national healthcare system

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Firsttime
heck I live in Canada and its not that great, in fact it sucks, we pay 15% GST and in exchange we get BASIC healthcare with waiting times in the 5-10 hour range for the emergency room, I think a two tier system is the way to go, better health care for the people who can afford it and crappy public healthcare for people who can't

I've had to wait that long here in America, I don't understand why this argument keeps popping up.

I keep hearing people talk about 10 hour waits in the E-room. I have been to the E-room a few times and never had to wait more than an hour. This is in a hospital in the city as well so it isnt like they dont have trafic in and out.

Just this week I decided to get my chest looked at because of tightness in it since June. I call on a Weds and get a cisit the following tues. I could have had it on Thurs but I took an anti-histimine. I show up, in and out in under an hour and find out I have Asthma with alergies.

So far I have been impressed with the few times I have had to goto a doctor in this country.

The only people I hear complain are the ones on a govt funded program. Funny how they complain and have a terrible time of it and people are convinced it is the way to go.

Hehe, saying that you've had a good time going to the doctor, expecting other countries to have it bad is kinda funny.
And btw, your public health system is in trouble, just because it wasn't managed properly doesn't mean the way it doesn't work.

"It would be interesting to see how much less it would be if we took out the 46% the govt picks up ever year."
No comprende, explain please.

The govt picked up 46% of the total healthcare expentitures in 2003. you eliminated govt incompetence and over spending and I would be curious to see how much of overspending compared to other countries we would have. My guess is it would fall right into line with everybody else but with a better more responsive system.

And I am not the only one who this happens to. Everybody I know who has had to have something looked at or done gets in and out without issues.

The only people I know who have problems were my grandparents because they were on Medicare.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Firsttime
heck I live in Canada and its not that great, in fact it sucks, we pay 15% GST and in exchange we get BASIC healthcare with waiting times in the 5-10 hour range for the emergency room, I think a two tier system is the way to go, better health care for the people who can afford it and crappy public healthcare for people who can't

I've had to wait that long here in America, I don't understand why this argument keeps popping up.

I keep hearing people talk about 10 hour waits in the E-room. I have been to the E-room a few times and never had to wait more than an hour. This is in a hospital in the city as well so it isnt like they dont have trafic in and out.

Just this week I decided to get my chest looked at because of tightness in it since June. I call on a Weds and get a cisit the following tues. I could have had it on Thurs but I took an anti-histimine. I show up, in and out in under an hour and find out I have Asthma with alergies.

So far I have been impressed with the few times I have had to goto a doctor in this country.

The only people I hear complain are the ones on a govt funded program. Funny how they complain and have a terrible time of it and people are convinced it is the way to go.

Hehe, saying that you've had a good time going to the doctor, expecting other countries to have it bad is kinda funny.
And btw, your public health system is in trouble, just because it wasn't managed properly doesn't mean the way it doesn't work.

"It would be interesting to see how much less it would be if we took out the 46% the govt picks up ever year."
No comprende, explain please.

The govt picked up 46% of the total healthcare expentitures in 2003. you eliminated govt incompetence and over spending and I would be curious to see how much of overspending compared to other countries we would have. My guess is it would fall right into line with everybody else but with a better more responsive system.

And I am not the only one who this happens to. Everybody I know who has had to have something looked at or done gets in and out without issues.

The only people I know who have problems were my grandparents because they were on Medicare.

Ok, but i have to admit i think the people doing this research would have taken that into account. What is it, some kind doctors tax?
Yes, everyone has things like that, i've had mostly good experiences too.

But remember, your medicare system is widely criticised for being in lousy condition. So i wouldn't start making judgements from that.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

As I see it, health care really isn't a market commodity since it's overly-expensive (unlike food and water) and since people have no choice but to purchase it.

An expensive product that people overuse and treat as if its free. Perhaps people should reduce their consumption of health care.

I'm fully aware of the fact that the demand for a zero-priced good is infinite. What we need is a system where most of it is paid for by the government but people who go to use it still have to pay something--still need to feel some significant economic pain on a per-use basis so that the cost is not zero.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

As I see it, health care really isn't a market commodity since it's overly-expensive (unlike food and water) and since people have no choice but to purchase it.

