I don't understand this "you'll have to wait in line" healthcare game

[King]

Are the really places in the world where you DON'T have to wait in line for care?

Like, if I have a heartattack or something then yeah I'll get immediate treatment. But all emergency rooms and doctor's office have a lot of people in waiting rooms everytime I've been.

I don't think waiting in line has anything to do with the insurer.  If the doctor's busy and can't see you right now, he's busy and can't see you right now.

[Vepres]

Are the really places in the world where you DON'T have to wait in line for care?

Like, if I have a heartattack or something then yeah I'll get immediate treatment. But all emergency rooms and doctor's office have a lot of people in waiting rooms everytime I've been.

I don't think waiting in line has anything to do with the insurer.  If the doctor's busy and can't see you right now, he's busy and can't see you right now.

I think they're talking about waiting in line for care that is not necessarily emergency care, but could drastically affect your quality of life or kill slowly over time. This has happened in some countries with government run health care.

Whether it would happen here is the question.

[John Dibble]

First off, it's not waiting about waiting in line, it's about waiting on a list - not waiting for maybe a few hours, but rather possibly waiting for months. This can vary depending on the system, though not everything will involve a long wait.

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

In Canada, many things don't have a wait longer than you would experience in the US. If you go to a clinic because you're a bit sick, it's likely you'll be seen on the same day. If you're on death's door, you'll likely be top priority as well. For many other things though, you may have to wait months whereas in the US you might be seen within the same week. Take getting an MRI for instance - the median wait time across Canada in 2007 was about two and a half months. In some provinces it's worse. If you may have cancer and an MRI is needed to detect it, two and a half months could be the difference between treatable/operable and terminal, which is why some Canadians just come down to the US where they can get an MRI within a week.

Why the difference? Both countries are wealthy, and both have plenty of doctors, so why does one have such longer wait times? For one, the US has more machines per person, so they have more resources to work with in this department. Why don't they buy more? Not really in the budget for the second reason - Canada has more patients, though this I think is the whole point of having public healthcare system, ie bringing access to those who didn't have it. Since they've got more people they have to deal with they don't really have the money to buy more machines. On the other hand in a private system, at least in theory, companies will be more likely to invest in buying new machines because they can charge their customers for the use of those machines.

There are other wait time issues. Even if you don't agree with it, I hope this explains the problem many people have for you.

[SPC]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

[Lief 🗽]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Now, what you did there was use the word "better" when instead a normal person would use the term "terrifyingly awful".

[Associate Justice PiT]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Now, what you did there was use the word "better" when instead a normal person would use the term "terrifyingly awful".

     Because people should not be allowed to dispense of their property even if it: 1) brings them money & 2) helps somebody else?

[SPC]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Now, what you did there was use the word "better" when instead a normal person would use the term "terrifyingly awful".

I thought you liberals were into letting people do what they wanted with their own bodies. Or is that just for certain actions?

[Marokai Backbeat]

SPC never ceases to amuse.

[Хahar 🤔]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Now, what you did there was use the word "better" when instead a normal person would use the term "terrifyingly awful".

I thought you liberals were into letting people do what they wanted with their own bodies. Or is that just for certain actions?

Correct. Glad to see that you understand the difference between liberals and anarchists.

[Brandon H]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Now, what you did there was use the word "better" when instead a normal person would use the term "terrifyingly awful".

I thought you liberals were into letting people do what they wanted with their own bodies. Or is that just for certain actions?

It's not the organ part, it's the money part. There isn't yet a tax on money made from selling organs.

[SPC]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Now, what you did there was use the word "better" when instead a normal person would use the term "terrifyingly awful".

I thought you liberals were into letting people do what they wanted with their own bodies. Or is that just for certain actions?

It's not the organ part, it's the money part. There isn't yet a tax on money made from selling organs.

Good point.

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Now, what you did there was use the word "better" when instead a normal person would use the term "terrifyingly awful".

I thought you liberals were into letting people do what they wanted with their own bodies. Or is that just for certain actions?

Correct. Glad to see that you understand the difference between liberals and anarchists.

What is the point of liberalism is by your admission it is completely arbitrary in its application?

[Coburn In 2012]

Actually SPC is close to my view.  I would rather see organs harvested from criminals and given to worthy citizens who qualify for transplant.

[Bono]

Why not harvest the organs of convicted murderers, sell them and use the money to pay compensation to the victim's family?

[John Dibble]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Putting any ethical issues aside, I don't think that would actually have much of an impact. Organs would still be a rarity in the market. People won't be selling organs they have only one of, so you won't see a rise in supply there. My human anatomy may be a little rusty, but I believe that's most of the organs in the human body. For those organs you have more than one of, you still won't have many takers because of the drastic change in health and lifestyle you may need to undergoe afterwards. Most people also have an aversion to having parts of their body removed. Sure, if the price is high enough you'll get some takers, but the higher the price goes the lower the number of people who can afford to buy.

[SPC]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Putting any ethical issues aside, I don't think that would actually have much of an impact. Organs would still be a rarity in the market. People won't be selling organs they have only one of, so you won't see a rise in supply there. My human anatomy may be a little rusty, but I believe that's most of the organs in the human body. For those organs you have more than one of, you still won't have many takers because of the drastic change in health and lifestyle you may need to undergoe afterwards. Most people also have an aversion to having parts of their body removed. Sure, if the price is high enough you'll get some takers, but the higher the price goes the lower the number of people who can afford to buy.

Well, anyone who's going to donate their organs under today's standards will donate them anyway. I would think that some poorer people would be willing to donate one of their extra kidneys for increased monetary benefit, and since it also increases the supply of kidneys, I don't see why it should be prohibited.

[Vepres]

For things like a kidney or a liver, unless you're cute twelve year old white girl getting media attention you're not very likely to get one quickly. Public or private doesn't really affect this. The fact is there just aren't enough to meet the demand. I personally think we might make be able to alleviate this problem a bit by making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in.

A better solution would be to allow organ sales.

Putting any ethical issues aside, I don't think that would actually have much of an impact. Organs would still be a rarity in the market. People won't be selling organs they have only one of, so you won't see a rise in supply there. My human anatomy may be a little rusty, but I believe that's most of the organs in the human body. For those organs you have more than one of, you still won't have many takers because of the drastic change in health and lifestyle you may need to undergoe afterwards. Most people also have an aversion to having parts of their body removed. Sure, if the price is high enough you'll get some takers, but the higher the price goes the lower the number of people who can afford to buy.

Well, anyone who's going to donate their organs under today's standards will donate them anyway. I would think that some poorer people would be willing to donate one of their extra kidneys for increased monetary benefit, and since it also increases the supply of kidneys, I don't see why it should be prohibited.

Rewarding people for damaging their bodies. So the poor damage their bodies for some extra money while the rich do nothing. That would be great for society.

[John Dibble]

Well, anyone who's going to donate their organs under today's standards will donate them anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying it should be prohibited, just that it's not going to solve the problem, especially for those organs that people only have one of.