The Underworld Of Lightly (& Logically) Moderated Discussion & Debate


    Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Share
    avatar
    canterella
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  canterella on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:06 am

    Waireka wrote:
    canterella wrote:I believe that only breast reductions for cases of bad back pain/headaches should be funded by the state because there is no alternative to the op.
    The breast cancer drug is way too expensive, too specific for a small minority of women, that it's simply not viable to be funded unless you cut out other vital health services.
    Infertility - if you really really love and want children (not exclusively just your own flesh and blood), there's an adoption alternative, or perhaps even fostering. I'm not sure if childless couples are legally allowed to foster though.
    Cosmetic surgery - sorry but it could open too big a can of worms where we would end up paying for botox for the over 30es.

    They are allowed to foster, but knowing the child will never be 'yours' and the CYFs will be the middleman in your relationship with these kids until they are 18?

    It has already been mentioned that Adoption rarely happens in NZ and that people have to look to Asia and Eastern Europe for Adopting children. Which would be insanely expensive I imagine.

    And it may be so - but how many other vital health services need to be cut because of people who are on expensive IVF treatments, and who after many botched attempts just cannot come to terms with the reality that they simply cannot concieve?
    I would think that if you want a child so badly, then even a short attempt at fostering which can produce very positive results for both parties in the process, can be hugely rewarding, maybe even more so than having your own child. Or eye-opening in the matter of raising children, if it goes bad.
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:12 am

    ____ wrote:If its elective, and not required to stay alive, you should pay for it yourself.

    So the guy I knew should get the operation today, if it was still required?

    He would not be alive today had he not had that operation.

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:17 am

    83T'na wrote:
    ____ wrote:If its elective, and not required to stay alive, you should pay for it yourself.

    So the guy I knew should get the operation today, if it was still required?

    He would not be alive today had he not had that operation.

    So if I want lipo and a nose job I should botch a suicide attempt?

    I dont think so.
    avatar
    ChelseaT
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ChelseaT on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:18 am

    Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?
    avatar
    ____
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ____ on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:25 am

    83T'na wrote:
    ____ wrote:If its elective, and not required to stay alive, you should pay for it yourself.

    So the guy I knew should get the operation today, if it was still required?

    He would not be alive today had he not had that operation.

    Its a stretch to say that, to be quite honest. Over 90% of suicides/attempts are as a result of a diagnosable mental illness, and quite frankly just being bullied, regardless of how hard the victim takes it, should not give one carte blanche to use a victim mentality on whoever will take pity on them. No, he should not have gotten elective, cosmetic surgery on my dime.

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:29 am

    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    Sure.
    I'm ok with tax-payer-funded abortions/medical terminations/ECP/contraception.
    avatar
    ChelseaT
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ChelseaT on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:31 am

    83T'na wrote:Does a patient who has mental health problems relating to their appearance get tax payer funded cosmetic surgery?

    I would like this to be decided on a case by case basis. About 35 years ago I was at school with a guy whose ears stuck out really badly. He suffered badly from teasing and took some real thumpings because he didn't stick up for himself much. It still only takes a relatively simple operation to fix this. I believe the tax payer funded operation he got saved his life. He had already tried to suicide at the age of 10.

    Personally, I have one ear that sticks out more than the other. I was able to hide it with my hair, but I'm sure that it has had a subliminal effect on how people 'see' me. It's not that noticable, but if your face isn't symmetrical, you are simply less attractive to others. Now, I would like to have this fixed, but not at the expense of the tax payer. It simply hasn't affected me in the same way it did him.

    I would just like to note that I too have giant wing-nut ears (which I love a lot). I was never suicidal because of them. It wasn't the ears that made him suicidal, it was his mental health. Fixing his ears may not fix the mental health issue, considering people are just plain ol' mean, they might have found something else to tease him about, does he get unlimited surgery until people leave him alone?
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:33 am

    ydekm wrote:
    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    Sure.
    I'm ok with tax-payer-funded abortions/medical terminations/ECP/contraception.

    Except when the pregnancy is creating life threatening circumstances for the mother or pregnancy as the result of rape or incest, I am against state funded abortions. ECP? Not so sure on that one. Subsidised, yes. Completely state funded, no.

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:34 am

    83T'na wrote:
    ydekm wrote:
    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    Sure.
    I'm ok with tax-payer-funded abortions/medical terminations/ECP/contraception.

