberty consists of the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential; as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from restraint. "

[Андрей Павэ]

It's one thing to pay taxes to support government functions. It's a totally different thing to claim economic rights. When somebody says he has a right to health care, he effectively says he has a right to enslave me. Let's make something clear: I don't owe you anything. When you say you have a right to something you can not afford, it effectively means that you want me to work without compensation to provide that something to you. In other words, you want me to perform slave labor for you. And I have a very simple question for you: why? Why do you believe that I owe you anything?!

[Мария]

And , yes, you are right, it will be delivered, but after much humiliation...
Much humiliation happens everyday in the hospitals like that one in Voronezh in the story below ( several pages back). That's real humiliation...
Or in Great Britain, where the "free" healthcare is so broken and the medical personel is so UN-compassionate ( read stories about RN's abusing senior citizens in hospitals)

[Мария]

Economic rights - such as right to health care, food, housing, job etc.are totally, absolutely, completely incompatible with freedom. Those"rights" imply that somebody must provide them. And who is thatsomebody?! You cannot have any rights that impose any obligations onanybody else.

That's right! Very well said!(Y)
Belief in economic rights is pure marxism. It leads to tyranny because people will be forced to provide goods to others at their expense ( taking away their private property, ie. product of their labor).

[Mike]

Andrey, so you believe, as a society, we are willing to have people die on the hospital doorsteps?

[Khramaya]

I will make it a point to argue that all those "dreaded" "rights" ( have no idea how a right to be cared when ill fell under economic rights) make first world countries what they are - First world. Third world countries that did not adopt social structures so dreaded by many here continue to look like, ....well, third world countries. Andrej, would you rather live in Denmark or in Guatemala?

[Олег Сах]

Andrey's points well taken, I have another question that always arose in my mind when health care was discussed. What about education? How come education is perceived as outright and undeniable "right" in this country? Why don't we consider it a tangible service that should be provided to the ones that pay for it? And I mean elementary and secondary education, of course. K through High School. Maybe health care should have been done the same way, society pays for health care, until a person turns 18, and then, when a person is free to make lifestyle choices, it becomes an individual's responsibility, just like education. If you care about your future, pay for the diploma, also if you care for your future, pay for possible medical problems that you might have.

[Гера Така]

All of the rights of American Citizens are outlined in the Constitution. If you cannot find the "right" in the Constitution, it means your perception does not equal the reality.
Education, Health Care, gay marriage, etc... are no where to be found in the above mentioned document.
Cheers!(v)

[Лина]

It's one thing to pay taxes to support government functions. It's a totally different thing to claim economic rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------
up until your last few posts, I trully believed that you were the most reasonable conservative here - up until the point where you expressed your readiness to kill or be killed to deprive someone of access to health care. (md) this has nothing to do with economic rights, it boils down to your fundamental right to life, and believe you me there are people out there who will kill and be killed to provide food, shelter, and and health care for them and their families - if it should come down to that.

[Лина]

What about education? How come education is perceived as outright and undeniable "right" in this country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
education shouldn't just be a right, it should be mandatory, as I believe it is in this and many other industrialized nations. as for higher education, I don't believe it should come down to who can afford it, but rather who can contribute the most to society when provided with an education. college admission should be based on merit alone - endowments, legacy status, and affirmative action (once all have access to the same quality of education) should not be factored in to the process...

[Лина]

Maybe health care should have been done the same way, society pays forhealth care, until a person turns 18, and then, when a person is freeto make lifestyle choices, it becomes an individual's responsibility,just like education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
also a great way to spread an epidemic and other diseases when a person doesn't have the money for treatment. wouldn't be surprised if crime rate also went up - desperate times call for desperate measures. isn't this how revolutions start?

[Лина]

personally, I prefer to live in a society of healthy and educated people rather than be surrounded by sickness, ignorance, and want. but that just me, I guess others need to have someone worse off in order to feel better about themselves.

[Лина]

All of the rights of American Citizens are outlined in the Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

there is no life without health...

