Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: mightymouse72 on January 07, 2008, 05:30:02 AM
-
In Socialized Medicine, Everyone Is A Doctor
Health Reform: The British have found a way to shorten those long, annoying waits for care and lower the rising costs of their universal access system. They'll let patients take care of themselves.
The London Telegraph reported Tuesday that the British government has a "plan to save billions of pounds from the NHS budget." But it won't come without enormous pain.
"Instead of going to a hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out 'self-care' as the Department of Health tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending," the Telegraph explained.
So when is a universal health care system not actually universal? When Britain's 60-year-old National Health Service can no longer support the weight of its clamoring clientele.
Granted, there should be more self-treatment in developed nations. Emergency rooms and doctors' offices are often overcrowded with patients who aren't in need of urgent need but who go anyway because their insurance or government is paying. That type of open access to health care has led to overuse of the system.
The NHS, though, is hoping to cut down on more than frivolous visits. It's looking for patients with "arthritis, asthma and even heart failure" to treat themselves, the Telegraph said.
Some of the self-care that will be expected of patients includes the monitoring of heart activity, blood pressure and lung capacity using equipment that has been placed in the home.
Patients will be counted on to relate health information to doctors either by phone or computer link. To manage pain, they will administer their own drugs and other treatments.
Patients will also be asked to evaluate the significance of changes in their conditions as well as employ relaxation techniques that the government hopes will help them relieve their stress and avoid emergency room visits caused by panic.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown characterizes the policy changes as improvements that will allow patients to "play a far more active role in managing their own condition." The British Department of Health calls it an "exciting opportunity."
But what they're really saying is "our universal health care system is broken, and you're on your own."
And we ask yet again: Is this the sort of system we want in the U.S.?
The ugly facts will never dissuade those who want to hijack private health care in this country and turn it over to the government. They will continue to use inflated — and irrelevant — data on the uninsured, demagogue, embellish and in general shriek about the woes of U.S. health care, which we unapologetically say is the finest in the world.
But they can't do it alone. They need America's middle-of-the-roaders, and the more the average person learns about the hazards of the British and Canadian models, the less likely he or she will blindly go along with plans to nationalize private care.
A government system in which everyone gets "free" medical treatment might sound humane. But as Britain's NHS has shown, such a program will eventually be besieged with lengthy and sometimes deadly waiting times and overwhelming costs.
From examples across the Atlantic and north of the border we are learning that both the quality and quantity of health care will suffer when the nanny state gets involved. It's a lesson we can ill afford to ignore.
-
In Socialized Medicine, Everyone Is A Doctor
Health Reform: The British have found a way to shorten those long, annoying waits for care and lower the rising costs of their universal access system. They'll let patients take care of themselves.
The London Telegraph reported Tuesday that the British government has a "plan to save billions of pounds from the NHS budget." But it won't come without enormous pain.
"Instead of going to a hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out 'self-care' as the Department of Health tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending," the Telegraph explained.
So when is a universal health care system not actually universal? When Britain's 60-year-old National Health Service can no longer support the weight of its clamoring clientele.
Granted, there should be more self-treatment in developed nations. Emergency rooms and doctors' offices are often overcrowded with patients who aren't in need of urgent need but who go anyway because their insurance or government is paying. That type of open access to health care has led to overuse of the system.
The NHS, though, is hoping to cut down on more than frivolous visits. It's looking for patients with "arthritis, asthma and even heart failure" to treat themselves, the Telegraph said.
Some of the self-care that will be expected of patients includes the monitoring of heart activity, blood pressure and lung capacity using equipment that has been placed in the home.
Patients will be counted on to relate health information to doctors either by phone or computer link. To manage pain, they will administer their own drugs and other treatments.
Patients will also be asked to evaluate the significance of changes in their conditions as well as employ relaxation techniques that the government hopes will help them relieve their stress and avoid emergency room visits caused by panic.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown characterizes the policy changes as improvements that will allow patients to "play a far more active role in managing their own condition." The British Department of Health calls it an "exciting opportunity."
But what they're really saying is "our universal health care system is broken, and you're on your own."
And we ask yet again: Is this the sort of system we want in the U.S.?
The ugly facts will never dissuade those who want to hijack private health care in this country and turn it over to the government. They will continue to use inflated — and irrelevant — data on the uninsured, demagogue, embellish and in general shriek about the woes of U.S. health care, which we unapologetically say is the finest in the world.
But they can't do it alone. They need America's middle-of-the-roaders, and the more the average person learns about the hazards of the British and Canadian models, the less likely he or she will blindly go along with plans to nationalize private care.
A government system in which everyone gets "free" medical treatment might sound humane. But as Britain's NHS has shown, such a program will eventually be besieged with lengthy and sometimes deadly waiting times and overwhelming costs.
From examples across the Atlantic and north of the border we are learning that both the quality and quantity of health care will suffer when the nanny state gets involved. It's a lesson we can ill afford to ignore.
MM72, while I respect your right to have an opinion, no matter how ill thought out, you really should step back, and take an objective look at the material you're using to bolster your case.
How do you expect any reasonable person to respond to that? It takes a supposed decision made in one country, and tries to apply it to a concept as a whole, and attempts to imply that is how it works in every country with universal healthcare.
