The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for social safety nets. UHC is the opposite of that. As Moonbeam's attitude in this thread full demonstrated, UHC is about reducing the level of care to those who can afford it, not necessarily about increasing the level of care to those who can't. IMO though, there is no reason why we can't have both. You don't have to pull down to lift up.

Your in lalal land. If the health care system is going to take on the preventive medicine for the 40 million unisured (or whatever the number is) then someone is going to have to have less or we need to get more doctors/nurses in the country.

Maybe President Bush will have to have his next colonoscopy done without having an anthesist put him to sleep because he's too much of a wuss to take the discomfort.

So we get more doctors and nurses. What's the problem with that? Are you implying that being a doctor is not a desirable profession? Hopefully not.

Nor does your argument even hold up from the pragmatic perspective. More PREVENTATIVE care would actually (in theory) reduce the burden on the health care industry.
The issue has always been two-fold. Getting it paid for and getting people to actually be involved in it. The latter is the bigger issue, as even those who can afford it tend to avoid the doctor until they're already sick. Patient compliance is one of the most troubling issues in health care.

I think where this issue tends to fall apart in internet discussions over the past few years is that you have pragmatic people searching for solutions on one hand, and on the other hand you have ideological extremists who just tell us -- without any detail or elaboration beyond pointing to other countries who needed decades to iron out their systems -- that UHC will be instantly glorious for the US.
And before you do your usual screaming of "personal attack! personal attack!" I think you should know that an ideological extremist is one who rejects the basic concept of constant change and points only to ends with no regards to means. For example, "If only we had UHC then everything would be glorious." Or, "If only everyone lived by the teachings of the Bible, then this nation would always be the greatest." Etc. You're just pointing to a poorly-defined end without any regard to how we will get there and then accusing anyone who dares to actually question how we will get there as being a lover of the status quo.

Does this help you and Dave and Moonie understand why not everyone just jumps on your little bandwagon? Or are we going to have a repeat of the minimum wage thread where I questioned its usefulness, you attacked me for page after page for that, I then came up on my own with 2 reasons why I supported the minimum wage (and thus placed my support behind it), and you continued to attack me as being against it. Are we going to repeat that again? Or are you going to learn to actually think instead of just parroting someone else's ideological agendas?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Oh, look, more scare-mongering being used by Conservative mouthpieces, against a system which, while far from perfect, is embraced by the entire civilised world EXCEPT the United States...

bla-bla-bla-high taxes-bla-bla-no research-bla-bla-lower quality care-bla-bla-wait times-bla-bla... have I missed anything???

Try to read these, it might give you a new outlook on life, death and taxes:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php?aid=35
http://www.oecd.org/document/3...371174_1_1_1_1,00.html

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for social safety nets. UHC is the opposite of that. As Moonbeam's attitude in this thread full demonstrated, UHC is about reducing the level of care to those who can afford it, not necessarily about increasing the level of care to those who can't. IMO though, there is no reason why we can't have both. You don't have to pull down to lift up.

Your in lalal land. If the health care system is going to take on the preventive medicine for the 40 million unisured (or whatever the number is) then someone is going to have to have less or we need to get more doctors/nurses in the country.

Maybe President Bush will have to have his next colonoscopy done without having an anthesist put him to sleep because he's too much of a wuss to take the discomfort.

So we get more doctors and nurses. What's the problem with that? Are you implying that being a doctor is not a desirable profession? Hopefully not.

I'm saying that if 40 million more people are going to be getting preventive tests that is going to take more time and that time has to come from someplace.

Nor does your argument even hold up from the pragmatic perspective. More PREVENTATIVE care would actually (in theory) reduce the burden on the health care industry.

I never said it wouldn't? Where did you pull that out of? I agree with your statment, but it will take a while before we start seeing the results. Indeed in the begining we will have a lot of people being screened for this or that and they will actually find some that need preventive treatment. Even operated on. which will be putting another, even bigger load on the system for a while.

The issue has always been two-fold. Getting it paid for and getting people to actually be involved in it. The latter is the bigger issue, as even those who can afford it tend to avoid the doctor until they're already sick. Patient compliance is one of the most troubling issues in health care.