[Лина]

gay marriage, etc... are no where to be found in the above mentioned document.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

[Yana K]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
So that means that people that just sitting home and using the system, start working, maybe then they can get health insurance and not waiting on Mr.Obama to provide them free insurance on my cost i have the above rights as well.

[Олег Сах]

all men are created equal how does that make us all equal ?
It doesn't make us all equal, but does give us equal rights, presumably. But men constantly take those rights away from each other. And it will never stop. Because, if "all men created equal" guarantees gay marriage, according to someone, then the same rights should be extended to child molesters and such.

[Лина]

So that means thatpeople that just sitting home and using the system, start working,maybe then they can get health insurance and not waiting on Mr.Obama toprovide them free insurance on my cost i have the above rights as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------
it means what it says - all men are entitled to equal rights and protection under the law, including homosexuals... and maybe if you took your own advice, you wouldn't have to announce to the entire forum that you're broke. don't expect any compassion (or handouts) from your conservative brethren

[Лина]

ecause, if "allmen created equal" guarantees gay marriage, according to someone, thenthe same rights should be extended to child molesters and such.

-------------------------------------------------------------
children are in no position to give informed consent... same reason why they can't enter into contracts (well, they can, but they're voidable)... whereas gay marriage takes place between two consenting adults.

[Олег Сах]

But the age of consent is a measure imposed by society, some societies don't have it at all. Now, if a majority of our society is against gay marriage, to the point that the most liberal state opposed it by referendum, why are we extending it, based on "all men are created equal"?

[Лина]

But the age of consent is a measure imposed by society, some societies don't have it at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe it's a grey area when it comes to teenagers... but when we're talking about inflicting physical or psychological harm to a defenseless child, I believe that's when society must step in.



Now, if a majority of our societyis against gay marriage, to the point that the most liberal stateopposed it by referendum, why are we extending it, based on "all menare created equal"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
today they're against gay marriage, tomorrow they're against mixed marriage, next day it will be the Jews... this is why the rights of minorities will hopefully always be protected in our society - no good can come out of pure democracy.

[Андрей Павэ]

Mike, having a "right" to health care and letting people die are two different things. You may choose to give a bum a dollar, but that does not mean that a bum has a right to get a dollar from you. As an individual you may well choose to donate to a charity paying for health care of those who cannot pay for themselves, and that's fine. We can even choose do to a similar thing as a society. That's less fine with me, since I believe it is not a legitimate function of government, and I will always vote against it, but I am willing to abide by the decision of the majority. What I vehemently object to on principled philosophical grounds is declaring some BS "right". It's a very dangerous (and Orwellian) corruption of language and very bad demagoguery. Just imagine that the government proclaimed that everybody has a right to health care, to food and to housing - and then everybody stops working and just demands all these goodies that he has a right to. What is government going to do?! It is not a right if the government can guarantee that right only to a minority of people at any given moment (that sounds more like an insurance policy than a right). The fundamental difference here is that real rights (such as rights under the First and Second Amendments) can be fully guaranteed and protected for everybody at the same time, regardless of the level of prosperity etc.

[Андрей Павэ]

Lina, I am willing to fight over the principle, not actual access of somebody to health care. The concept of human rights is way to important to allow it to be corrupted by demagoguery. The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with this. Food is much more essential to life than health care - so what?! You fundamentally misunderstand Locke (whom Jefferson was paraphrasing). The natural rights are inherent to all people, they are granted by God, not by the government, and they pre-exist before any government is formed. The right to life simply means that the government cannot arbitrarily deprive someone of life (or liberty, or property) and must make a reasonable effort to protect citizens from violence. That's all.
On another topic, what do you know about conservative compassion?! I donate a lot more to charity than either Al Gore or Joe Biden.

[Лина]

Just imagine that the government proclaimed that everybody has a rightto health care, to food and to housing - and then everybody stopsworking and just demands all these goodies that he has a right to. Whatis government going to do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
well, if everyone stops working, then, of course there will also be no government, and everyone will be forced to fend for themselves... since your skills will most likely no longer be in high demand, you will be forced to join the ranks of indigents - whom you seem to despise so much - seeking the protection of those you once felt were beneath you.