This article talks about "examples from across the Atlantic and north of the border", but mentions no such example from north of the border, but expects the reader to apply this example to both jurisdictions. That's dishonest, deceptive, and devious, as much as when OBL was constantly mentioned in the same sentence as 911. Eventually 911 and OBL became synonymously linked in the minds of readers and listeners, when neither had anything to do with the other.
While I'm at it, I have to ask, if the example you cite is to be believed, what is so wrong with a patient monitoring their own blood pressure or lung capacity? If that were me, I'd love it. Who would want to have to travel to a hospital, doctor's office or clinic on a daily basis to have this done. If I needed daily monitoring of my blood pressure, or if I needed daily measures of improvements or declines in my lung capacity, ...I'd rather do it in the comfort and convenience of my own home. It's not like they're asking patients to prescribe or diagnose. Or would you prefer a system that dictates patients must attend daily to have their underwear changed. I don't see how this is any different from the daily monitoring of blood sugar & insulin levels that diabetics are required to perform on their own every day in America. Some things can and should be done by patients themselves.
What you've posted is a very feeble and impotent attempt to dissuade against universal healthcare.
It makes no argument whatsoever that a Democrat would be a bad president, or Republican a good one.
-
The majority of the American people stood back and watched in shock as GWB enjoyed wars, Katrina failures, torture camps, 4 million 'lost' emails, Justice Dept favortism, and a score of other issues.
MM, 75% of America is just sick of it.
Spend your days using non-applicable arguments to bash 'the libs'.
But the fact of the matter is that Americans are just sick of the bullshit, and aren't about to elect another man who promises 4 years of the same bullshit. Dems aren't perfect, but after 7 years of warring and bullying the wolrd, the cyucle does call for balance.
Of course, there will always be far left and far right sheep who think their party should rule every time. That's super. But in reality, it alternates for a reason.
-
This article talks about "examples from across the Atlantic and north of the border", but mentions no such example from north of the border, but expects the reader to apply this example to both jurisdictions. That's dishonest, deceptive, and devious, as much as when OBL was constantly mentioned in the same sentence as 911. Eventually 911 and OBL became synonymously linked in the minds of readers and listeners, when neither had anything to do with the other.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/insight/story/224748.html
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20080102_101452_5180
I should ignore your feeble attempt to align the universal healthcare debate in this country with 9/11 and OBL but since he admitted to it, I won't. ::)
-
What you've posted is a very feeble and impotent attempt to dissuade against universal healthcare.
It makes no argument whatsoever that a Democrat would be a bad president, or Republican a good one.
Find me a arguement that favors universal healthcare. Although you made a very wordy post that states your view that you are in favor of UHC, you failed to show any favorable mentions on why it is so wonderful.
The USA has probably the best in the world. Now I'm sure the PHD's and Road Scholars on the 'Getbig' boards will try to prove me wrong. Does it have problems?? Of course. Does it need fine tuning?? Of course. Does the federal government need to control our health care?? I'll let 240 answer for me--The majority of the American people stood back and watched in shock as GWB enjoyed wars, Katrina failures, torture camps, 4 million 'lost' emails, Justice Dept favortism, and a score of other issues.[/i]
If the govt' is so lax in the above issues, why would I want them paying for my operation??
And the fine citizens of the US know how the welfare program is working out. No one is abusing that. ::)
-
From examples across the Atlantic and north of the border we are learning that both the quality and quantity of health care will suffer when the nanny state gets involved. It's a lesson we can ill afford to ignore.
We have universal health care in Sweden, and nothing of this is familiar, to be honest? ???
Isn't it possible that it is the UK system that may have problems, and that universal health care works just fine elsewhere?
JMO.
And give me an example of problems up in Canada.
-
We have universal health care in Sweden, and nothing of this is familiar, to be honest? ???
Isn't it possible that it is the UK system that may have problems, and that universal health care works just fine elsewhere?
JMO.
And give me an example of problems up in Canada.
I posted 2 links above.
-
I love these "My aunt got sick in Yellowknife and had to wait for a bed so that means Canadian Healthcare sucks cause she said so" news stories. ::)
There are pros and cons to both private and universal healthcare systems. The US government spends twice as much on healthcare, people who can't afford it have to rely on church charity collections or the like, or just plain don't get care, have to deal with managed care bullshit, blah blah ad infinitum, whereas Canadians often find themselves waiting for longer periods when they need non-emergency surgeries, etc. They also have lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies, attributed to their health care system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
-
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/insight/story/224748.html
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20080102_101452_5180
Much better. :)
Although, I don't suppose you would consider it relevant that the examples you've now shown took place in BC?
I understand BC is plagued by problems. It is not like that throughout Canada. If someone isn't interested in using universal healthcare, they're free to use private healthcare. Also too, I must add, that in Canada, universal healthcare is administered on a provincial level, so things will vary from province to province. Just as education in various jurisdictions in the US varies from county to county, and school district to school district. If one is not interested in the public school system, they are more than welcome to use a private school. Just as the horrendous smog in LA is not indicative of the air quality in Nebraska.
