# Universal Health Care



## t_samford (Jan 9, 2009)

What do you think about it? Personally i think it will take away the incentive to make more money because the government will be paying the doctors bills and the government will not pay much. Why? Because its the government for Christs sake. There will be no reason to pay more to go through college to be a doctor because whats the point in spending more time and money to be a doctor if a school teacher is making just as much?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jan 9, 2009)

I posted this in another thread before, I guess the point bears repeating, since a lot of people share your fears of the well-being of doctors:

[Where are the hordes of doctors, patients, and people demanding the end of "socialized medicine"? Where are these people? Where are all the Japanese, Britons, French, Spaniards, Japanese, Australians, Czechs, Danes doctors, patients, and people BEGGING for their government to destroy this demonic communist medicine? I just don't understand where they are. Where are they hiding? Where are the big campaigns against this unspeakable evil? Why is it that not even the most conservative parties can even dream of putting "abolishing communist health care" on their platform? It is because they fear the evil Icelandic, Swedish, or Norwegian KGB thought police? Is the New Zealand SS putting all these hordes of malcontents in jail? 

Where are they??

I mean, I understand. You have a model in your head. It tells you that with "socialized medicine" doctors become dirt poor, there's no quality, and everyone is friggin' PISSED. The reasoning may be very good and logical. But where's the evidence? Where are the millions of destitute doctors storming the streets of Ottawa and Vienna for freedom and fair wages? 

And that's to say nothing about the myriad of other ridiculous charges against "communistic medicine". Let's make these two VERY clear:

1) Research & Development: Nationalized health care systems have absolutely NOTHING to do with medical research. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. Some of the largest, most successful, and most PRIVATE medical R&D firms are in countries with nationalized health systems. These firms, many in Europe and Asia, are NOT PUBLIC. If anything, governments everywhere, including in the US, subsidize these private firms through the infrastructure provided by the networks of university and state research grants. But this has absolutely nothing to do with national health care, other than the national health agencies buy their products. So zip it.

2) Foreigners coming over for treatment: This has also very little to do with national health plans. In Costa Rica, about 10% of the the tourism we receive (we're talking 10% of some 2,000,000 people a year who come visit, so thousand and thousands of people) are Americans, Canadians and other developed country citizens who come specifically for some kinds of medical treatment, because it's cheaper and it's done well. Does that mean that our health system is superior to the Canadian health care system? Absolutely not. Just because a relative handful of rich foreigners choose to come for SOME specific treatment (plastic surgery, dental work, etc.) does not in any way speak of any of the merits of the National HEALTH SYSTEM. These things are set apart, and cannot measure the ability of the system in confronting the efficient managing to provide the services required by the population of the country at large. The idea that a handful of people go to a country for a specific treatment means that "oh, our health SYSTEM is just great" doesn't make any sense. Sure, the quality of the service of that particular kind might be high, but that doesn't really mean anything in regards to the health SYSTEM.

---

Now, the way I see it, there are countries in which there is no health system and people want it (usually dirt-poor countries, like Nicaragua, most of sub-Saharan Africa, etc), and there's countries with national health systems (basically every developed country and some middle-income ones) and nobody wants to get rid of it. The problem in America is that there is a bizarre hybrid, and a huge majority WANT a national health system. So no matter what, the current state of affairs has to change. Nobody wants it. So the government has to tear it down, and either 1) follow the ~30%+ who want a true free health-care market (i.e. no health system) or 2) follow the ~60%+ who want a national health system. What are the possibilities? 

It appears that in option number (1) what we have are, again, lovely models and hope that the free market solution "works". I guess everyone has their own definition of "works" though. I'm sure it would at least provide a good big chunk of the population with very good care. Like any commodity, those who can afford it buy it. Those who don't, don't. Personally, I don't think this is a good model for health care, cuz I believe health care is a basic human right (and most Americans agree with me on this), but I understand many people here don't, and that's fine. What option (2) has to offer is that there's tangible evidence that it "works", based on the evidence of pretty much every other developed country. But again, it "works" under the belief that health care is a basic human right and one of the only legitimate roles of the state. 

So that's that.

EDIT: I ask please, if anyone bothers to respond, I'm really looking for someone to shed light on the first point: Where are the hordes who want to abolish their national health care? That's what I'm really confused about. A lot of people here talk as though it's some sort of huge unknown. Something new and scary, which has never been tried before in the history of man kind. That's not true. There's dozens of examples to choose from. If indeed national health care fucks the doctors, fucks the quality, and fucks the national budget: where's the heat? I really wanna know.]


----------



## Amanda (Jan 9, 2009)

t_samford said:


> What do you think about it? Personally i think it will take away the incentive to make more money because the government will be paying the doctors bills and the government will not pay much. Why? Because its the government for Christs sake. There will be no reason to pay more to go through college to be a doctor because whats the point in spending more time and money to be a doctor if a school teacher is making just as much?



