Should health care quality be based on your wealth?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Anyhow , given tax rates are higher for wealthy, should they be able to buy better service. My answer is no

Should those with the skills to do so, whether wealthy or not, work to address health care issues as noted above. My answer is yes
 
Nor does it, definitively, in any of these studies, including the one you posted, Pinga. I think the Berkeley study is probably the closest to the truth.

Reducing inequality includes healthcare inequality...which is tied to income if the wealthy can buy better healthcare. They are in a position to do more to address that inequality rather than exploit it.
 
Kimmio said:
Do you think lack of empathy predisposes people to chase after high levels of wealth?
Click to expand...

Nope.

A lack of empathy probably does impact on the path any might take towards gaining wealth.

Not all who have wealth have it because they are immoral. Hence the distinction between honest profit and ill-gotten gain.
 
Lastpointe said:
The stereotypes of rich heartless people are no more accurate than any other stereotype. Flawed at best

Most Canadians I know appreciate our healthcare system and agree with the idea that our tax dollars go towards helping everyone, especially the ones who need help.

But most people also know that money is wasted, and that the system can’t support itself. Most people I know want to see creative ideas

I think most Canadians are grateful we have a system that works to a level. I also think that people should be able to say, this part doesn’t work and not have doom and gloom scenarios thrust at them

My family minimally uses the health system though my husband does more so now with his cancer diagnosis. But at this initial stage he is mainly doing check ups. One kid has never been ill. One has asthma that was part of a big international study out of Atlanta Center for disease control. There was a lot of smoothness from that study that we don’t often see in our day to day health care needs

We need medical schools to enrol students to fill jobs. We need chronic care and palliative care facilities built and used properly. We need drug care for those who don’t get it from work. We need hospitals to stop putting people in hallways. We need Canadians to have family doctors. We need to stop thinking our system is the best. It is not, by far
Click to expand...

There are flaws at either end of the scale between extremes ... poles, polity and fake politeness when denigrating and causing depravity in the alternate ... destroy the alternate and all that's left is ... few to carry out your ...
 
revjohn said:
Nope.

A lack of empathy probably does impact on the path any might take towards gaining wealth.

Not all who have wealth have it because they are immoral. Hence the distinction between honest profit and ill-gotten gain.
Click to expand...

Just blind to it ... the stuff we don't see is immense ... from which can be extracted Men Sah ...
 
Kimmio said:
Are the Rich Really Less Generous?

A Berkeley study suggests that greater equality in a geographical area leads those who are wealthy to be more generous, because they don't have as far to fall, and vice-versa.

The clincher is that as the inequality gap grows, which it is, the wealthy
give less.

A researcher says, "If you're worried about the relationship between income and generosity," he says, "one way to counteract that is to adopt policies that promote equality."
Click to expand...

This makes sense. I think that some of the "gated communities", particularly in the U.S., are a serious attempt by the wealthier to just ignore the less so.
 
I've been told my some snowbirds they have to be extremely cautious about talking to gated peoples when visiting Florida in the chill of winter ...
 
revjohn said:
Nope.

A lack of empathy probably does impact on the path any might take towards gaining wealth.

Not all who have wealth have it because they are immoral. Hence the distinction between honest profit and ill-gotten gain.
Click to expand...
Maybe the question (which is more related to another thread), is, "is it immoral to have too much wealth?"and further "to keep that wealth to oneself and their family?"

Actually, plenty of people take jobs with unethical companies, even if they are only entry level, just to put food on the table so their kids don't starve. And then maybe the company offers them advancement, they stay. So, I'd disagree with your first sentence. I think that path could indoctrinate someone to become numb to broader empathy, though.
 
