The bait has been set. Now we wait for Psy.

I actually saw this earlier (when I woke up this morning) but I was too pissed off to actually post it.

On second thought, I'm not going to waste my time getting wound up by some irredeemable fool.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on November 28, 2014, 03:24:26 PM

On second thought, I'm not going to waste my time getting wound up by some irredeemable fool.

Am I the only one here who debates for knowledge and not winning? I know this subject is 'touchy' for you but I don't see why you can't go back and fourth on the arguments. As long as you're being open about your arguments and positions and not trying to glue yourself to any one idea or side, you and everyone else reading through this may end up learning something.

It's not really about winning, I'm just rather fed up of arguing the same point with the same people who refuse to understand that mental health hospitals don't just accept any old person off the street, and if someone gets sectioned then they are deeply ill.

But sure, I'm in less of a grouchy mood since my headache has abated so I'll go over this thread if people want to discuss it. I'll do so tomorrow morning though >.>

Shoot any questions you have/points you wish to discuss and I'll dissect kinder's post when I wake up <.<

If anything I say pisses you off, just assume I'm playing devil's advocate. Meta can feel free to answer these as well since he likes economics and stuff.

What's the main purpose for universal healthcare over private care? Is the reason economical or ethical? (Is it better because more people can receive care or is it better because more people receiving care helps the economy?)

Does the NHS have death panels? Are they a good thing? Wouldn't you have to spend a lot of money to prevent the need to have death panels? I think we'd all like it if hospitals didn't have to prioritize patients over others, but how realistic is that really?

Similar to the first question, is the reason for trying to prevent suicide merely ethical? And if it is just an ethic, wouldn't it just be better to not report these incidents so no one feels hurt or offended?

It doesn't (and didn't) piss me off if people ask a question, even a blunt one <.<
What winds me up is people blathering about it and assuming their ignorance is in some way correct.

Anyhoo, I can do some of these now because they've piqued my interest <.<

What's the main purpose for universal healthcare over private care? Is the reason economical or ethical? (Is it better because more people can receive care or is it better because more people receiving care helps the economy?)

In my book it is a mixture of the two, I view the duty to help others above pretty much all so a system that provides healthcare to those who in a privatised system would be left to die from treatable diseases (Or face bankruptcy) is the ideal option. Even if people have to wait longer for non-serious or non-urgent (Life threatening) illnesses, I think it's better than leaving people untreated altogether.

From an economic standpoint, I think that it at least mitigates the overall cost in taxes by reducing the impact of sickness on the economy. It will never be a profit making sector on the scale of universal healthcare (Meta, if I'm wrong please let me know) but it's still important to give healthcare to everyone without making them bankrupt to access it.

Does the NHS have death panels? Are they a good thing? Wouldn't you have to spend a lot of money to prevent the need to have death panels? I think we'd all like it if hospitals didn't have to prioritize patients over others, but how realistic is that really?

Aside from the grossly charged word >_> It has something similar enough, but not quite the death panels of fox news stories. Older and vulnerable patients are asked about their end of life wishes/options and the like, my grandpa received a letter asking him to detail things like this should he fall gravely ill. Like a DNR form and the like, he was pretty enraged until I read it out to him clearly that it wasn't the NHS trying to get him to kick the bucket quickly but it was trying to make sure his wishes were respected should he be unable to state them personally in the future.

As for prioritising patients and the like, it's kind of a touchy subject because hospitals have limited resources and it's not a very well kept secret that doctors do 'kill off' patients. It's not quite pillow to the face, but when a patient is dying in agony and there is nothing more they can do (This is basically what happened to my gran) they ramp up the morphine and withhold water for a few days until they die peacefully. It's awful that they have to bend the rules like that, because of the hissy fits over euthanasia that people throw.

So death panels aren't necessarily a bad thing, some patients do just simply need to die quickly. I don't mean that in some horrific orwellian way, it's just a simple fact that if they are on their way out and there is nothing more anyone can do - keeping them on a ventilator until they expire is wrong. They should be allowed to end their life, or the family should be allowed to decide that. (Flee, could you add on about the belgian euthanasia systems?)

Similar to the first question, is the reason for trying to prevent suicide merely ethical? And if it is just an ethic, wouldn't it just be better to not report these incidents so no one feels hurt or offended?

Somewhat, I would say it is primarily an ethical obligation. I make the distinction and I think professionals do too, between euthanasia suicides and abrupt ones (I forget the proper term). Basically offing yourself in a hospital on a lethal injection because you are dying =/= Shooting yourself in the head over depression.

Euthanasia-Suicide should be legal but regulated properly with 'death panels' to ensure no abuse or pressuring of the patient occurs.

Abrupt Suicides should be prevented with every ounce of effort possible, it's a senseless waste of a life unfulfilled. From an economic standpoint - they don't repay what society has put into them so there is a net loss there. From an ethical and human standpoint, it's just not right for someone to die like that when they could be given help and thus live out the rest of their days properly.

Unfortunately that's eet for tonight because I'm dropping off, but reply and I'll check back in the morning <.<

I wonder how many occupying hospital beds honestly didn't need to take a trip to the hospital. If you can't guarantee everybody equal medical access then the government doesn't need to nationalize healthcare

Alright bueno, the doc is in.
Pepper your angus etc etc.

I wonder how many occupying hospital beds honestly didn't need to take a trip to the hospital.

None, you aren't booked into a mental hospital if you can be treated as an outpatient or if you are faking. Ironically if someone is good enough at faking mental illness to sneak into a mental hospital, they are probably ill in the first place with something like Munchausens. When people are turned away from them after suicide attempts, do you really think they have the time or resources to suffer fools?

If you can't guarantee everybody equal medical access then the government doesn't need to nationalize healthcare

There is so much wrong with this part that I don't even know where to begin.
1. How many people under a privatised system are guaranteed healthcare? Oh that's right, only the ones who can afford it.
2. How many people under a socialised system are guaranteed by law to have access to medical treatment? Oh that's right, everyone.
3. Why were these people unable to get the treatment they need? Budget cuts and freezes when the population is growing and incidences of mental illness are on the rise.
4. Obummercare =/= Nationalised healthcare, it could have been but surprise surprise it was sabotaged by the relentless partisan politics that goes on in the USA.
5. If you can't guarantee everyone equal medical access then the government needs to nationalise healthcare.