I should ignore your feeble attempt to align the universal healthcare debate in this country with 9/11 and OBL but since he admitted to it, I won't. ::)
I wasn't attempting to link the two, ...simply pointing out similarities in the MO
-
Find me a arguement that favors universal healthcare. Although you made a very wordy post that states your view that you are in favor of UHC, you failed to show any favorable mentions on why it is so wonderful.
The USA has probably the best in the world. Now I'm sure the PHD's and Road Scholars on the 'Getbig' boards will try to prove me wrong. Does it have problems?? Of course. Does it need fine tuning?? Of course. Does the federal government need to control our health care?? I'll let 240 answer for me--The majority of the American people stood back and watched in shock as GWB enjoyed wars, Katrina failures, torture camps, 4 million 'lost' emails, Justice Dept favortism, and a score of other issues.[/i]
If the govt' is so lax in the above issues, why would I want them paying for my operation??
And the fine citizens of the US know how the welfare program is working out. No one is abusing that. ::)
Guess what?
Healthcare is #3 or 4 on the issues that most people care about.
For your average voter, age 18 to 45, for example...
They can't worry about treatment for cancer of the ass they might get in 1, 5, or 25 years.
They CAN worry about their kid taking IED attacks in Iraq. They CAN worry about their 401k and retirement collapsing. They CAN worry about social security not being there.
Yes, it's a valid issue. But let's face it, both dems and repubs are in the pockets of the companies. That won't change, dude. 1/6 of America is uninsiured. That doesn't affect you, so you don't care. But suppose things change and you end up injured without insurance. I know, you believe it'll never happen. But if the dollar collapses, you watch how fast military insurance retirement benefits get cinched.
So anyway, you make good points on this one, as do the socialized medicine crowd. My point is that none of that will matter if the dollar dies, get it? None of it matters if we start a 3rd war and piss off russia into another cold war.
-
I posted 2 links above.
Thanks.
Good read.
Interestingly, it seems like US health care is even more expensive:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html
-
I have a Q - who has a longer life expectancy - Americans or Canadians?
-
I have a Q - who has a longer life expectancy - Americans or Canadians?
Canadians.
-
Canadians.
Although, I am willing to bet, it's not due to their health care. We Americans loooove to eat. In other words, our lifestyle is not what you would label healthy.
-
Although, I am willing to bet, it's not due to their health care. We Americans loooove to eat. In other words, our lifestyle is not what you would label healthy.
I agree with this. Heart disease and cancer, probably our two biggest killers, are lifestyle--not healthcare--related.
-
Although, I am willing to bet, it's not due to their health care. We Americans loooove to eat. In other words, our lifestyle is not what you would label healthy.
Yeah, you do looooove to eat (not that Canadians are too far behind in that regard) ... but actually Canadians do have a better llfe expectancy because of their healthcare. That system is preventative, so more emphasis is placed on keeping people healthy, whereas the US subscribes to a fix it when it's broke kind of philosophy. That's why health care costs so much less in Canada. Canadians actually have a terrible survival rate for heart attack victims. Also, because health care is there for infants born into poverty ... the mortality rate is lower too. Not saying it's a perfect system, but having lived under both... it's far from being this horrible, communist plot to control people. There's plenty wrong the US system too. I'd say 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other. Some people do find it morally reprehensible to not provide people with basic healthcare though.
-
Whatever. ::)
I have lots of family in Canada and have had personal experience with Universal Health care in England.
No complaints.
No matter what happens you can go on the net and find things or stories of Universal health care problems. No system is perfect or trouble free.
I wonder if political alignment clouds objective vision or makes a person easy pickings for idealistic manipulations on issues.
Right now, our health system is a joke, it ranks low, it's over priced and manipulated by pharm companies. Getting Health insurance is more complex, more difficult, and costs so much than even a few years ago.
Something does need to be done. However i fear, universal health care in the US will be poorly managed and border-line corrupt.
-
But they can't do it alone. They need America's middle-of-the-roaders, and the more the average person learns about the hazards of the British and Canadian models, the less likely he or she will blindly go along with plans to nationalize private care.
A government system in which everyone gets "free" medical treatment might sound humane. But as Britain's NHS has shown, such a program will eventually be besieged with lengthy and sometimes deadly waiting times and overwhelming costs.
From examples across the Atlantic and north of the border we are learning that both the quality and quantity of health care will suffer when the nanny state gets involved. It's a lesson we can ill afford to ignore.
First up, no one is going to succeed in successfully de-privatizing health care.
The best of all worlds is a blended system, where all Americans are invited to join a group plan.
The real issue is finding a way to carve into those huge profit margins taken by America's insurance conglomerates.
Solve that dilemma, and the solution will be within reach.
Look, if they can do it in California (Healthy Families), then it can definitely be done nationwide.
-
The best of all worlds is a blended system, where all Americans are invited to join a group plan.
The real issue is finding a way to carve into those huge profit margins taken by America's insurance conglomerates.
You've just summed up 'Universal Health Care'. :)
-
So, what I'm reading is it's ok for yours, my taxes to pay for someone else's health care?? No thanks, not for me. There's enough gov't entitlements coming out of my paycheck.
Look, if they can do it in California (Healthy Families), then it can definitely be done nationwide.
Tre, explain your above comment.
-
So, what I'm reading is it's ok for yours, my taxes to pay for someone else's health care?? No thanks, not for me. There's enough gov't entitlements coming out of my paycheck.