[Лина]

negative rights, positive rights, left, center... you seem to be arguing semantics here... bottom line, every civilized society should ensure that their citizens are fed, clothed, have shelter, access to education and health care... if and when we all stop working, we will most likely cease to function as a civilized society, in which case your argument will become moot.

[Лина]

You fundamentally misunderstand Locke (whom Jefferson wasparaphrasing). The natural rights are inherent to all people, they aregranted by God, not by the government, and they pre-exist before anygovernment is formed. The right to life simply means that thegovernment cannot arbitrarily deprive someone of life (or liberty, orproperty) and must make a reasonable effort to protect citizens fromviolence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because I don't agree with your or Locke's definition of the right to life, doesn't mean I misunderstood anything. Jefferson's understanding of it is debatable. And why is it that just the government can't deprive me of my natural rights?

How about you tell me your understanding of a civilized society.

[Андрей Пав]

Lina, it's not semantics. It's about the foundational principles of this country. As I already said, a good test for whether something is a right or not is just to imagine that everybody simultaneously decided to enjoy that right. With rights like freedom of religion it is actually very easy to imagine (Sunday morning, everybody's in church, no problem). With others you see that it is really a promise contingent on government having sufficient resources.
Whether the society should provide everybody with certain minimal resources is a different topic. And I simply refuse to discuss it as long as somebody claims that people have a right to certain resources. Only once that claim is dropped, I am willing to discuss whether the society should subsidize access to certain resources by certain people.

[Лина]

Whether the society should provide everybody with certain minimalresources is a different topic. And I simply refuse to discuss it aslong as somebody claims that people have a right to certain resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you're the one who brought up natural rights... you may substitute it with the right of a person living in a civilized society, if it makes you happy... incidentally, in a recent case, the Indian Supreme Court acknowledged that food along with water, a decent environment, education, medical care, and shelter are the basic human rights of a person living in a civilized society. India! India is more progressive than we are.

[Лина]

Lina, it's not semantics. It's about the foundational principles of this country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And as for the the foundational principles of this country, the only reason I even mention them is because many of the conservatives frequently refer to the founding fathers, failing to realize that they were only human, they couldn't possibly have anticipated and made provisions for every situation that might arise, certain things (like access to health care) were taken for granted or considered a given, and finally - we're living in the 21st century!

[Гера Така]

Lina, why don't you go and help poor. Then tell us all of the wonderful stories about it.
While some of us work for money because we have to support our families and pay taxes for your "rights."

[Олег Хэйф]

It's one thing to pay taxes to support government functions. It's a totally different thing to claim economic rights. When somebody says he has a right to health care, he effectively says he has a right to enslave me. Let's make something clear: I don't owe you anything.
Андрей, камень раздора как раз в вопросе что должно входить государственные функции, а что нет? Например, сегодня Medicaid оплачивает расходы на мед. услуги старикам. Если бы не эта программа многие из них прожили бы гораздо меньше. С Вашей точки зрения деньги налогоплательщиков не должны идти на эту программу? Если нет, то что делать с стариками?

[Лина]

Do you realize that the only way for the government to provide such aright to you then is to force somebody to become a doctor against hiswill, and that means enslaving that individual.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
or the governmet can ban or exclude from society those who are able, yet refuse to contribute essential services . would that still be in violation of any of your basic human rights? and isn't this what our society is in effect doing when granting working visas to the professions they deem most desirable?

[Андрей Пав]

Lina, I don't want to live in a progressive country anyway. The Indian Supreme Court is plain wrong. Once again, something cannot be a basic human right if its exercise imposes obligations on somebody else. Unless, of course, you support slavery and say that everybody except slaves has basic human rights. Furthermore, the fundamental political principles are unchanging. The concept of natural rights is unchanging. It does not matter how much the times changed and what is being taken for granted. And no, I am not fine with any other term including the word "right". When you beg for money, you should fully acknowledge that you beg. Beg nicely, and I may well give you money. However if you claim you have a "right" to some of my property or to make me work for you without compensation, I will give you nothing. And if you insist too much, I will shoot you - sorry. We cannot get anywhere until you acknowledge - without any reservations - that I owe you nothing. Not my property and not my labor. That's the essense of being free, and I am not willing to compromise on it, even if only semantically.