An expensive product that people overuse and treat as if its free. Perhaps people should reduce their consumption of health care.

I'm fully aware of the fact that the demand for a zero-priced good is infinite. What we need is a system where most of it is paid for by the government but people who go to use it still have to pay something--still need to feel some significant economic pain on a per-use basis so that the cost is not zero.

Yah, a super high co-pay or something. So, the guy with a little sniffle, doesn't go to the doctors. I'll be honest, I've had health care from my place of employment for the past 4 years, and have only seen the doctor twice with in that durration. Only when my back started hurting, right when my wife got pregnant, did I go to the doctor. My co-pay for a visit is 10.00 bucks. Even at 10.00 bucks a visit, I wouldn't go unless something were seriously wrong.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The only people I know who have problems were my grandparents because they were on Medicare.

FYI, "....Americans with Medicare report themselves to be happier with virtually every aspect of their insurance coverage than people with private insurance (as they do, repeatedly and overwhelmingly)..." source

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I'm fully aware of the fact that the demand for a zero-priced good is infinite. What we need is a system where most of it is paid for by the government but people who go to use it still have to pay something--still need to feel some significant economic pain on a per-use basis so that the cost is not zero.

The problem with this model is that preventative care is EXTREMELY cost effecient. Punishing people who might need to go to the doctor decreases the likelyhood of them going, thereby decreasing worker productivity, decreasing their overall health, increasing the chance of more serious illness and in the long run increasing the overall cost of treatment. I'm not sure what state it was...but recently they found that for every one dollar of preventative care they spent, they nine dollars worth of savings. The lesson? Don't skimp on health.

One of the major problems with healthcare in this country is that it is extremely focused on treating disease as opposed to creating health. All of the time and money spent on treating disease is extremely profitable to many wealthy corporations, encouraging them to keep the focus away from creating health. There needs to be a paradigm shift in this country away from seeing healthcare as a system of treating disease toward a system of creating health. Healthy people are cheaper, more efficient, more productive, happier...

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I find it amazing that although we live in the greatest country in the world, with all its riches and resources that it can't manage to give 45 million people even the most basic of healthcare insurance. I'm not talking just a "socialist handout", but from a combination of the power of government and the private sector.

Are people so lacking the vision to come up with SOMETHING?

This is the worst argument possible in favor of it. Why dont we give everyone houses? There are many that can only afford to rent so with my tax dollars lets just start handing out property. Hell then there's a few folks that still have ONE vehicle, oh dear we can't have that lets give everyone that can't afford it another car.


And by the way if the government starts picking up the tab how long will it be before everyone is uninsured. Because F why should a business pay for it if the government is?

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I'm fully aware of the fact that the demand for a zero-priced good is infinite. What we need is a system where most of it is paid for by the government but people who go to use it still have to pay something--still need to feel some significant economic pain on a per-use basis so that the cost is not zero.

The problem with this model is that preventative care is EXTREMELY cost effecient. Punishing people who might need to go to the doctor decreases the likelyhood of them going, thereby decreasing worker productivity, decreasing their overall health, increasing the chance of more serious illness and in the long run increasing the overall cost of treatment. I'm not sure what state it was...but recently they found that for every one dollar of preventative care they spent, they nine dollars worth of savings. The lesson? Don't skimp on health.

One of the major problems with healthcare in this country is that it is extremely focused on treating disease as opposed to creating health. All of the time and money spent on treating disease is extremely profitable to many wealthy corporations, encouraging them to keep the focus away from creating health. There needs to be a paradigm shift in this country away from seeing healthcare as a system of treating disease toward a system of creating health. Healthy people are cheaper, more efficient, more productive, happier...

Thats why you could offer preventative procedures for free.

 

[imported_Ant]

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
This is the worst argument possible in favor of it. Why dont we give everyone houses? There are many that can only afford to rent so with my tax dollars lets just start handing out property. Hell then there's a few folks that still have ONE vehicle, oh dear we can't have that lets give everyone that can't afford it another car.


And by the way if the government starts picking up the tab how long will it be before everyone is uninsured. Because F why should a business pay for it if the government is?