Good point.
I guess I'd rather my taxes help pay for mine and someone else's health care instead of lining the pockets of pharm and insurnace companies.
-
Keep ur socialist bullshit in Canada..I'm not paying more money to support those who leach off of our system. We now have states that will cover illiegal aliens. So what i will have to pay for anybody who manages to set foot in the US. A blended system where insurance is affordable would be great and could work but every douche bag with a lawyer will have to stop sueing or we'll get nowhere.
-
I realize this is probably impossible or at least very unlikely, but i don;t think there would be any need to raise taxes with some sort of semi universal blended health care IF we could get rid of this bloated bureaucracy and smartly trim excess wasteful expenditures.
But putting the dems in office will only grow what's already bloated.
-
Tort reform and caps on damages would be very helpful and get the ball rolling..but i'm not sure how Edwards would feed his family.
-
I realize this is probably impossible or at least very unlikely, but i don;t think there would be any need to raise taxes with some sort of semi universal blended health care IF we could get rid of this bloated bureaucracy and smartly trim excess wasteful expenditures.
But putting the dems in office will only grow what's already bloated.
Have you seen SICKO by Michael Moore?
Aside from the opinoin part, there is some cold hard numbers. What each major politician has received in campaign donations from big medicine, and how their voting changed afterwards. How Nixon was told about how the system would screw 1/6 of the population (you hear the recording!), and he laughed, then gav a speech the next day talking about how it would help everyone. Then you see exactly when HILARY was bought off in early 90s and droppde her own campaign.
Both sides are very much bought off. There will be no change to healthcare.
-
Reason number 1 to keep republicans out.
(http://www.iaingrant.com/media/1/20071009-bush-idiot.jpg)
-
I guess what people don't consider is that the average trailer trash dweller is probably going to spend the suplus of his hard-earned minimum wage check on beer and cigarettes, whereas contributing to his own health care is too expensive and not as important. So, when that person gets sick and ends up in the hospital emergency room, it's the taxpayer who pays anyway. Why donot force this person to contribute as much as everyone else and at least mitigate the cost of his own healthcare?
Many people who could afford to have health insurance don't, and this keeps the cost high for everyone else.
-
Keep ur socialist bullshit in Canada..I'm not paying more money to support those who leach off of our system. We now have states that will cover illiegal aliens. So what i will have to pay for anybody who manages to set foot in the US. A blended system where insurance is affordable would be great and could work but every douche bag with a lawyer will have to stop sueing or we'll get nowhere.
Good points.
Imagine....... no more rampant malpractice suing............ and illegals not being able to get care, in fact illegals not even being here.
Makes, Universal Health Care, or some form of it, easier to swallow.
Or we could just buy the Bullshit about the high cost of health insurance and prescription drugs, being a result of these malpractice suits while these companies get richer and richer and we feel better about ourselves because "our" money isn't helping some lazy fat bastard.
Makes monster sense to the average Hard Working American who's just trying to get by and raise a family.
-
people with insurance get little things fixed/looked at.
people without insurance let them fester into really bad things. Then, they either spread it to ten nice people, or they go into the ER in the middle of a Sat night and leave a $3500 emergency bill they'll never pay.
Guys, it's a lot cheaper to require everyone to chip in 'some' and be covered, so they'll fix shit early. Or your tax dollars cn pay for 50 million ppl to walk out on a $3500 bill each year.
-
people with insurance get little things fixed/looked at.
people without insurance let them fester into really bad things. Then, they either spread it to ten nice people, or they go into the ER in the middle of a Sat night and leave a $3500 emergency bill they'll never pay.
Guys, it's a lot cheaper to require everyone to chip in 'some' and be covered, so they'll fix shit early. Or your tax dollars cn pay for 50 million ppl to walk out on a $3500 bill each year.
NO NO NO!
I've been slowly convinced by the propaganda spewed out by politicians bought off by these companies.
I will not vote for something that might make our country even remotely socialist!
Because that will lead to communism!
And i am not a pink-o commy!
And will not watch my tax dollars spent on lazy fat people!
I want them spent on those unpaid bills, over priced drugs and over priced insurnace and over priced care!!!!!!
That way i feel better about myself and my ideals!!!
-
people with insurance get little things fixed/looked at.
people without insurance let them fester into really bad things. Then, they either spread it to ten nice people, or they go into the ER in the middle of a Sat night and leave a $3500 emergency bill they'll never pay.
Guys, it's a lot cheaper to require everyone to chip in 'some' and be covered, so they'll fix shit early. Or your tax dollars cn pay for 50 million ppl to walk out on a $3500 bill each year.
That's what I mean. You end up supporting the fat bastard for free since s/he isn't covered at all. Why not make them responsible for at least some of the cost by requiring them to contribute to their own health.
-
How about....I've chipped in enough. How about cutting off aid to all these worthless countries..or the millions donated to all these stupid charities..the NEA etc etc. Then inact tort reform and Caps on damages..law suits have amounted to winning the lottery. Case in point, a buddy of mine, who i served in the Marines with, got hit by a semi, his gf at the time got hurt but he was ok, banged up but ok. He got enough to buy into a Mercedes dealership on Long Island. Good for him, but what does that do to the system.