[Андрей Павэ]

Олег, всё, что входит в функции федерального правительства, перечислено в восьмой секции первой статьи Конституции. Там длинный список, так что не буду его пересказывать. Постановку вопроса "что делать со стариками" я в принципе не приемлю, потому что старики (за исключением заключённых) - свободные люди. Они сами должны решать, что им делать. Причём решать надо заранее - пока молодые. Я лично для себя решил уже давно - не перестану работать, пока у меня не будет нескольких миллионов. Любой более-менее продуктивный гражданин может накопить очень много денег за 40 лет. Если кто-то этого безответственно не сделал (например, считал доступ к ста телевизионным каналам в молодости важнее беззаботной жизни в старости), то мы опять же может обсуждать, помогать ли таким людям, и если да, то как. Но я категорически против идеи, что у этих стариков есть на что-то право.

[Khramaya]

I have a question for all: Take one of my patients ( semi-hypothetical, and very common situation). You have a kid from a deeply troubled family, drugs, drinking, family chaos, no structure - the usual... finally,the kid gets into some foster care , but exhibits severe behavioral problems, aggression, oppositional-defiant behavior, etc... Should we as a society provide this child with psychological services, treat him with very expensive psych meds to stabilize his moods, and hopefully, prevent antisocial behavior, potential incarceration, and all the other consequences of this kind of upbringing? We see it every day.... where do individual rights and societal interests meet here?

[Лина]

What do you mean by "ban or exclude from society"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
not allow entry... but lets say they were to ban you entirely, would that violate your fundamental rights? do you have a right to live within a certain society?

[Олег Хэйф]

Андрей, надеюсь Вы ответите на вопрос Юлии. от себя добавлю еще один. Вы пишите: мы опять же может обсуждать, помогать ли таким людям, и если да, то как. Но я категорически против идеи, что у этих стариков есть на что-то право." хорошо, не будем говорить об их правах, если Вас это так раздражает. Но каковы обязанности общества на Ваш взгляд? Должно ли общество, то есть мы с Вами помогать тем, кто не сумел в силу тех, или иных причин накопить достаточно денег на спокойную старость? (Надеюсь, Вы согласитесь со мной, что говоря "Если кто-то этого безответственно не сделал (например, считал доступ к ста телевизионным каналам в молодости важнее беззаботной жизни в старости)..." Вы сильно упрощаете акртину - возможно огромное количество не зависимых от человека причин, по которым он не стал миллионером.)

[Yana K]

and maybe if you took your own advice, you wouldn't have to announce to the entire forum that you're broke. don't expect any compassion (or handouts) from your conservative brethren
Lina that was said with humor that you seem to lack. I do have a good job I do not expect any handouts. I work hard unlike my medicare patients that healthy young men that milking the system as drug seekers. That is what we taxpayers pay for.

[Лина]

And no, I am not fine with any other term including the word "right".When you beg for money, you should fully acknowledge that you beg. Begnicely, and I may well give you money. However if you claim you have a"right" to some of my property or to make me work for you withoutcompensation, I will give you nothing. And if you insist too much, Iwill shoot you - sorry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, but your definition of human rights only works in theoryor maybe if you decide to live on an island, but not within the contextof a civilized society or this conversation.

as for begging, you are mistaken, most people will take rather than beg if it should come to satisfying their most basichuman needs (no, those don't include diamonds and Europena vacations),especially if they feel there are great inequities between what you andthey have (has history taught us nothing?). again, I'm not talking about diamonds. perhaps yourunderstanding of a perfect society includes carrying a gun forprotection, and stepping over dead bodies, because I'm pretty certain youwill not be able to convince a hungry man that he is in violation of your natural rights.

just remember, a good reflection of society is how it treats its poorest and weakest members.

[Лина]

Lina that was said with humor that you seem to lack.

---------------------------------------------------------------
what gave it away? by the way, my post was written with sarcasm, which you apparently failed to grasp.