The government pays for roads and police. They spend billions of dollars a year to keep our nations agriculture safe, our borders safe. They prevent floods, provide shelter from storms, provide twelve years of education, ensure basic services such as electricity, water, sewage, gargage. They spray for mosquitos, they take care of our national parks, national monuments, national forests. They pay for the healthcare of millions of americans with medicare and medicaid.

The question, I think, is this:

Is it a fundamental duty of the government to provide us with healthcare just as it is their duty to protect us from fire, enforce the law, provide clean water, provide electricity, and ensure our ability to pursue happiness?

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
This is the worst argument possible in favor of it. Why dont we give everyone houses? There are many that can only afford to rent so with my tax dollars lets just start handing out property. Hell then there's a few folks that still have ONE vehicle, oh dear we can't have that lets give everyone that can't afford it another car.


And by the way if the government starts picking up the tab how long will it be before everyone is uninsured. Because F why should a business pay for it if the government is?

The government pays for roads and police. They spend billions of dollars a year to keep our nations agriculture safe, our borders safe. They prevent floods, provide shelter from storms, provide twelve years of education, ensure basic services such as electricity, water, sewage, gargage. They spray for mosquitos, they take care of our national parks, national monuments, national forests. They pay for the healthcare of millions of americans with medicare and medicaid.

The question, I think, is this:

Is it a fundamental duty of the government to provide us with healthcare just as it is their duty to protect us from fire, enforce the law, provide clean water, provide electricity, and ensure our ability to pursue happiness?

Government doesn't provide electricity NOT where I live.

Protection is listed inthe constitution HEALTH CARE is NOT! Local municipalities provide water NOT the federal government.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

Government doesn't provide electricity NOT where I live.

Protection is listed inthe constitution HEALTH CARE is NOT! Local municipalities provide water NOT the federal government.

You've misread my statement. I was listing the broad functions of government to demonstrate the important role they play in providing, regulating, or enforcing many of the basic services we depend on. Many people depend on health care...but the question is should the government ensure that all people who need or depend upon health care recieve it? Would ensuring health care "promote the general Welfare" of our citizens in a way that benefits this country?

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

Government doesn't provide electricity NOT where I live.

Protection is listed inthe constitution HEALTH CARE is NOT! Local municipalities provide water NOT the federal government.

You've misread my statement. I was listing the broad functions of government to demonstrate the important role they play in providing, regulating, or enforcing many of the basic services we depend on. Many people depend on health care...but the question is should the government ensure that all people who need or depend upon health care recieve it?

Why does everyone feel they are entitled to things in this country? I work my butt off for a good check and to pay my health insurance why should someone else get it for free? Actually its free to them but not me because I pay a substantial tax bill each year. We need to do for ourselves in this country...no on the healthcare issue I can make a plausible argument either way, but it makes me wonder what's next.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Why does everyone feel they are entitled to things in this country? I work my butt off for a good check and to pay my health insurance why should someone else get it for free? Actually its free to them but not me because I pay a substantial tax bill each year. We need to do for ourselves in this country...no on the healthcare issue I can make a plausible argument either way, but it makes me wonder what's next.

I agree with you...the attitude of 'entitlement' is a dangerous one that leads to lazyness and unnecessary dependancy. There are many things the government definately should not provide its citizens and businesses. However, because the government imposes itself on us, forces us to pay taxes and follow its laws, there are things I expect in return. I also work my butt off for every paycheck and pay for my own health insurance. But I worry about the people who work their butt off and still can't afford health care.

Should it be the amount of money you earn that entitles you to health care or how hard you work?

As it stands, working your butt off certainly does not guarantee health insurance. "Money" is not representative of how hard you work. This country depends on people filling difficult low income jobs. Do those people deserve health insurance? Even if they don't our country would be more productive and more efficient if they did have health insurance.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Why does everyone feel they are entitled to things in this country? I work my butt off for a good check and to pay my health insurance why should someone else get it for free? Actually its free to them but not me because I pay a substantial tax bill each year. We need to do for ourselves in this country...no on the healthcare issue I can make a plausible argument either way, but it makes me wonder what's next.

I agree with you...the attitude of 'entitlement' is a dangerous one that leads to lazyness and unnecessary dependancy. There are many things the government definately should not provide its citizens and businesses. However, because the government imposes itself on us, forces us to pay taxes and follow its laws, there are things I expect in return. I also work my butt off for every paycheck and pay for my own health insurance. But I worry about the people who work their butt off and still can't afford health care.