-
So, what I'm reading is it's ok for yours, my taxes to pay for someone else's health care?? No thanks, not for me. There's enough gov't entitlements coming out of my paycheck.
Are you equally adamant about the portion of your taxes that go to pay for law enforcement and the court system?
Especially since you are such a law abiding individual, ...and would never end up in the criminal justice system?
How about a portion of your tax dollars going to pay for the Firefighters who douse the flames coming out of your neighbour's house? Do you have a problem with that too? Especially since you don't play with matches?
I'd like to suggest you read through the wiki link that Deedee posted (in it's entirety).
It's the most comprehensive analysis juxtaposing the two systems that I've ever seen
-
How about....I've chipped in enough. How about cutting off aid to all these worthless countries..or the millions donated to all these stupid charities..the NEA etc etc. Then inact tort reform and Caps on damages..law suits have amounted to winning the lottery. Case in point, a buddy of mine, who i served in the Marines with, got hit by a semi, his gf at the time got hurt but he was ok, banged up but ok. He got enough to buy into a Mercedes dealership on Long Island. Good for him, but what does that do to the system.
I really think if we spend the money better, manage it smartly, combined with tort reform, caps etc... we can achieve what we want without raising taxes.
Every child under 18 and under 21 if going to college, at least in the US can have free health care.
-
I guess what people don't consider is that the average trailer trash dweller is probably going to spend the suplus of his hard-earned minimum wage check on beer and cigarettes, whereas contributing to his own health care is too expensive and not as important. So, when that person gets sick and ends up in the hospital emergency room, it's the taxpayer who pays anyway. Why donot force this person to contribute as much as everyone else and at least mitigate the cost of his own healthcare?
Many people who could afford to have health insurance don't, and this keeps the cost high for everyone else.
I would have respected your comment more without the trailer trash comment. Trailer trash/ Ghetto covers everyone!
However, when lower income people have an option of course they are going to choose the gov't funded HC. That's a no-brainer. It will be a lot cheaper and they won't see the bill every month. Why the heck should I pay for someone's doctor visits when they make 30 grand a year, drive 2 SUV's, and live in a $200,000 house and the only reason they want the gov't HC is because it's cheaper??
There are just so many avenues of abuse.
Fine tune the system we have. Screw Hillary-care.
Health insurance should be a top priority for everyone, especially people with families. Food, shelter, clothes, insurance.
-
people with insurance get little things fixed/looked at.
people without insurance let them fester into really bad things. Then, they either spread it to ten nice people, or they go into the ER in the middle of a Sat night and leave a $3500 emergency bill they'll never pay.
Guys, it's a lot cheaper to require everyone to chip in 'some' and be covered, so they'll fix shit early. Or your tax dollars cn pay for 50 million ppl to walk out on a $3500 bill each year.
Many companies now are giving workers an incentive to stay healthy to keep costs down.The company I work for pays to have every employee screened. They come in every October and measure and weigh you and estimate bf%. They also draw blood and check cholesterol, liver enzymes and all that. You get a score between 0 and 100. The employees who are in a certain healthy range get a considerable discount on their health insurance.Both in the premium and the deductable. Even if you do not score well enough to be in that range, as long as you made a certain amount of improvement from the year before( I think it was 8 points), you qualify for it.The test also screen you for nicotine...tobacco users have a fairly big penalty assessed against their score.
-
I guess what people don't consider is that the average trailer trash dweller is probably going to spend the suplus of his hard-earned minimum wage check on beer and cigarettes, whereas contributing to his own health care is too expensive and not as important. So, when that person gets sick and ends up in the hospital emergency room, it's the taxpayer who pays anyway. Why donot force this person to contribute as much as everyone else and at least mitigate the cost of his own healthcare?
Many people who could afford to have health insurance don't, and this keeps the cost high for everyone else.
Rich people smoke a drink also. Regardless of income smokers will continue to smoke and drinkers will drink. People tend to put their habits/ addictions first. All people.
-
Are you equally adamant about the portion of your taxes that go to pay for law enforcement and the court system?
Especially since you are such a law abiding individual, ...and would never end up in the criminal justice system?
How about a portion of your tax dollars going to pay for the Firefighters who douse the flames coming out of your neighbour's house? Do you have a problem with that too? Especially since you don't play with matches?
I'd like to suggest you read through the wiki link that Deedee posted (in it's entirety).
It's the most comprehensive analysis juxtaposing the two systems that I've ever seen
Those things are the gov't's responsibility. Not to pay for 'Tyrell's' cut finger.
-
Those things are the gov't's resposibility.
Why?
Not to pay for 'Tyrell's' cut finger.
Under the Cdn system of universal healthcare, the goverment wouldn't be paying for anyone's cut finger,
...but they would ensure that everyone has insurance, that would allow them to seek medical treatment where warranted. under the sytem you have now, the guy with the cut finger goes into emerg, and YOU pay for it.
I'm serious, ...read the wiki link
-
Rich people smoke a drink also. Regardless of income smokers will continue to smoke and drinkers will drink. People tend to put their habits/ addictions first. All people.