    Except when the pregnancy is creating life threatening circumstances for the mother or pregnancy as the result of rape or incest, I am against state funded abortions. ECP? Not so sure on that one. Subsidised, yes. Completely state funded, no.

    So again, I'll just say I am going to kill myself unless I get an abortion. Done.
    avatar
    Sassydot
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Sassydot on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:34 am

    ydekm wrote:
    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    Sure.
    I'm ok with tax-payer-funded abortions/medical terminations/ECP/contraception.

    Me too.
    Its one of the few things I think should be funded MORE. Sexual health GP visits are only free/subsidised up to a certain age. They can subsidise the generic versions of the pill all they like, but until getting the actual prescription is more affordable for those who otherwise wouldn't go, the country is gonna be spending a hell of a lot more on the results. And if I may make a generalisation, plenty of the results, given that they are coming from a background whereby contraception wasn't seen as a good use of money, will not grow up to be useful taxpayers.

    Vasectomies should be funded, too.
    avatar
    Sassydot
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Sassydot on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:36 am

    83T'na wrote:
    ydekm wrote:
    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    Sure.
    I'm ok with tax-payer-funded abortions/medical terminations/ECP/contraception.

    Except when the pregnancy is creating life threatening circumstances for the mother or pregnancy as the result of rape or incest, I am against state funded abortions.

    Why?

    Tis cheaper than the cost of pre and post natal care and birth.
    avatar
    ____
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ____ on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:38 am

    Chelsea really does have huge fuckin' ears.
    avatar
    canterella
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  canterella on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:39 am

    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    I would be inclined to say - you can make a mistake once and the abortion will be funded, and that's it.
    But then, imagine this scenario: after having her first abortion a woman falls pregnant again, gives birth to an unwanted child and instead of giving it out for adoption she uses the child as a benefit earner. She may go on to have more.
    The unwanted children have a miserable life and end up as criminals, addicts or lifestyle beneficiaries.

    What cost the society more?

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:40 am

    Sassydot wrote:
    ydekm wrote:
    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    Sure.
    I'm ok with tax-payer-funded abortions/medical terminations/ECP/contraception.

    Me too.
    Its one of the few things I think should be funded MORE. Sexual health GP visits are only free/subsidised up to a certain age. They can subsidise the generic versions of the pill all they like, but until getting the actual prescription is more affordable for those who otherwise wouldn't go, the country is gonna be spending a hell of a lot more on the results. And if I may make a generalisation, plenty of the results, given that they are coming from a background whereby contraception wasn't seen as a good use of money, will not grow up to be useful taxpayers.

    Vasectomies should be funded, too.

    Agree
    avatar
    canterella
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  canterella on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:41 am

    Also - a failproof 100% effective contraception has not been invented yet. So even with one's best precautions in the way of contraception, they may still get pregnant.
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:46 am

    Sassydot wrote:
    83T'na wrote:
    ydekm wrote:
    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    Sure.
    I'm ok with tax-payer-funded abortions/medical terminations/ECP/contraception.

    Except when the pregnancy is creating life threatening circumstances for the mother or pregnancy as the result of rape or incest, I am against state funded abortions.

    Why?

    Tis cheaper than the cost of pre and post natal care and birth.

    It's about taking responsibility for your own (or lack thereof) actions. I am pro choice re: abortion, but the tax payer shouldn't have to take responsibility for my carelessness. The father and I should. If you can't prove who the father is, you're on your own or at the mercy of your family, I guess. All my children know who their fathers are and both living fathers are held responsible.
    avatar
    ChelseaT
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ChelseaT on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 am

    83T'na wrote:It's about taking responsibility for your own (or lack thereof) actions. I am pro choice re: abortion, but the tax payer shouldn't have to take responsibility for my carelessness. The father and I should. If you can't prove who the father is, you're on your own or at the mercy of your family, I guess. All my children know who their fathers are and both living fathers are held responsible.

    Except it's not just the parents that are paying for their mistake, it's the baby too.
    avatar
    ChelseaT
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ChelseaT on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:51 am

    ____ wrote:Chelsea really does have huge fuckin' ears.


    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:53 am

    83T'na wrote:
    Sassydot wrote:
    83T'na wrote:
    ydekm wrote:
    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    Sure.
    I'm ok with tax-payer-funded abortions/medical terminations/ECP/contraception.

    Except when the pregnancy is creating life threatening circumstances for the mother or pregnancy as the result of rape or incest, I am against state funded abortions.

    Why?

    Tis cheaper than the cost of pre and post natal care and birth.