Should it be the amount of money you earn that entitles you to health care or how hard you work?

As it stands, working your butt off certainly does not guarantee health insurance. "Money" is not representative of how hard you work. This country depends on people filling difficult low income jobs. Do those people deserve health insurance? Even if they don't our country would be more productive and more efficient if they did have health insurance.

But its that mentaility thats so dangerous to a capitalist economy. What about given these same poor folks free houses of their own. Not government housing or low income housing but just flat out giving them houses like we would healthcare? Afterall doesn't everyone deserve their own house? Their own motor vehicle? You could continue that logic right into communism, well lets just let the state control everything because they know best and everyone gets what they NEED.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Firsttime
heck I live in Canada and its not that great, in fact it sucks, we pay 15% GST and in exchange we get BASIC healthcare with waiting times in the 5-10 hour range for the emergency room, I think a two tier system is the way to go, better health care for the people who can afford it and crappy public healthcare for people who can't

I've had to wait that long here in America, I don't understand why this argument keeps popping up.

See, I've never had to wait more than 5-10 minutes to be seen in an ER, and with 2 kids, I've probably been to the ER a disproportionate number of times. Now, we usually end up staying in the ER for 5-7 hours, waiting on test results, lab reports, x-rays, etc, but we are always seen right away.

Granted, I've never been to the ER in a large metropolitan area and my experiences are nothing more than anecdotes, but I find it hard to believe that you've had to wait for ~10 hours to even be admitted/seen in an ER for an emergency condition.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustangBut its that mentaility thats so dangerous to a capitalist economy. What about given these same poor folks free houses of their own. Not government housing or low income housing but just flat out giving them houses like we would healthcare? Afterall doesn't everyone deserve their own house? Their own motor vehicle? You could continue that logic right into communism, well lets just let the state control everything because they know best and everyone gets what they NEED.

If someone fills a necessary role for the functioning of our economy then of course I believe they are entitled to certain basic rights and services in our country. If you fill a valuable role in our economy, then you should be able to feed yourself, house yourself, clothe yourself, have access to clean drinking water, have access to electricity, have access to some kind of transportation. Should someone who fills a vital role in our economy be financially ruined if they have a medical crisis?

There is an extreme difference between providing the oppurtunity to live a productive life and subsidizing someones life. I believe our society should be structured in a way that allows everyone the oppurtunity to be productive citizens not burdened with the risk of medical uncertainty. If someone works hard to fill a vital role in our economy they should be rewarded with the basic services inherent to a modern post-industrial economy.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustangBut its that mentaility thats so dangerous to a capitalist economy. What about given these same poor folks free houses of their own. Not government housing or low income housing but just flat out giving them houses like we would healthcare? Afterall doesn't everyone deserve their own house? Their own motor vehicle? You could continue that logic right into communism, well lets just let the state control everything because they know best and everyone gets what they NEED.

If someone fills a necessary role for the functioning of our economy then of course I believe they are entitled to certain basic rights and services in our country. If you fill a valuable role in our economy, then you should be able to feed yourself, house yourself, clothe yourself, have access to clean drinking water, have access to electricity, have access to some kind of transportation. Should someone who fills a vital role in our economy be financially ruined if they have a medical crisis?

There is an extreme difference between providing the oppurtunity to live a productive life and subsidizing someones life. I believe our society should be structured in a way that allows everyone the oppurtunity to be productive citizens not burdened with the risk of medical uncertainty. If someone works hard to fill a vital role in our economy they should be rewarded with the basic services inherent to a modern post-industrial economy.

Look you make a valid point and I myself a fairly conservative individual think much like you on this issue. My point is where does it stop? Thats what scares me, the whole slippery sloap fiasco

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Look you make a valid point and I myself a fairly conservative individual think much like you on this issue. My point is where does it stop? Thats what scares me, the whole slippery sloap fiasco

Hmmm...I think where it stops is tricky, and one constantly debated in congress. Both sides of the aisle seem to have some sometimes wacked out ideas about that. I personally believe in giving people oppurtunity...so that means providing basic needs for people that demonstrate a willingness to work, and sometimes an extra push for people who demonstrate a desire to be even more productive(i.e. financial aid / scholarships for education)...