  • Goldman Sachs has outdone itself this time. That’s saying a lot for an investment firm that both helped cause and then exploited a global economic meltdown, increasing its own wealth and power while helping to boot millions of Americans out of their homes.
  • In a recent report, a Goldman analyst asked clients: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” Salveen Richter wrote: “The potential to deliver ‘one-shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy. … However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies. … While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”
  • Yes, a Goldman analyst has said outright that curing people will hurt their cash flow. And he said that in a note designed to steer clients away from investing in cures. Can “human progress” have a bottom? Because if so, this is the bottom of so-called human progress
  • This analyst note is one of the best outright examples I’ve ever seen of how brutal our market economy is. In the past, this truth would not have been spoken. It would’ve lived deep within a banker’s soul and nowhere else. It would’ve been viewed as too repulsive for the wealthy elite to say, “We don’t want to cure diseases because that will be bad for our wallet. We want people to suffer for as long as possible. Every suffering human enriches us a little bit more.”
  • And believe it or not, the Goldman note gets even worse. The analyst says, “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients. …”
  • Corporations now spew forth their true goals and motivations without much concern for the backlash. They can do things like use attack dogs on protesters at Standing Rock and not worry about the consequences. Who cares? The worst that could happen to them is they pay a fine—a “sorry we bit you with vicious man-eating dogs” fine.
  • We have a value systems disorder. A large percentage of our society now views this Goldman Sachs-style thinking as acceptable.

Wall Street Admits Curing Diseases Is Bad For Business
 
monk said:
  • Goldman Sachs has outdone itself this time. That’s saying a lot for an investment firm that both helped cause and then exploited a global economic meltdown, increasing its own wealth and power while helping to boot millions of Americans out of their homes.
  • In a recent report, a Goldman analyst asked clients: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” Salveen Richter wrote: “The potential to deliver ‘one-shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy. … However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies. … While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”
  • Yes, a Goldman analyst has said outright that curing people will hurt their cash flow. And he said that in a note designed to steer clients away from investing in cures. Can “human progress” have a bottom? Because if so, this is the bottom of so-called human progress
  • This analyst note is one of the best outright examples I’ve ever seen of how brutal our market economy is. In the past, this truth would not have been spoken. It would’ve lived deep within a banker’s soul and nowhere else. It would’ve been viewed as too repulsive for the wealthy elite to say, “We don’t want to cure diseases because that will be bad for our wallet. We want people to suffer for as long as possible. Every suffering human enriches us a little bit more.”
  • And believe it or not, the Goldman note gets even worse. The analyst says, “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients. …”
  • Corporations now spew forth their true goals and motivations without much concern for the backlash. They can do things like use attack dogs on protesters at Standing Rock and not worry about the consequences. Who cares? The worst that could happen to them is they pay a fine—a “sorry we bit you with vicious man-eating dogs” fine.
  • We have a value systems disorder. A large percentage of our society now views this Goldman Sachs-style thinking as acceptable.
Wall Street Admits Curing Diseases Is Bad For Business
Click to expand...

Not proof but certainly posing a question about what we know o the topic of eugenics? Tis ineffable and thus mist! A cloudy plot like Eire with a scheme or better conspiracy ... true Celt ... gone ... something moor out there we don't know ...
 
Kimmio said:
Maybe the question (which is more related to another thread), is, "is it immoral to have too much wealth?"and further "to keep that wealth to oneself and their family?"
Click to expand...

The accumulation of wealth (of any level) and its morality probably depends on a number of connected matters.
-How did you come by that wealth (did you steal it, were you paid it for services rendered or was it gifted to you.

The holding of wealth and its morality probably also depends on a number of connected matters.
-Why are you hoarding it, can you help others with it, do you refuse to use your wealth to help a neighbour in distress?

Kimmio said:
Actually, plenty of people take jobs with unethical companies, even if they are only entry level, just to put food on the table so their kids don't starve.
Click to expand...

Quite the ethical quandry then isn't it? I can be employed by an unethical company, I can do the unethical work they ask of me and, because I do it so my children won't starve I am ethically pure?

That flies for you does it? Relative empathy is good enough I guess.

Kimmio said:
And then maybe the company offers them advancement, they stay. So, I'd disagree with your first sentence. I think that path could indoctrinate someone to become numb to broader empathy, though.
Click to expand...

So they are only subconciously immoral?
 
revjohn said:
The accumulation of wealth (of any level) and its morality probably depends on a number of connected matters.
-How did you come by that wealth (did you steal it, were you paid it for services rendered or was it gifted to you.

The holding of wealth and its morality probably also depends on a number of connected matters.
-Why are you hoarding it, can you help others with it, do you refuse to use your wealth to help a neighbour in distress?