If your saying the problem is how to get treatment to those who don't have it now and how to pay for that treatment then I agree. Everyone is talking about whether we need UHC, instead we should be talking about how to implement it, or something like it.

I think where this issue tends to fall apart in internet discussions over the past few years is that you have pragmatic people searching for solutions on one hand, and on the other hand you have ideological extremists who just tell us -- without any detail or elaboration beyond pointing to other countries who needed decades to iron out their systems -- that UHC will be instantly glorious for the US.

Gee, I haven't been able to afford health insurance for 8 years now and am at risk of losing everything I have should I get a serious illness or injury. I've known people who have lost everything so it's not like I just woke up to this problem yesterday. I think you are putting words in the mouths of people when you say they are saying "UHC will be instantly glorious for the US". Rising health care costs have been a known problem for over 20 years now and if you were in my shoes I doubt you would feel any differently.

And before you do your usual screaming of "personal attack! personal attack!" I think you should know that an ideological extremist is one who rejects the basic concept of constant change and points only to ends with no regards to means. For example, "If only we had UHC then everything would be glorious." Or, "If only everyone lived by the teachings of the Bible, then this nation would always be the greatest." Etc. You're just pointing to a poorly-defined end without any regard to how we will get there and then accusing anyone who dares to actually question how we will get there as being a lover of the status quo.

My whole reply to your post was pointing out that some people ARE going to have to sacrafice a little, at least for a little while. You seem to think they won't if I'm understanding you correctly? ANd you also seem to be saying that UHC won't increase the level of health care for those without insuranace? I guess you need to explain yourself better

I've said for some time that we should be letting doctors, nurses, other professionals, etc. in the country easier instead lof etting people come across our southern border whose only saving grace is they're willing to work cheap. That cheap labor really only benifits the people who are direct recipients of it and actually places a strain on our countries resources.

Does this help you and Dave and Moonie understand why not everyone just jumps on your little bandwagon? Or are we going to have a repeat of the minimum wage thread where I questioned its usefulness, you attacked me for page after page for that, I then came up on my own with 2 reasons why I supported the minimum wage (and thus placed my support behind it), and you continued to attack me as being against it. Are we going to repeat that again? Or are you going to learn to actually think instead of just parroting someone else's ideological agendas?

I'm not parroting ANYBODIES agenda. You need to learn to say what your thinking instead of trying to play little games with your opinon. If you play Devil's advocate often enough then you run the risk of being mistaken for the Devil.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Oh, look, more scare-mongering being used by Conservative mouthpieces, against a system which, while far from perfect, is embraced by the entire civilised world EXCEPT the United States...

bla-bla-bla-high taxes-bla-bla-no research-bla-bla-lower quality care-bla-bla-wait times-bla-bla... have I missed anything???

Try to read these, it might give you a new outlook on life, death and taxes:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php?aid=35
http://www.oecd.org/document/3...371174_1_1_1_1,00.html

I don't think its scare mongering. I think its a fact. Universal healthcare means lower quality care for everybody that currently has healthcare. It does raise the healthcare benefits of those that don't have health insurance.

Why does the first step to fixing the health industry have to be universal healthcare, seems a bit drastic don't you think?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Oh, look, more scare-mongering being used by Conservative mouthpieces, against a system which, while far from perfect, is embraced by the entire civilised world EXCEPT the United States...

bla-bla-bla-high taxes-bla-bla-no research-bla-bla-lower quality care-bla-bla-wait times-bla-bla... have I missed anything???

Try to read these, it might give you a new outlook on life, death and taxes:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php?aid=35
http://www.oecd.org/document/3...371174_1_1_1_1,00.html

I don't think its scare mongering. I think its a fact. Universal healthcare means lower quality care for everybody that currently has healthcare. It does raise the healthcare benefits of those that don't have health insurance.

Why does the first step to fixing the health industry have to be universal healthcare, seems a bit drastic don't you think?

What steps do you propose? Let them eat cake?

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Oh, look, more scare-mongering being used by Conservative mouthpieces, against a system which, while far from perfect, is embraced by the entire civilised world EXCEPT the United States...

bla-bla-bla-high taxes-bla-bla-no research-bla-bla-lower quality care-bla-bla-wait times-bla-bla... have I missed anything???