A lot of the basic things you get are often provided by private companies...your food, housing, higher eductation etc...but I think the government should play a role in filling in the gaps for ONLY the basic services that give someone the abilitity to be a productive citizen or increases their productivity in a significant way...a productive citizen in our country should be able to feed themselves, house themselves, and provide for their health, educate their children, all the while still having some free time to relax(i.e. some workers rights should be guaranteed.)

 

[Titan]

(To the OP) Your post implies (doesn't necessarily mean, but implies) that such a system wouldn't cost anything (more than our current system). There will be much more added cost that everyone will have to pay, although in this country (USA) that would end up being the people with more money because we like to treat everyone fairly. Even after all that, there is no way of garunteeing it will be a better system, because politics (especially in the USA) are not tightly controlled or accountable. My solution, have it all run by private companies that are non-profit, but still have some incentives (kickbacks from the people) for competition.

"You don't get something for nothing
You can't have freedom for free
You won't get wise
With the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dream might be."
(Lyrics by Rush (a Canadian band (because I want to use more parentheses)))

 

[Genx87]

Ok, but i have to admit i think the people doing this research would have taken that into account. What is it, some kind doctors tax?
Yes, everyone has things like that, i've had mostly good experiences too.

But remember, your medicare system is widely criticised for being in lousy condition. So i wouldn't start making judgements from that.

I think they took the total expenditures and divided by the amount of people to determine the per capita spending.

As for the critics. It sure seems like a lot of them live across the pond. Kind of hard to make a full judegement from 3500 miles away.

 

[Cerb]

I would be for universal health care, but not socialized health care. The control needs to stay as close to the doctors and patients as possible (I trust a socialized system to do that as well as I trust my cat not to curl up on clean clothes).

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I'm fully aware of the fact that the demand for a zero-priced good is infinite. What we need is a system where most of it is paid for by the government but people who go to use it still have to pay something--still need to feel some significant economic pain on a per-use basis so that the cost is not zero.

The problem with this model is that preventative care is EXTREMELY cost effecient. Punishing people who might need to go to the doctor decreases the likelyhood of them going, thereby decreasing worker productivity, decreasing their overall health, increasing the chance of more serious illness and in the long run increasing the overall cost of treatment. I'm not sure what state it was...but recently they found that for every one dollar of preventative care they spent, they nine dollars worth of savings. The lesson? Don't skimp on health.

One of the major problems with healthcare in this country is that it is extremely focused on treating disease as opposed to creating health. All of the time and money spent on treating disease is extremely profitable to many wealthy corporations, encouraging them to keep the focus away from creating health. There needs to be a paradigm shift in this country away from seeing healthcare as a system of treating disease toward a system of creating health. Healthy people are cheaper, more efficient, more productive, happier...

So if people decide to skip on health and eat fattie foods, what are you going to do? Coerce them?

 

[Kalbi]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I find it amazing that although we live in the greatest country in the world, with all its riches and resources that it can't manage to give 45 million people even the most basic of healthcare insurance. I'm not talking just a "socialist handout", but from a combination of the power of government and the private sector.

Are people so lacking the vision to come up with SOMETHING?

Why can't a "poor person" instead of buying a new car purchase health insurance? Why should health insurance be free? It's a fvcking product created by capitalism, you have to buy that shvt. What next? Everyone should get national car insurance? Life insurance? JEBUS CRIPES move to Canada or Europe if you want "free" healthcare.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Kalbi

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I find it amazing that although we live in the greatest country in the world, with all its riches and resources that it can't manage to give 45 million people even the most basic of healthcare insurance. I'm not talking just a "socialist handout", but from a combination of the power of government and the private sector.

Are people so lacking the vision to come up with SOMETHING?

Why can't a "poor person" instead of buying a new car purchase health insurance? Why should health insurance be free? It's a fvcking product created by capitalism, you have to buy that shvt. What next? Everyone should get national car insurance? Life insurance? JEBUS CRIPES move to Canada or Europe if you want "free" healthcare.

I don't know what poor people you know, but the ones where I live drive '85 Chevy Vans and Caprices and LeSabres that came from the dump. They aren't buying new cars, new clothes, or much else for that matter.