[Андрей Пав]

Олег, это зависит от того, что, собственно, мы понимаем под обществом. Именно "мы с Вами" как индивиды действительно должны помогать. Но я категорически против нынешней ситуации, в которой 51% избирателей, которые в сумме платят 4% налогов, заставляют 49% кому-то помогать.

[Андрей Павэ]

Lina, it's not my definition of human rights - this concept was developed back in the 18th century. And it works pretty well in practice: this country was founded on it and then developed very well and flourished for most of its history. Until about 80 years ago virtually nobody was talking about economic "rights". If you don't like the principles on which this country was founded, you are free to move to Canada or Europe. They don't have basic freedoms there but they have a lot of recently invented rights.

[Khramaya]

" They don't have basic freedoms there" - what are they lacking in freedoms that we enjoy? other then varied gun laws? I am trying to understand? all of our relatives in Canada, France, Germany seem to be pretty well off and content, and they run pretty serious businesses...They pay as much as me in taxes ( I carefully compared, close to 50% total, including business, local, sales, etc....), but didn't have to pay crazy money for their kids education ( well, this is our choice))..... Please, provide us with comparisons of "freedoms" in the USA and Canada, or, say, Denmark.

[Олег Хэйф]

Андрей, говоря о социуме теорию необходимо проверять практикой. Иначе философия превратится в "философистику". Истории известны случаи философских, экономических, социальных теорий, которые были красивы на бумаге, но на поверку оказывались утопией, хуже того - порой приводили человечество к катастрофе. Вы упорно сосредотачиваетесь на абстракции. Мне бы очень хотелось услышать Ваши ответы на вопросы Юлии (включая вчерашний), а также получить более конкретный ответ на мой вчерашний вопрос "Должно ли общество, то есть мы с Вами помогать тем, кто не сумел в силу тех, или иных причин накопить достаточно денег на спокойную старость?" Вы сказали, что мы с Вами должны. Почему Вам кажется, что мы должны? Кто это "мы с Вами"? Что значит "должны"? Что случится с теми, кто не сумел заработать достаточно на старость, если к примеру я решу, что "не должен". Кто оплатит их медицинские счета? Или пусть помирают?

[Гера Така]

В стране с государственной медициной - государство оплачивает медицину. Советский Союз на пример, но он от этого развалился.
В этой стране государтвенной медицины нет. Вы наверное страной ошиблись.
Зачем было приезжать и садиться на шею трутнем обществу?
Даже новая Обамакара - всё ещё подразумевает не гос. медицину...
Бабки надо копить на старость, а не надеятся на манну небесную, или счастливое коммунистическое будущее...

[Зоя Зося]

<<Зачем было приезжать и садиться на шею трутнем обществу?>>
Просвятите, этот вопрос к кому относится? К какой категории иммигрантов? Тех, которые приехали сюда уже в пенсионном возрасте и не проработав здесь ни дня, получают отличное и совершенно бесплатное медобслуживание? Бесплатное для них, естесственно....

[Андрей Павэ]

Julia, even Canada (not to mention Europe) openly admits that there is no right to free speech there. Yeah, sure, they say they have it - but then in the same breath they say it should be "balanced" against other values (such as multiculturalism). Just try saying anything offensive to Muslims (or homosexuals - unless, of course, you are a Muslim yourself) there and you will know what I mean. Brigitte Bardot already has multiple convictions for blasphemy (against Islam, of course), and the leader of the third biggest Dutch party is now on trial for the same offense. For Canada, just google the names Mark Steyn and Ezra Klein. Our First Amendment is an exception rather than the rule - even among civilized nations.