Try to read these, it might give you a new outlook on life, death and taxes:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php?aid=35
http://www.oecd.org/document/3...371174_1_1_1_1,00.html

I don't think its scare mongering. I think its a fact. Universal healthcare means lower quality care for everybody that currently has healthcare. It does raise the healthcare benefits of those that don't have health insurance.

Why does the first step to fixing the health industry have to be universal healthcare, seems a bit drastic don't you think?

What steps do you propose? Let them eat cake?

1.
Controlling costs to start.

2.
Legislation to require health insurance, this means health insurance companies provide more tiers of insurance. With the more you pay the better coverage you get.

3.
Public hospitals in a couple of major states for people without coverage for their issues to get help. Probably long wait times, minimal care, low gpa doctors, fewer choices for drugs. You will live but it won't be pleasant. Incentive to get private help.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Oh, look, more scare-mongering being used by Conservative mouthpieces, against a system which, while far from perfect, is embraced by the entire civilised world EXCEPT the United States...

bla-bla-bla-high taxes-bla-bla-no research-bla-bla-lower quality care-bla-bla-wait times-bla-bla... have I missed anything???

Try to read these, it might give you a new outlook on life, death and taxes:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php?aid=35
http://www.oecd.org/document/3...371174_1_1_1_1,00.html

I don't think its scare mongering. I think its a fact. Universal healthcare means lower quality care for everybody that currently has healthcare. It does raise the healthcare benefits of those that don't have health insurance.

Why does the first step to fixing the health industry have to be universal healthcare, seems a bit drastic don't you think?

What steps do you propose? Let them eat cake?

What's wrong with safety nets? The SCHIP is a perfect example of what a safety net system should look like and I fully support it.

And how many thousands of acres of land do you own that are more important to you than your health that you won't sell them? Just like your devil/devils advocate comment to me, you can't brag about your wealth in one thread and then plead poverty in the next. If your support for UHC is just you not wanting to be accountable for your own decisions, then you can expect neither my support nor my sympathy. You already have your cake.

Oh, and BTW, Anita's little post here is a PERFECT example of exactly the type of ideological extremism I was talking about. If she missed anything, it was definitely my earlier post.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for social safety nets. UHC is the opposite of that. As Moonbeam's attitude in this thread full demonstrated, UHC is about reducing the level of care to those who can afford it, not necessarily about increasing the level of care to those who can't. IMO though, there is no reason why we can't have both. You don't have to pull down to lift up.

Oh no, that's wasn't my point at all. I see no reason why we can't lift up either. I simply wanted to say what I think of folk who would allow others to die rather than take less. I am talking about the reality of that attitude, not the reality that there needs to be less.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for social safety nets. UHC is the opposite of that. As Moonbeam's attitude in this thread full demonstrated, UHC is about reducing the level of care to those who can afford it, not necessarily about increasing the level of care to those who can't. IMO though, there is no reason why we can't have both. You don't have to pull down to lift up.

Oh no, that's wasn't my point at all. I see no reason why we can't lift up either. I simply wanted to say what I think of folk who would allow others to die rather than take less. I am talking about the reality of that attitude, not the reality that there needs to be less.

The problem is that it's just nowhere near as simple as "that attitude" you describe.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Oh, look, more scare-mongering being used by Conservative mouthpieces, against a system which, while far from perfect, is embraced by the entire civilised world EXCEPT the United States...

bla-bla-bla-high taxes-bla-bla-no research-bla-bla-lower quality care-bla-bla-wait times-bla-bla... have I missed anything???

Try to read these, it might give you a new outlook on life, death and taxes:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php?aid=35
http://www.oecd.org/document/3...371174_1_1_1_1,00.html

I don't think its scare mongering. I think its a fact. Universal healthcare means lower quality care for everybody that currently has healthcare. It does raise the healthcare benefits of those that don't have health insurance.

Why does the first step to fixing the health industry have to be universal healthcare, seems a bit drastic don't you think?

What steps do you propose? Let them eat cake?

1.
Controlling costs to start.

Where?

2.
Legislation to require health insurance, this means health insurance companies provide more tiers of insurance. With the more you pay the better coverage you get.