Quite the ethical quandry then isn't it? I can be employed by an unethical company, I can do the unethical work they ask of me and, because I do it so my children won't starve I am ethically pure?

That flies for you does it? Relative empathy is good enough I guess.



So they are only subconciously immoral?
Click to expand...

Some say the sub conscience doesn't exist as it is related to psyche ... a god-like au contraire (negative emotion?) that isn't around much any more due to cultivation of extreme emotions ... free wiles ... and then cougars? Very catty ...

Let's see who we can make war with today ... game?
 
Interesting to note that no one on this thread has suggested that we do not, in fact, have a two-tiered health care system.

I wonder if there would have been some debate about this a decade ago. Or two decades ago?
 
revjohn said:
The accumulation of wealth (of any level) and its morality probably depends on a number of connected matters.
-How did you come by that wealth (did you steal it, were you paid it for services rendered or was it gifted to you.

The holding of wealth and its morality probably also depends on a number of connected matters.
-Why are you hoarding it, can you help others with it, do you refuse to use your wealth to help a neighbour in distress?



Quite the ethical quandry then isn't it? I can be employed by an unethical company, I can do the unethical work they ask of me and, because I do it so my children won't starve I am ethically pure?

That flies for you does it? Relative empathy is good enough I guess.



So they are only subconciously immoral?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, for me. I have been in jobs where I pointed out unethical behaviour, and guess who was on the chopping block for the early round of lay offs? As were others who were vocally unhappy about things happening there. I have never been wealthy as an adult. At one point I bordered on middle class. It was that job, that I was laid off from. They bumped me out of my job when the (Harper) Feds cancelled the project I was employed and we were contracted to provide. offered me the option of doing work they knew I wasn't qualified for, with very vulnerable and often volatile clients, and travelling on the bus with my backpack as my portable office, every other day, between downtown, and the far out suburbs. I turned that down which was actually ethical. I do understand, though. Look at Northern Alberta. an NDP premier is defending big oil, because that's the province's main source of revenue and bread and butter for so many families.

It is a quandary if there is less and less ethically sound work to do, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
I finally caught up on this thread. There has been some interesting discussion. I was thinking about this too after my dentist appointment yesterday. I go to a dentist that has the facilities to do crowns right there so if you have a crown, you get the entire procedure in one visit (I think) instead of having to have a temporary crown while the permanent one is being made at an outside lab. I presume the office has the ability to do other related procedures on site as well. I had an episode of serious pain on the weekend. I chose to go to the walk-in clinic on Monday. The doctor did some checks, asked questions, looked in my mouth, asked me to move my jaw, etc. I walked away with a much appreciated prescription for an anti-inflammatory. When I went to the dentist yesterday, I got an x-ray (on site) that looked at the roots of the potentially offending teeth. My teeth were also photographed using a cool pen-like camera. Apparently there was no obvious problem, so the assistant consulted with the dentist who suggested a CT scan at no cost. I was able to get the CT at the office during my appointment. After an hour at the dentist office, I'd had an exam by both the assistant and the dentist, an x-ray, CT and the pictures. I walked out with a prescription for antibiotics because the CT scan showed that my sinus was almost full. That may have been the cause of the pain. It cost me about $40 at the dentist, partly because I am lucky enough to have a dental plan that covered about $70. The visit really wasn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. This may not be the final answer for the pain I experienced (I hope it is). It is though a good beginning.

I have also been referred to a clinic in Edmonton for a small procedure on my eye. I was referred by the ophthalmologist so it is covered by the provincial insurance. I would have to pay if I had chosen to access the clinic myself. This seems to be a decent use of blending private and public health care. I suspect I would have gotten in sooner if I were using my own dime. It isn't a big deal here though because it isn't a big procedure.

I don't think wealth automatically entitles some people to get better health care than others. The fact is though, they can. I believe in universal health care. How we deliver it can definitely be improved. It might also involve blending private and public in ways that improve services.
 
I am a little uncomfortable with this thread drift. Unfortunately it seems that a discussion about health care and wealth has devolved into an exploration of who are the wealthy and what sort of people are those who have more money compared to those who have less - ie: are they empathetic, collaborative, greedy, and so on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top