[Олег Хэй]

Гера, про "Вы наверное страной ошиблись" мне говорили в Эсэсэре. В основном в продмаге. Я к Вам за рыбой/говядиной не приходил, так что про "ошиблись" не Вам говорить, не мне слушать. (H) *А уж про "приезжать и садиться на шею трутнем обществу?"... Не знал, что сижу. Расскажите! (H)
По существу: Я, также как и Юлия, задавал вопрос не о себе, но о людях, проживших всю жизнь в этой стране, но которые, ПОВТОРЮ В ТРЕТИЙ РАЗ ;-) , по не зависимым от них причинам не имеют средств оплатить медицинские счета. Ответов конкретных я не слышу. Все теоретизирование по поводу, "прав" и "не обязаны"... А им то, людям этим что делать без медицинской помощи? Помирать? Оставаться инвалидами в то время, как медицина могла бы им помочь? Их ведь не мало... И без помощи они не вылезут. Так надо ли им помогать? Или нет?

[Славик Саж]

Олег Х., им надо помогать, и мы им помогаем, не так ли? Существует множество социальных програм для малоимущих
А вот Вы мне ответьте на такой вопрос - У меня на работе много молодых людей которые не хотят покупать мед страховку так как они вполне здоровы. Если им понадобится мед помощь, кто за них должен платить?

[Олег Хэйф]

Андрей! Ну, Вы же осознаете, что благотворительностью здесь не обойдешься. Не существует таких фондов, которые бы были в состоянии оплатить по медицинским счетам этой страны всем нуждающимся, но не имущим.
Славик, огромное количество американских граждан, не подпадающих под социальные программы не в состоянии оплатить медицинские счета. По данным на 10 августа в стране 45 млн не имеют мед. страховки. Кто поможет им? Откуда взять деньги, если они заболеют?..
Что касается Вашего вопроса, Славик, то у меня нет ответа на него сегодня. При отсуствии обязательного налога на мед. страховку (политики избегают произносить эти слова) молодые люди останутся без мед. помощи. Если общество поймет, что такой налог необходим, то вне зависимости от их природной, или возрастной глупости в случае нужды они в беде не останутся.

[Андрей Павэ]

Олег, нет, я не осознаю. Американское общество целых три века обходилось частной благотворительностью, пока FDR не начал строить социализм. И не надо фонда, который может оплатить всем. Лучше иметь много фондов, особенно локальных.
Многим из этих 45 миллионов людей очень даже есть где взять деньги, если они заболеют. Они не покупают страховку именно из-за того, что у них достаточно денег. Было бы у меня достаточно, я бы тоже не покупал. Многие миллионы из этих 45 - нелегальные иммигранты. Их депортировать надо, а не задаваться вопросом, как они будут платить.
Что касается последнего абзаца, то когда я читаю такое, я хочу хвататься за пистолет. Это чисто тоталитарный менталитет - насильно защищать дееспособных людей от их же собственной "природной или возрастной глупости". Такой подход в принципе несовместим со свободным обществом. И именно поэтому я всегда буду иметь оружие - чтобы в случае чего убивать таких защитников. Это самая главная цель. Самооборона от преступников - второстепенная.

[Андрей Павэ]

Суть свободы именно в том и состоит, что люди свободны делать любые глупости (или то, что кому-то другому кажется глупостью - отказ покупать страховку на самом деле вполне рационален для многих людей). По крайней мере до тех пор, пока они не ущемляют права других. А если они окажутся в беде из-за своей глупости - это их проблемы. У общества всего два выбора - либо регулярно оставлять миллионы людей в беде, либо лишить всё общество свободы. Третьего не дано. Многие люди утверждают, что нашли третий путь, но самом деле, если его довести до логического конца, он ведёт к рабству. Т.е. сначала людей начинают не оставлять в беде, потом от этого раздувается бюджетный дефицит, и политики начинают искать пути замедлить рост расходов. Пути всегда находятся - надо просто не давать людям попадать в беду в первую очередь. А это означает ограничение свободы. Сначала понемножку, а потом всё больше. Ведь если общество не оставляет гражданина в беде, то рискованное поведение этого гражданина - это уже не его частное дело, а дело всего общества (которому приходится платить, если риск доведёт человека до беды). И, скажем, диета (не говоря уже про курение) - это не частный и сугубо интимный выбор индивида, а государственное дело (ведь государство платит за последствия). "Бесплатная" медицина вполне логически может довести до того, что описано в "1984": все граждане утром делают зарядку, а правительство следит через телекамеры, чтобы никто не сачковал. Why not, если это поможет сбалансировать бюджет?! И это не так уж и надумано. Помнится, где-то в прошлом году была новость, что одна британская пара хотела иммигрировать в Новую Зеландию и в принципе подходила по всем требованиям (у них были правильные профессии). Но им не позволили, потому что жена слишком толстая - и, следовательно, имеет более высокий риск некоторых болезней (замечу, не сами болезни, а именно повышенный потенциальный риск - причём сугубо незаразных болезней). А медицина там "бесплатная". Так что размер талии - забота правительства.