    It's about taking responsibility for your own (or lack thereof) actions. I am pro choice re: abortion, but the tax payer shouldn't have to take responsibility for my carelessness.

    So every pregnancy comes from an act of irresponsibility?

    Contraception is not 100%
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:00 pm

    [quote="ydekm"][quote="83T'na"][quote="Sassydot"]
    83T'na wrote:
    ydekm wrote:
    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    It's about taking responsibility for your own (or lack thereof) actions. I am pro choice re: abortion, but the tax payer shouldn't have to take responsibility for my carelessness.

    So every pregnancy comes from an act of irresponsibility?

    Contraception is not 100%

    No, it's not. And, no, not EVERY pregnancy is the result of an irresponsible act.
    If you want to check my first answer, it says (paraphrased) 'except in cases where the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother or is the result of rape or incest'.

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:01 pm

    I know it hasn't been mentioned but I think it's going this way....I think the argument "Oh abortions are used as contraception for lazy women" is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

    I have held many a hand during an unwanted pregnancy... 3 invasive hospital appointments, 3 sets of retelling how you became pregnant, 1 intense session with a hospital shrink, multiple blood test and cervical smears.... and the physical side effects - pain, vomiting, nausea, potential for infections, follow up appointments, excessive bleeding, fainting.

    Hardly someone does more than once if possible.

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:03 pm

    [quote="83T'na"][quote="ydekm"][quote="83T'na"]
    Sassydot wrote:
    83T'na wrote:
    ydekm wrote:
    ChelseaT wrote:Can I throw abortions into the discussion now?

    It's about taking responsibility for your own (or lack thereof) actions. I am pro choice re: abortion, but the tax payer shouldn't have to take responsibility for my carelessness.

    So every pregnancy comes from an act of irresponsibility?

    Contraception is not 100%

    No, it's not. And, no, not EVERY pregnancy is the result of an irresponsible act.
    If you want to check my first answer, it says (paraphrased) 'except in cases where the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother or is the result of rape or incest'.

    I read your response. I dont consider rape and incest among the most common reasons women terminate their pregnancies. And of all the women I know who have had medical or surgical abortions, none of them were "irresponsible" with their contraception.

    So... you'll judge them as irresponsible for becoming pregnant?
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:05 pm

    ydekm wrote:I know it hasn't been mentioned but I think it's going this way....I think the argument "Oh abortions are used as contraception for lazy women" is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

    I have held many a hand during an unwanted pregnancy... 3 invasive hospital appointments, 3 sets of retelling how you became pregnant, 1 intense session with a hospital shrink, multiple blood test and cervical smears.... and the physical side effects - pain, vomiting, nausea, potential for infections, follow up appointments, excessive bleeding, fainting.

    Hardly someone does more than once if possible.

    Yes, 'accidents happen' even after every precaution has been taken. In those cases I have a lot of sympathy for the woman but it doesn't change my view.
    avatar
    canterella
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  canterella on Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:08 pm

    83T'na wrote:
    ydekm wrote:I know it hasn't been mentioned but I think it's going this way....I think the argument "Oh abortions are used as contraception for lazy women" is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

    I have held many a hand during an unwanted pregnancy... 3 invasive hospital appointments, 3 sets of retelling how you became pregnant, 1 intense session with a hospital shrink, multiple blood test and cervical smears.... and the physical side effects - pain, vomiting, nausea, potential for infections, follow up appointments, excessive bleeding, fainting.

    Hardly someone does more than once if possible.

    Yes, 'accidents happen' even after every precaution has been taken. In those cases I have a lot of sympathy for the woman but it doesn't change my view.

    Does religion have influence in your view about abortion?
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:13 pm

    (I read your response. I dont consider rape and incest among the most common reasons women terminate their pregnancies. And of all the women I know who have had medical or surgical abortions, none of them were "irresponsible" with their contraception.

    So... you'll judge them as irresponsible for becoming pregnant?.)

    No. That's not what I'm saying at all. If you plan to get pregnant but then find it is a threat to your life, it's not your fault. Of course it's not. How can you read that into what I said?

    Cantrella - No. Religion has nothing to do with how I feel. I have certain beliefs which coincide with what is generally accepted as the 'Christian creed' but I am in no way 'religious'. I do not attend any church and I do not preach to anyone. I have said (ITT) that I am 'pro choice' re: abortion. If religion had anything to do with it at all, I would simply be 'anti'.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:04 pm