I think it's the insurance that is the problem. They run it for a profit and the more they can deny needed treatment the more money they can make. I'm reminded of the person whose insurance company wouldn't pay for her ambulance ride after a car wreck because it wasn't pre-approved. How do you pre-appove that? heck, i know a guy who has sleep apnea. He was all tested and approved to buy one of those machines, so he bought it. Then the insurance company reniged on him, even though he had a letter from the place where he bought stating that it had been approved.

Private insurance is out to rip you off any way they can.

3.
Public hospitals in a couple of major states for people without coverage for their issues to get help. Probably long wait times, minimal care, low gpa doctors, fewer choices for drugs. You will live but it won't be pleasant. Incentive to get private help.

Sorry, but I see tht as unacceptable for working poor people. Heck, they can't afford insurance now they will have to have a decent car, buy the gas, drive across 3 states, stay in hotel rooms and eat in resturaunts?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Only an idiot would want the same people who run the Post Office to be in charge of health care.

Do you think the US Army is incompetent too?

You might remember the VA scandal? How medical care is provided for Veterans?

Precisely; place that on a much larger scale and it will be like that for all Americans.

Doctor: What seems to be the problem?
Patient: I think my leg is broken.
Doctor: Here's some motrin. If it doesn't feel any better come back next week.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Oh, look, more scare-mongering being used by Conservative mouthpieces, against a system which, while far from perfect, is embraced by the entire civilised world EXCEPT the United States...

bla-bla-bla-high taxes-bla-bla-no research-bla-bla-lower quality care-bla-bla-wait times-bla-bla... have I missed anything???

Try to read these, it might give you a new outlook on life, death and taxes:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php?aid=35
http://www.oecd.org/document/3...371174_1_1_1_1,00.html

I don't think its scare mongering. I think its a fact. Universal healthcare means lower quality care for everybody that currently has healthcare. It does raise the healthcare benefits of those that don't have health insurance.

Why does the first step to fixing the health industry have to be universal healthcare, seems a bit drastic don't you think?

What steps do you propose? Let them eat cake?

What's wrong with safety nets? The SCHIP is a perfect example of what a safety net system should look like and I fully support it.

And how many thousands of acres of land do you own that are more important to you than your health that you won't sell them? Just like your devil/devils advocate comment to me, you can't brag about your wealth in one thread and then plead poverty in the next. If your support for UHC is just you not wanting to be accountable for your own decisions, then you can expect neither my support nor my sympathy. You already have your cake.

Oh, and BTW, Anita's little post here is a PERFECT example of exactly the type of ideological extremism I was talking about. If she missed anything, it was definitely my earlier post.

Thousands of acres? LOL try 1080 acers. One serious illness or injury and the doctors/hospitals will take it. I've seen it happen more then once.

I mentioned earlier that I knew a couple who lost everything. He was a mechanical engineer and she was an economics major. At one time he was head of the tranmission division of IHC. He quit his job in the late 70's and bought the old homestead from his Dad. Well, a farmer he wasn't but he was one heck of a mechanical engineer. He set up a small machine shop/manufacter's shop and had a good family business going there for years. She did all the books, etc. They were audited once by the IRS and when it was all said and done she had the IRS owing THEM money.

He designed a lot of different things and was doing OK. Well, his wife got cancer and after a year or two the insurance jus up and canceled him. He ended up selling his business, his patents, his land, everything just to keep her alive for another year or two. Now he's living off SS in a old trailer house someone gave him in a little town of 25 people.

If it can happen to them, it can happen to me..... or anyone else. As a matter of fact it's only a matter of time and THAT is exactly the way the rich want it. Big business/coporations love the fact that people can't afford to buy health insurance. I actually know quite a few people who would tell their employers to take their job and shove it IF they could afford health care.

 

[sandorski]

Why does UHC discussion always assume the Canadian Model? The French and Germans have far better systems that are hybrids of the US and Canadian systems(probably not intentionally). Canada and the US should adopt their models, because our systems suck in comparison.

That said, the Canadian system has never failed me and I have never witnessed any of these nightmares everyone always points to as if they are the norm for Canadian Healthcare.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Reading stories like the one in the previous post by 1EZduzit (just above mine) makes me wonder how some people can talk about "extremism" in regards to something crucial to human life.