Yes, my comment wasn't really about the smoking and drinking other than to say that many lower income individuals will indulge their habits and comforts before they think about their own healthcare. Rich people smoke and drink, but they also pay for their insurance coverage. One part of society ends up paying for those who have no healthcare whatsoever anyway. I was just saying why not at least collect "something" from these people.
-
Yes, my comment wasn't really about the smoking and drinking other than to say that many lower income individuals will indulge their habits and comforts before they think about their own healthcare. Rich people smoke and drink, but they also pay for their insurance coverage. One part of society ends up paying for those who have no healthcare whatsoever anyway. I was just saying why not at least collect "something" from these people.
I think cigarettes should have a tax that goes toward healthcare since smoking has to be one of the major causes of health problems.
-
Why?
Under the Cdn system of universal healthcare, the goverment wouldn't be paying for anyone's cut finger,
...but they would ensure that everyone has insurance, that would allow them to seek medical treatment where warranted. under the sytem you have now, the guy with the cut finger goes into emerg, and YOU pay for it.
I'm serious, ...read the wiki link
Emergency personnel (cops, medical, fire) are there to protect your rights. In our constitution.
Of course I'm paying for Tyrell's cut finger. The moron doesn't have insurance.
I'm also paying for his:
6 babies he had by 6 women,
his food he buys with his monthly welfare checks,
his 3 meals per day and cable TV when he gets locked up......
I could go on, you get my point.
-
I think cigarettes should have a tax that goes toward healthcare since smoking has to be one of the major causes of health problems.
{LOL} That's why cigarettes in Ontario are $11.oo a pack. ;D
-
Emergency personnel (cops, medical, fire) are there to protect your rights. In our constitution.
Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to police, medical or fire protection?
Of course I'm paying for Tyrell's cut finger. The moron doesn't have insurance.
And with the exhorbitant premiums and whimsical coverage providerd in the US, he will never have it, ...and you will continue to pay for it, ...until you yourself are priced out of insurance coverage too.
I'm also paying for his:
6 babies he had by 6 women,
his food he buys with his monthly welfare checks,
his 3 meals per day and cable TV when he gets locked up......
I could go on, you get my point.
I don't get your point, because you don't have one. Maybe I need to don a white sheet to see it. :-\
ps: When's the cross burning?
-
In Socialized Medicine, Everyone Is A Doctor
Have you seen the wave of Big Pharmaceutical commercials?
Enlarged prostate? Trouble sleeping? Nervous fucking leg? Can't get it up? High Cholesterol? Indigestion? Anal drip? And on and on.
"Well then recommend to your doctor....."
We are not doctors yet we are supposed to be making recommendations to our doctors for our treatment so Big Pharma can chalk up a few more sales?
We are not qualified to do that.
If BP had it's way, I'd be on 30 pills a day just to be "normal".
-
Of course I'm paying for Tyrell's cut finger. The moron doesn't have insurance.
I'm also paying for his:
6 babies he had by 6 women,
his food he buys with his monthly welfare checks,
his 3 meals per day and cable TV when he gets locked up......
I could go on, you get my point.
Gee, it's not like your racist side is showing or anything, eh?
You're blinded by your anger. You're not seeing the NUMBERS that the rest of us are. A sixth of the population cannot provide healthcare for themselves currently. They do, however, get treated, in emergency rooms.
They are going to get healed no matter what - in the ER or at a clinic. They have too. Otherwire, "Tyrell", as you put it, will contract rabies or staph or something, and give it to YOUR KID. So we take care of that 1/6 of the population so keep the other 83% alive. Get it?
So, if you can accept this much - can you? - you have to see what's more cost efficient - giving "Tyrell" an ER visit for $3500 once or twice a year, or subsidizing his healthcare with a small $1000 (or similar) pricetag for preventative care.
-
Reason number 1 to keep republicans out.
(http://www.iaingrant.com/media/1/20071009-bush-idiot.jpg)
The ultimate trump card.
If I'm on the campaign trail in October, I'm throwing W under the bus at every available opportunity.
-
Gee, it's not like your racist side is showing or anything, eh?
You're blinded by your anger. You're not seeing the NUMBERS that the rest of us are. A sixth of the population cannot provide healthcare for themselves currently. They do, however, get treated, in emergency rooms.
They are going to get healed no matter what - in the ER or at a clinic. They have too. Otherwire, "Tyrell", as you put it, will contract rabies or staph or something, and give it to YOUR KID. So we take care of that 1/6 of the population so keep the other 83% alive. Get it?
So, if you can accept this much - can you? - you have to see what's more cost efficient - giving "Tyrell" an ER visit for $3500 once or twice a year, or subsidizing his healthcare with a small $1000 (or similar) pricetag for preventative care.
I wonder if political alignment clouds objectivity or makes a person easy pickings for idealistic manipulations on these issues?
One way or another we are paying for it. Only the current way, someone else is making a huge profit.
-
Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to police, medical or fire protection?
And with the exhorbitant premiums and whimsical coverage providerd in the US, he will never have it, ...and you will continue to pay for it, ...until you yourself are priced out of insurance coverage too.
I don't get your point, because you don't have one. Maybe I need to don a white sheet to see it. :-\
ps: When's the cross burning?
Okay Mr. Jaguar. We were having a nice conversation until the stupid insults.
Those people are put into commuities to protect YOURS, MINE AND OUR RIGHTS. Think about it because I'm tired of typing it.