[Khramaya]

Slavik,to yourquestion on insurance for healthy young people: I agreethey need minimal insurance. That's why I'm a proponent of a very inexpensive ,very basic "catastrophic" insurance. Just in case somebody smashes their head with a bottle next Saturday in some bar fight. They will need stitches and a CT scan. We all accept the fact of auto insurance. Why not have a system of graded insurance, like I'm proposing? - no, in this country everything needs to be so complicated.... :-( .

[Khramaya]

Now, as far as how waist size becomes everybody's concern. It is. And we already have some system in place that deals with proven, expensive effects of lifestyle related, private "choice"matters - look at smoking. Since it became apparent how expensive health effects of smoking are, society put in place a system if disinsentivising smoking and making sure that smokers, at least in part, pay for treatment of smoking-induced illness through system of very high cigarette taxes ( $4 per pack in NYS now) and higher insurance premiums. I really wish our system of food pricing was also structured differently, with high tax on fast food, sugary drinks, refined flour, processed snacks and all the other garbage this nation is poisoning itself with. And wish our government didn't subsidize corn producers, but did small growers of vegetables and other produce. There is so much of corporate welfare in this country nobody is talking about..... it's simply sad. All we talk about in this group is individual rights , what about unlimited rights of corporations that are making this nation sick?. And don't tell me it's all just matter of personal choice - it partially is, yes, but the way our public is brainwashed by deceitful marketing is just sick ( and makes us sick)

[Андрей Пав]

Julia, I would really, really prefer to have basic catastrophic insurance, and in fact if everybody else did, our health care costs would be a lot lower (since people would be actively shopping around for non-covered services). But you can forget about it now. The way politics works, once in 2014 everybody is required to have insurance meeting certain minimum federal requirements, you can be pretty sure that those miminum requirements will include everything (including cosmetic surgery, homeopathy, acupuncture and what have you). This nonsense has been going on for decades on both state and federal level, with lawmakers requiring that all health plans include this and that (e.g. it's been illegal since the 1990s to sell any health insurance that does not cover breast restoration after mastectomy or does not pay for at least two days at the hospital after child delivery).

[Андрей Пав]

Julia, those very high cigarette taxes in NY have little effect on smoking rates. The only effect of those taxes that has in fact been proven beyond reasonable doubt is that they provide support for international terrorism (terrorist groups buy cigarettes in state with low taxes and sell them on the black market in states with high taxes). And you don't actually have to do anything at all to make smokers pay of treatment of smoking-induced illnesses - just let them (and everybody else) pay for their own treatment. I don't allow anybody to smoke in my house or in my car. Beyond that, I have no problem with people smoking (either tobacco or weed) - it is just none of my business. And IMHO it is none of your business either.

[Андрей Павэм]