Universal healthcare is not an overnight project... yes, it takes 15-20 years to do it right. Look at many of the post-Communist countries - some of them need(ed) 15-20 years before gaining access to the European Union, after bringing their societies and economies to the desired level. Do you think it was easy for them? Was it easy for Germany or England to rebuild after WWII?

But it has to start somewhere and sometimes, and the more time it takes before starting, the more people will die in vain.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for social safety nets. UHC is the opposite of that. As Moonbeam's attitude in this thread full demonstrated, UHC is about reducing the level of care to those who can afford it, not necessarily about increasing the level of care to those who can't. IMO though, there is no reason why we can't have both. You don't have to pull down to lift up.

Oh no, that's wasn't my point at all. I see no reason why we can't lift up either. I simply wanted to say what I think of folk who would allow others to die rather than take less. I am talking about the reality of that attitude, not the reality that there needs to be less.

The problem is that it's just nowhere near as simple as "that attitude" you describe.

Nothing could be nowhere as simple as your assertion there's no reason we can't have both. There are reasons we do not have both and one of them is 'that attitude". Saying there needn't be a one or the other is meaningless unless you explain why what is, is, and how it can change. We don't have both because people are competitive and fear loss. To the frightened person every change looks to be down hill. To the person in a state of fear, the welfare of others means sh!t. The is the truth is so simple it makes me sick. It just happens to be the last thing anybody will look at.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Oh, look, more scare-mongering being used by Conservative mouthpieces, against a system which, while far from perfect, is embraced by the entire civilised world EXCEPT the United States...

bla-bla-bla-high taxes-bla-bla-no research-bla-bla-lower quality care-bla-bla-wait times-bla-bla... have I missed anything???

Try to read these, it might give you a new outlook on life, death and taxes:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php?aid=35
http://www.oecd.org/document/3...371174_1_1_1_1,00.html

I don't think its scare mongering. I think its a fact. Universal healthcare means lower quality care for everybody that currently has healthcare. It does raise the healthcare benefits of those that don't have health insurance.

Why does the first step to fixing the health industry have to be universal healthcare, seems a bit drastic don't you think?

What steps do you propose? Let them eat cake?

1.
Controlling costs to start.

Where?

everywhere

2.
Legislation to require health insurance, this means health insurance companies provide more tiers of insurance. With the more you pay the better coverage you get.

I think it's the insurance that is the problem. They run it for a profit and the more they can deny needed treatment the more money they can make. I'm reminded of the person whose insurance company wouldn't pay for her ambulance ride after a car wreck because it wasn't pre-approved. How do you pre-appove that? heck, i know a guy who has sleep apnea. He was all tested and approved to buy one of those machines, so he bought it. Then the insurance company reniged on him, even though he had a letter from the place where he bought stating that it had been approved.

Private insurance is out to rip you off any way they can.

The idea of what i'm proposing is that because everybody is required to have health insurance, you have to contribute something no matter what, and you are protected from the major disasters. Depending on your tier your deductible may be 10k a year but it will be cheap. Insurance could not deny access to some tier of insurance because it would be required by law.

3.
Public hospitals in a couple of major states for people without coverage for their issues to get help. Probably long wait times, minimal care, low gpa doctors, fewer choices for drugs. You will live but it won't be pleasant. Incentive to get private help.

Sorry, but I see tht as unacceptable for working poor people. Heck, they can't afford insurance now they will have to have a decent car, buy the gas, drive across 3 states, stay in hotel rooms and eat in resturaunts?

Life is hard for the uninsured. Remember its required by law, these could be people that aren't covered well under their private insurance. Its a last resort. If you continue to go to the public hospital without insurance, you start to lose your government benefits, after multiple offenses.

 

[1EZduzit]

OK, you have a plan but it's a stupid one. It appears even stupider then the drug plan Bush and his cronies just pushed through and IMO isn't worth my time to discuss it further.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If it can happen to them, it can happen to me..... or anyone else. As a matter of fact it's only a matter of time and THAT is exactly the way the rich want it. Big business/coporations love the fact that people can't afford to buy health insurance. I actually know quite a few people who would tell their employers to take their job and shove it IF they could afford health care.