Because the first time your rights are violated, who do you call?? Got it now??
Boy, you and that dummy 240 can sure cry racism when some comment is used but when a god-hater starts with his vile language I guess you assume it's OK because I've never read any defense from you.
I was making an analogy. Use whatever name you what and spin the facts to whatever suits your beliefs. Point is, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for anymore gov't funded subsidies when every other one is abused to no end. No one in this country will disagree with that.
Definition: You don't give a thief a new way to steal. A society cannot just throw its hands up and say "alright, we know your abusing the system so here's a new way to abuse it, but don't abuse it."
-
that dummy 240
Were you going to counter my above argument with something logical?
Or are you the dummy here?
-
One way or another we are paying for it. Only the current way, someone else is making a huge profit.
Can you explain that to mightymouse?
His whole beef of "I shouldn't have to pay for it" is illogical.
-
Can you explain that to mightymouse?
His whole beef of "I shouldn't have to pay for it" is illogical.
what could be more logical than not wanting to pay for someone's healthcare that can afford it??
now you tell me, do you want your tax money going to pay for that??
please, for the love of mike, don't give any dumb scenarios. just yes or no
-
Can you explain that to mightymouse?
His whole beef of "I shouldn't have to pay for it" is illogical.
Maybe he thinks emergency rooms shouldn't treat uninsured patients. I donno. Maybe he thinks pharm and insurance companies aren't bigger and more powerful than they were 30 years ago. Maybe he thinks generic drugs from Canada aren't the same as more expensive brand name drugs from America. I donno what he thinks.
I do agree with him about not wanting to pay for that guy, but we pay either way.
I also don't want 20 million of my tax dollars spent for a victory party after the Iraq invasion.
Our system is very flawed and borders on corruption. It seems Pharm companies have a subtle and indirect monopoly in this country.
-
what could be more logical than not wanting to pay for someone's healthcare that can afford it??
now you tell me, do you want your tax money going to pay for that??
please, for the love of mike, don't give any dumb scenarios. just yes or no
Fvck no, I don't want my tax money going to it.
Just like I don't want my tax $ going to caring for illegals, junkies, or ppl too lazy to work who claim disability.
But---
I am smart enough to understand that you HAVE to take care of these people.
Because it you don't, they will get sick, and they will die. And they will commit crimes. They will spread diseases. They will make my country unsafe. It's easy to say "Their problem, not mine!" But when sick people start doing desperate shit to eat or get medicine or money for treatment, yes, it'll affect all of us.
-
what could be more logical than not wanting to pay for someone's healthcare that can afford it??
now you tell me, do you want your tax money going to pay for that??
please, for the love of mike, don't give any dumb scenarios. just yes or no
Do 1/6 Americans not have H.I. because they can afford it but choose not to?
Are you suggesting everyone can afford health insurance?
I really don't know the answer. I can afford it fine, but it is a major monthly expense that has gone up seemingly every couple of years.
-
Keep ur socialist bullshit in Canada..I'm not paying more money to support those who leach off of our system. We now have states that will cover illiegal aliens. So what i will have to pay for anybody who manages to set foot in the US. A blended system where insurance is affordable would be great and could work but every douche bag with a lawyer will have to stop sueing or we'll get nowhere.
What you refer to as 'Socialism' is really a moderated form of Capitalism. Pure Socialism would be something like an ESOP where employees own the means of production.
Here's where socialism has produced a vibrant, healthy country where people thrive: Britain.
Britain has a form of Universal healthcare that, in terms of availability/access, quality and outcome, is superior to the privatized system in the US. And it costs 40% less per person. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
So there you are. Better care through universal care at almost half the cost.
Unless you like to pay the feudal lords of privatized medicine for their corporate headquarters, CEO compensation, corporate jets, PGA tour sponsorships, and on and on. The privatized system is not working.
Remember where our privatized system of Healthcare has gotten us:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
For the love of God, the Arabs are kicking our ass.
-
We've had this discussion on the board before, but I think most people have access to healthcare, particularly in Hawaii. Here, every employer must provide full-time employees with health insurance. There is also Medicare, Medicaid, and Quest (our state equivalent). Kids can always get free immunizations. We have county/state hospitals that provide free health care. Anyone can get emergency treatment, regardless of income.
There are legitimate issues regarding the quality of care, but there really is no need to have a federal government takeover of the healthcare system. It will cost everyone more money.
-
Do 1/6 Americans not have H.I. because they can afford it but choose not to?
Are you suggesting everyone can afford health insurance?
I really don't know the answer. I can afford it fine, but it is a major monthly expense that has gone up seemingly every couple of years.
I don't know about the 1/6 number but, yes I do believe a majority of Americans CHOOSE not to have health care. My best friend and his wife never had it until they had their daughter.
My guess would be because want to have better status-symbols to brag about- nicer cars, all the new fancy tech-gadgets I could go on but you understand. Like I stated previously; health insurance should be a priority for every working adult, a part of your basic needs to live.
Of course there are people who can't genuinely can't afford it. To that I don't know the answer. There's enough of my taxes going to gov't funded med-costs programs. Let them figure it out.
