clevermanka | Make it go away

I'd like to thank

blndbmbshltr for helping to raise my bloodpressure this morning by pointing out this little news tidbit:
Did you know pharmacists can deny you prescribed medications based on the pharmacist's religious beliefs? Two states already have this law in effect--Arkansas and South Dakota. Ten states are considering similar legislation--Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Story Here

Personally, I feel that if they're going to let pharmacists restrict certain drugs based on individual ethics, then they should also let pharmacists distribute certain drugs based on individual ethics. "Good morning, Mr. Goldstein, how's that wacky weed helping the old glaucoma? Good! Good. Glad to hear it. Another dime bag for you and the missus, then?"

The squirrels are quite rowdy today. They're racing around fast enough to make the ceiling tiles shake. Sounds like they're having a great time up there. Probably because they don't have to deal with bullshit religious right wackos taking over their fucking country.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"We" don't have a problem at all. You are entitled to believe what you want.

I personally think this is something that will gain momentum in many different shapes and forms and maybe, even one day, it may even affect you. But by then, it might be too late.

First off, I just don't see nearly every pharmacist in the country suddenly deciding they don't believe in BC. I don't even see a large number of them doing it. So the arguement there is specious. Allowing people to follow their beliefs when it comes to what they offer isn't a slippery slope. The opposite is. Your rights aren't being impinged on under the current system. You are asking that the pharmacists be, though.

As for healthcare (and medical supplies) being a 'right'. It's a SERVICE. As a service, the provider can expect to be paid. Not only that, it's a SPECIALIZED SERVICE, meaning the provider can expect to be paid a premium. If healthcare (and medical supplies) is made into a 'right' then it MUST be provided. Either the providers become slaves, or the government does all the providing (which really doesn't strike me as a very good idea, actually) By the way, even if the government DOES start supplying healthcare, you will STILL pay for it. And you will likely pay MORE unless you are a particularly sickly individual.

I wasn't referring specifically to the Birth control issue in that last post. I was mainly referring to the way that religious beliefs are attacking certain freedoms. Sure medical care isn't a right, it should be, but that's an issue for another debate.

I do understand your point, though. Case closed.

You said, uptopic, that you're not a particularly religious person. Well, your faith in the free market (sorry, should that be Free Market?) is touching, really.

By the way, even if the government DOES start supplying healthcare, you will STILL pay for it. And you will likely pay MORE unless you are a particularly sickly individual.

You assume, first of all, that under socialized medicine base costs will remain the same--that's just not so. For example, state governments currently pay less for prescription medications because they buy them in bulk, giving the states the advantage of volume discounts and leverage over drug suppliers. Likewise, socialized health care means that service costs—physicians' salaries among them—wouldn't remain at their current astronomical levels.

More importantly, free market ideology (what we used to call unrestrained capitalism) is amoral: it completely ignores the notion of equity as a factor for the public good. Health care is different from consumer goods. Health care, like police and fire service, and military readiness, is a matter of life and death, not merely consumer choice. Socialized medicine spreads the cost of the infrastructure, services and goods over the entire tax base. More people pay, but individually they pay less. This is not only morally correct, it is good public policy. It promotes social stability and gives all citizens a stake in the system.

Suppose you live next door to a former Navy SEAL or Army Delta operator. He says, “The police should be privatized. I don’t need police protection: I have a house full of guns, an alarm system, and an attack dog. Anyone who tries to take my stuff away from me, or hurt my family, is going to take a dirt nap. Too bad if those wusses next door can’t take care of themselves—I shouldn’t have to pay for their inability to defend themselves.”

The answer, of course, is that we believe the government should ensure justice. (By the way, as we’re seeing in Iraq right now, the lack of individual security inhibits commerce.) Why is that less important when it comes to health care?

You know, that's something you don't hear in the healthcare debate:

Socialized medicine spreads the cost of the infrastructure, services and goods over the entire tax base. More people pay, but individually they pay less. This is not only morally correct, it is good public policy. It promotes social stability and gives all citizens a stake in the system.

And why not? Why don't its proponents in politics state this? Are they afraid it'll make socialized health care (heaven forfend) HAPPEN?

Chris

Actually, for people with health insurance, it's already happening.

Can anyone name a socialized healthcare system that actually provides excellent high level care (not just basic care). I have heard nothing but horror stories about the British system.

I think

stimps is pretty happy with the program in Canada...but I don't want to speak for her.

Our system RAWKS. Absolutely. The way it works is, everyone registers for Pharmacare. Based on your income, you pay X amount for your meds up to a maximum of $1000 per year (at which point Pharmacare covers even more than it already does). Most poor people never pay much at all (fimmtiu is a student, and pays on the average about $20 every 2 months for his Prozac).

HJ's work insurance on top of this means that we pay nothing for meds (which would be about $700 a month for just me), and we don't pay for tests unless they aren't doctor-prescribed. The last couple times I had surgery, we didn't pay a thing. Sure, sometimes you have to wait a couple months to see a specialist, but they will advance anyone who's in major trouble up the queue.

They're thinking of privatizing some aspects of medical care here, and I am doing everything I can to fight against it.

Yeah, that sounds like a terrible system. What a bunch of commies.

...I need an emoticon for *eyeroll*

Hee hee! =D

Yeah, that got a big laugh here, too.

We'll have to wait and see how Iraq works it's healthcare system since in their constitution healthcare is a right.

Fifth bullet from the top:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39791-2004Mar8_2.html

Well, stimps responds to this below, but I'm guessing you're on someone's insurance. I recently lost my work-provided insurance and have had to survey what's out there. Lemme tell ya, socialized medicine along the lines of what they have in Canada sounds great now. I would have to pay more than $800/month for the coverage I used to have, not including co-pays, co-insurance, deductables, non-covered stuff, and so on. Holy mackeral!

I suspect you've been talking to neo-cons; they're the only ones who have been saying socialized health care is bad, because of course this would harm their insurance friends.

Chris

Chris, I think

chernobylred hit the nail on the head a bit downtopic with her "commies" remark: anything with the word social in it has become a curse in American political life. Soon public schools will be teaching Freedom Studies instead of Social Studies.

Make it go away

no subject

no subject

no subject

Faith

Re: Faith

Re: Faith

Re: Faith

Re: Faith

Re: Faith

Re: Faith

Re: Faith

Re: Faith

Re: Faith

Re: Faith