That's just hilarious. So you think it's some kind of travesty that people who want to quit thier jobs can't because they can't afford health care? Does this surprise you or something? And more importantly, why is this some sort of injustice? The rest of us have to work for the things we want (food/healthcare/shelter/etc.). You disagree with this?

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Only an idiot would want the same people who run the Post Office to be in charge of health care.

Do you think the US Army is incompetent too?

Ah but ask any active duty or veteran if they had to pay the same would they rather go to the Army doc or VA or to a private sector physician. The docs generally have less experience, less training (at least for GMO) and you cannot sue if they make a mistake. Remember that 1/3-1/4 of the cost of health care is medical malpractice. I pay 90k/year in medical malpractice an have never had a settlement and only one dropped case, in 10 years of ER medicine. Knock Wood

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If it can happen to them, it can happen to me..... or anyone else. As a matter of fact it's only a matter of time and THAT is exactly the way the rich want it. Big business/coporations love the fact that people can't afford to buy health insurance. I actually know quite a few people who would tell their employers to take their job and shove it IF they could afford health care.

That's just hilarious. So you think it's some kind of travesty that people who want to quit thier jobs can't because they can't afford health care? Does this surprise you or something? And more importantly, why is this some sort of injustice? The rest of us have to work for the things we want (food/healthcare/shelter/etc.). You disagree with this?

So explain to me why we have people working full time who don't have and can't afford insurance? Or do people like you think your so much better that those WORKING people don't deserve health care? The truth is that big business is using health care as a means to control their employees, irregardless of the fact that their employees work is what is paying all the bills.

Your just a little punk that doesn't know crap.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If it can happen to them, it can happen to me..... or anyone else. As a matter of fact it's only a matter of time and THAT is exactly the way the rich want it. Big business/coporations love the fact that people can't afford to buy health insurance. I actually know quite a few people who would tell their employers to take their job and shove it IF they could afford health care.

That's just hilarious. So you think it's some kind of travesty that people who want to quit thier jobs can't because they can't afford health care? Does this surprise you or something? And more importantly, why is this some sort of injustice? The rest of us have to work for the things we want (food/healthcare/shelter/etc.). You disagree with this?

So explain to me why we have people working full time who don't have and can't afford insurance? Or do people like you think your so much better that those WORKING people don't deserve health care? The truth is that big business is using health care as a means to control their employees, irregardless of the fact that their employees work is what is paying all the bills.

Your just a little punk that doesn't know crap.

Since you seem to be from the "call names and make baseless assumptions" school of debate, I'm just going to leave you to argue with yourself. Have fun and best wishes.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If it can happen to them, it can happen to me..... or anyone else. As a matter of fact it's only a matter of time and THAT is exactly the way the rich want it. Big business/coporations love the fact that people can't afford to buy health insurance. I actually know quite a few people who would tell their employers to take their job and shove it IF they could afford health care.

That's just hilarious. So you think it's some kind of travesty that people who want to quit thier jobs can't because they can't afford health care? Does this surprise you or something? And more importantly, why is this some sort of injustice? The rest of us have to work for the things we want (food/healthcare/shelter/etc.). You disagree with this?

So explain to me why we have people working full time who don't have and can't afford insurance? Or do people like you think your so much better that those WORKING people don't deserve health care? The truth is that big business is using health care as a means to control their employees, irregardless of the fact that their employees work is what is paying all the bills.

Your just a little punk that doesn't know crap.

Since you seem to be from the "call names and make baseless assumptions" school of debate, I'm just going to leave you to argue with yourself. Have fun and best wishes.

Yeah. In other words you got nothing.... but an over-inflated self image of your iomportance.

 

[mattpegher]

If you want to fix the system there are a few problems that need to be addressed.