-
I don't know about the 1/6 number but, yes I do believe a majority of Americans CHOOSE not to have health care. My best friend and his wife never had it until they had their daughter.
My guess would be because want to have better status-symbols to brag about- nicer cars, all the new fancy tech-gadgets I could go on but you understand. Like I stated previously; health insurance should be a priority for every working adult, a part of your basic needs to live.
Of course there are people who can't genuinely can't afford it. To that I don't know the answer. There's enough of my taxes going to gov't funded med-costs programs. Let them figure it out.
I choose not to drive a mercedes. I can't afford it.
B/c of cost reasons, it is more affordable for employers to offer healthcare as part of compensation. Employers can't even afford to keep a healthcare plan in place.
When catastrophic illness strikes, people die and families go broke.
If the privatized system in the US costs more than the UHC system of Britain (40% less per person) and the British system has better results, what exactly is the argumet for retaining privatized healthcare?
-
We've had this discussion on the board before, but I think most people have access to healthcare, particularly in Hawaii. Here, every employer must provide full-time employees with health insurance. There is also Medicare, Medicaid, and Quest (our state equivalent). Kids can always get free immunizations. We have county/state hospitals that provide free health care. Anyone can get emergency treatment, regardless of income.
There are legitimate issues regarding the quality of care, but there really is no need to have a federal government takeover of the healthcare system. It will cost everyone more money.
What of the under-insured or those that do not qualify for Medicare?
Immunization? That doesn't help for preventative medicine, does it. And by the time emergency care is required, it's too late cost-wise.
-
What of the under-insured or those that do not qualify for Medicare?
Immunization? That doesn't help for preventative medicine, does it. And by the time emergency care is required, it's too late cost-wise.
Quest and our state hospital.
Immunization is one of the primary forms of prevention.
-
Quest and our state hospital.
Immunization is one of the primary forms of prevention.
40-49 million are still uninsured. More and more private employers simply cannot afford coverage of the rank n file.
Immunization is no replacement for a check-up with a doctor.
Under the current privatized healthcare regime, costs are exploding, medical results stink, and the public is getting hosed b/c insurance companies and big Pharmaceuticals want their profits sky high.
Medical coverage/treatment is a free market failure.
-
Of course there are people who can't genuinely can't afford it. To that I don't know the answer. There's enough of my taxes going to gov't funded med-costs programs. Let them figure it out.
They will "figure it out".
When they need money for surgery, they will stick a gun in your face and take your wallet. When they need money for medicine, they will beg outside your local grocery store. When they don't get treatment, they will pass their diseases to you and your family. Then, they will eventually die.
"Let them figure it out" means your standard of living in the USA starts to fall. It means smallpox and TB outbreaks. After all, 1/6 of the poor kids like "Tyrell" won't have their immunization, but they'll still share toys with your kid in school.
See the problem, yet?
-
They will "figure it out".
When they need money for surgery, they will stick a gun in your face and take your wallet. When they need money for medicine, they will beg outside your local grocery store. When they don't get treatment, they will pass their diseases to you and your family. Then, they will eventually die.
"Let them figure it out" means your standard of living in the USA starts to fall. It means smallpox and TB outbreaks. After all, 1/6 of the poor kids like "Tyrell" won't have their immunization, but they'll still share toys with your kid in school.
See the problem, yet?
I'm sure his kids will be thoroughly indoctrinated to never considering having anything to do with "Tyrell's" kids.
-
I don't know about the 1/6 number but, yes I do believe a majority of Americans CHOOSE not to have health care. My best friend and his wife never had it until they had their daughter.
My guess would be because want to have better status-symbols to brag about- nicer cars, all the new fancy tech-gadgets I could go on but you understand. Like I stated previously; health insurance should be a priority for every working adult, a part of your basic needs to live.
Of course there are people who can't genuinely can't afford it. To that I don't know the answer. There's enough of my taxes going to gov't funded med-costs programs. Let them figure it out.
I'd be interested to see if there are any real number to how many people can afford insurance and choose not to, versus, how many people just cannot afford it. I believe the opposite. Especially in California by the major cities as rent for a crappy 2 bedroom apartment commonly starts a $1200-1500 a month.
Average income being about 40,000 per year per family.
Understanding we are talking about the bottom 1/3 or the lower half (1/6)
Understanding that it costs about $250 per person each month for full coverage, $120-150 for partial coverage that doesn't cover doctor visits and only pays for large problems.
If 2 adults with 2 children are working 40 hours a week and are only earning $20/hour between them......... $800 per week less taxes = $700 per week or 2800 per month less 1200 for rent, and $500-1000 for health care. Doesn't leave much. especially when you factor in car insurance gas, clothing, child care and food.
I realize I'm thinking out loud here, but i don't buy it. I think most people "choose" to eat and have save some money becuase the cost of H. I. is too expensive. I'm sure there are exceptions, with some idiots choosing a "nice" car, but i think you may stereotyping here as that would be the exception and not the norm.
The answer?
The answer is fixing our bloated wasteful government. No need to raise taxes, just spend the money better and then we can afford to have health care for every child. Another answer would be what HH6 said. And of course do something about the monopoly pharm companies have on our medicine.
I pay about $250 per person per month. I remember when i got the same health care, only about 10 years ago for about $100 per.
Go figure.