That brings me to the most important question: just who do you think you are to tell people what to eat?! Yes, as a doctor you can advise them on better diet. And yes, agricultural subsidies are a disgrace. However it is not a legitimate government function to mess with food pricing. You can advise people on diet all you want, but you should not have any power beyong your power of persuasion.
It is extremely arrogant of you to think that you know what's best for other people (who you don't even know!). And it is precisely this arrogance that's at the bottom of socialism. E.g. how do you even know that people want be healthier at any cost (in terms of diet and habits)?! To begin with, what we consider medical knowledge, changes all the time and there are plenty of uncertainties (I speak from inside knowledge - e.g. I participated in developing a mathematical model of obesity and read lots of recent research). But even if we accept the current conventional wisdom on nutrition as the last word of science, it is all statistical, not deterministic. I.e. if you smoke and eat certain diet, you merely have a greater risk rather than a certainty of certain diseases (if you don't believe that people with very unhealthy lifestyles can be very healthy for 90 years, just look at Churchill). So if you tell me to change my lifestyle, you are not preventing a heart attack - you are merely lowering its chances. Furthermore, regardless of those risks, I may well die of totally different reasons (accidents or diseases unrelated to those lifestyle risks - like lots of cancers). So if you tell me that lifestyle changes would increase my life expectancy by one year, you are really talking about percentages - not an actual guaranteed additional year of my life. But OK, for the sake of argument let's assume that you can actually give me an ironclad guarantee that if I do certain things (and stop doing other things), I will live a year longer. Now, I am supposed to deprive myself of some important pleasures for my entire life, and as a reward my life will be extended from 82 to 83 years and I'll get another year at an age when I'll be in steep decline physically and mentally and will not even be able to enjoy life very much (so I'll almost certainly be a loser in terms of QALYs). Just why exactly do you think I should be happy to take that deal?! And who or what gives you the right to nudge me (with taxes etc.) to take such a deal?! Is it because you think I am stupid and got brainwashed by deceitful marketing while you are so smart that you are not only totally resistant to all marketing but also know what's best for me better than I know myself?!

[Мария]

And don't tell me it's all just matter of personal choice - itpartially is, yes, but the way our public is brainwashed by deceitfulmarketing is just sick ( and makes us sick)
So, what do you suggest? Banning TV?

[Зоя Зося]

А так же человек должен иметь, из чего выбирать. Иначе все эти свободы лишь в теории. :-|

[Kim Lambert]

That brings me to the most important question: just who do you think you are to tell people what to eat?! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I can't believe thst this is r most important question. So sad. Albeit, I agree with ya on most topics.... I am a republican for the last 25 years....

[Андрей Павэ]

Well, this is the most fundamental question, since it gets at the heart of the relationship between the citizens and the state. Here in the US we have a system in which we, the people tell the government what it can and cannot do - and not the other way around. Those who don't like this arrangement and prefer the opposite one can choose from some 170 countries where the government does indeed tell the citizens what to do.

[Лина]

. Those who don't like this arrangement and prefer the opposite one canchoose from some 170 countries where the government does indeed tellthe citizens what to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------
that "sovok" mentality just keeps shining through.

[Андрей Павэ]

Really? Here we have a truly unique country based on different principles. Why can't immigrants from other countries respect that and either accept the founding principles or go elsewhere? It is actually easier to get permanent residency in Canada.

[Mike]

i have to brag a little..
next week i get to interview the CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess.
One of the questions to ask on my agenda is his view on the Health Reform. Btw, if anyone has any good questions i should ask him - feel free to post here

[Лина]

Really? Here we have a truly unique country based on differentprinciples. Why can't immigrants from other countries respect that andeither accept the founding principles or go elsewhere?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
because this country was founded on the principles of challenging the status quo.

[Андрей Павэ]

Really?! And where does it say so? Why don't you check which truths are called self-evident?

[Лина]

says so? isn't that what the founding fathers did? what about the Boston Tea Party, freeing the slaves, granting blacks the right to vote, the civil rights movement, child labor law reforms, women's suffrage movement, various labor laws, enactment of emission standards, seat belt legislation, child car seat laws... this country is all about change and progress.

[Андрей Павэ]

The main principle of this country is limited government. Half of the items that you listed are not even under jurisdiction of the federal government.

[Лина]

main principle according to whom? what about freedom, democracy, justice...? you fail to realize, we are not the same country we were in 1776 - in every sense of the word. the items listed in my previous post, are examples of the numerous and continuous changes of the status quo - the things that have contributed to making this country great. if this country is to continue to prosper, it must sustain its tradition of change, innovation, and looking towards the future.

[Андрей Павэ]

The main principle according to both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The country is really based on one very simple principle: the national government has no power to ban child labor or to force people to wear seat belts or .... well, you get the idea.