1. Coverage for all. - We all want the poor, especially children, to be able to get health care. But do we really want a system that you cannot pay for better. Is there any one on here that if told that everyone would be covered and it would come out of your taxes, but cost you the same as now instead of paying for ins. that money would go to taxes, then to be told that you couldn't get to be seen without an appointment, that you would have to wait 24 hours at the ER if you came in with anything that was not life or limb threating. Because your dollars are going to pay for someone without a job, who doesn't pay taxes. Ill tell you what will happen. I work in an Urgent Care, and lately these are the few places that you can get to see a doctor without an appointment. Now since all the doctors that participate with the gov system will be booked solid, and by the way won't give a rats a$$ that your sick, because they are not realy business owners anymore. The Urgent cares will all go cash only. Now you can choose to see a nurse-practicioner or Physicians assistant instead and that will be cheeper but you have to decide how sick you are ahead of time. Also all the top specialist and surgeons will go cash only. Now there may be additional insurance that you can buy for these docs. So we will have a two teired system that really will be worse for the poor and the middleclass.

2. Medical malpractice insurance currently costs about 1/3 of the gross income for physicians. Any single payor system would need to take over that responsibility in order to decrease its cost inorder to decrease the total. If they did not then a 1/3 drop in reimbursement would lead to a 50% decrease in income. Alternately limiting insurance company profits and tort reform could decrease the waste in these systems.

3. Allowing more physicians into the system by decreasing the requirements is a foolish endeavor. Would you let your local handiman rewire your house. Would you lower the requirements required to fly a commercial jet. As a doctor, I see to many bad doctors out there. Docs that I am amazed passed the tests necessary. Esp foriegn medical grads. Lastly anything that decreases the potential income of a career choice will make for fewer qualified applicants. If you could choose between med school, law school or business school and know that one paid less which would you choose (lets not forget that you have another 4 years minimum in training after med school, can be up to 12 for supersubspecialties)

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

2) Reduce pharmaceutical patent times. The number one cost after primary care is drugs; there is some room to reduce patent times without reducing profits for those investing in research and development of new drugs. The sooner we can get generic drugs, the sooner we can reduce costs through competition and increased accessibility.

3) Ensure a competitive environment for care providers and insurers. It will be the obligation of government to make sure care providers and insurers do not get into a monopoly situation where people are exploited. Competition will reduce costs and create the diversity of services required for such a large and personalized sector.

4) Eliminate political donations from corporations. This is more for the US as Canada has already rolled this out with the Conservative's Accountability Act. This will prevent pharmaceutical companies from lobbying for longer patent times, and prevent corporate influence with regards to a competitive environment.

7) Creation of charitable care facilities. Charitable care facilities would be privately funded and created to administer care to the less fortunate. Luckily with the initiatives above, the costs of care will be much less. Private fundraising for hospitals is nothing new; this is something we see on an annual basis at most public facilities.

Interesting.

I am starting to see a shift in your thinking.

Perhaps have learned a few things here on P&N?

Your earlier Pro-Corporation at all costs kind of posts were quite unbecoming.

My views have been fairly consistent on these forums. You continue to brand me as a Republican when nothing could be further from the truth. Due to your partisan attitude you think that anyone that disagrees with you must be an evil republican...it's really quite sad.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for social safety nets. UHC is the opposite of that. As Moonbeam's attitude in this thread full demonstrated, UHC is about reducing the level of care to those who can afford it, not necessarily about increasing the level of care to those who can't. IMO though, there is no reason why we can't have both. You don't have to pull down to lift up.

Oh no, that's wasn't my point at all. I see no reason why we can't lift up either. I simply wanted to say what I think of folk who would allow others to die rather than take less. I am talking about the reality of that attitude, not the reality that there needs to be less.

The problem is that it's just nowhere near as simple as "that attitude" you describe.

Nothing could be nowhere as simple as your assertion there's no reason we can't have both. There are reasons we do not have both and one of them is 'that attitude". Saying there needn't be a one or the other is meaningless unless you explain why what is, is, and how it can change. We don't have both because people are competitive and fear loss. To the frightened person every change looks to be down hill. To the person in a state of fear, the welfare of others means sh!t. The is the truth is so simple it makes me sick. It just happens to be the last thing anybody will look at.

Cut the crap, Moonie. I understand "that attitude" quite well and merely wish that you would pick up your own fabled mirror and look at its manifestation in yourself.

Let us suppose -- hypothetically -- an individual who absolutely positively does not want to participate in your health care plan. Moral or religious objection to modern medicine perhaps, or maybe he just hates doctors (the actual reason is irrelevant). Will this person be allowed to opt out of your system, not forced to pay into to it and allowed not to receive the benefits of its services?