I think it would be a good thing because everyone deserves health care. I don't think people only get into medicine to make money. In fact, if I thought that was why my doctor was there I would get a different doctor.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 9, 2009)

t_samford said:


> What do you think about it? Personally i think it will take away the incentive to make more money because the government will be paying the doctors bills and the government will not pay much. Why? Because its the government for Christs sake. There will be no reason to pay more to go through college to be a doctor because *whats the point in spending more time and money to be a doctor if a school teacher is making just as much?*




Link me up credible proof that a doctor would make as much as a school teacher.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 9, 2009)

Amanda said:


> I think it would be a good thing because everyone deserves health care. I don't think people only get into medicine to make money. In fact, if I thought that was why my doctor was there I would get a different doctor.



Well. if you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs.. if you think that they NEED this to be supplied and taken care of by the government, many other things would "need" to be provided by a socialist government system as well... leading to more government control of daily aspects of everyone's lives...







The key is that while we all have needs of various levels... it is not the responsibility of anyone but you to provide for your personal needs.... health care is not a physiological need... those are basically the 4 basic needs of food, shelter, water and clothing... period... and the government does not exist to provide those to every last person either

There are many motivations for those who choose a career of doctor, just as there are many motivations of persons who choose any other career.. some would be to serve people more.. some would indeed be for money... some for fame.. some for a feeling of self worth.. some for the challenge... the list goes on and on and on


----------



## Gord (Jan 9, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> EDIT: I ask please, if anyone bothers to respond, I'm really looking for someone to shed light on the first point: Where are the hordes who want to abolish their national health care? That's what I'm really confused about. A lot of people here talk as though it's some sort of huge unknown. Something new and scary, which has never been tried before in the history of man kind. That's not true. There's dozens of examples to choose from. If indeed national health care fucks the doctors, fucks the quality, and fucks the national budget: where's the heat? I really wanna know.]


The "hordes" of doctors in Canada elected a privatization proponent as the head of the Canadian Medical Association and he is actively campaigning for it on doctors behalf.

(So much for that argument...)


----------



## Amanda (Jan 9, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> The key is that while we all have needs of various levels... it is not the responsibility of anyone but you to provide for your personal needs....



In a vacuum I would agree with you. However, since the government we be around to demand what I owe them I think I should get something in return. As a citizen I think we should be guaranteed many things and healthcare is one of them. Release me into the wild and let me be free of government interference and I will take care of everything myself or make pacts with others to help each other. But that's not the reality we're dealing with. Government takes our money and agrees to provide certain services like police or road maintenance. I think the health of the citizens is more important than the health of the roads. But that's just me.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 9, 2009)

Please show me where in the constitution it says every american deserves government provided healthcare.

Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 9, 2009)

Amanda said:


> In a vacuum I would agree with you. However, since the government we be around to demand what I owe them I think I should get something in return. As a citizen I think we should be guaranteed many things and healthcare is one of them. Release me into the wild and let me be free of government interference and I will take care of everything myself or make pacts with others to help each other. But that's not the reality we're dealing with. Government takes our money and agrees to provide certain services like police or road maintenance. I think the health of the citizens is more important than the health of the roads. But that's just me.



And that is where you are wrong....

Nobody owes you squat....

Now the government has over-reached it's boundaries for a while now... our taxes should be used for law enforcement, the workings of inner government to create laws and the courts system, military and the national defense, basic infrastructure, etc.... it is not the job of the government to take over your personal responsibilities for you... the government is there to ensure you have the freedoms to provide for yourself, choose what you want for your health care, etc...

Your health is very important to you... your health is not very important to me or anyone else not related to you... your health is not important to the country as a whole.. an infrastructure for the populace as a whole is, national defense is, law enforcement and legal standards are

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...


Not taking care of every responsibility in your life, taking away your personal liberty to have control over your personal well being, and infringing on everyone else's pursuit of happiness and earnings to provide for your personal health


----------



## Amanda (Jan 9, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> And that is where you are wrong....
> 
> Nobody owes you squat....



Whatever. Already rebutted this so this is dead.


----------



## xsited1 (Jan 9, 2009)

Universal Healthcare is great for people who want the government to take a more active roll in their lives.  I find the idea repulsive.  We already pay the government way too much and get little in return.  Imagine how much more we'll have to pay with universal healthcare added.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 9, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Whatever. Already rebutted this so this is dead.



Oh... here we go again...

You have not "rebutted" anything of the sort...

Try understanding what taxes are intended for... and how government's quest for power has warped their control by expanding into areas that were never intended for government control....

Because you pay taxes like everyone else is supposed to... does not mean that you get PERSONAL benefit from it... and your health is a benefit to you.... the country and your neighborhood go on if you drop dead from a heart attack from an all twinkie and McD's fries diet and no health insurance to pay for your quintuple bypass

The government exists to serve the country as a whole... not for individual needs of every individual within the country... there IS a huge difference between the 2


----------



## Amanda (Jan 9, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Oh... here we go again...
> 
> You have not "rebutted" anything of the sort...



No, not here we go again. I'm not going again. I stated my position, it stands. Done. Rebutted. Adios!

If you want to go on saying I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, go ahead, knock yourself out, I won't be replying to any of it. So if you're going to "go again" you'll be doing it without me.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 9, 2009)

Amanda said:


> No, not here we go again. I'm not going again. I stated my position, it stands. Done. Rebutted. Adios!
> 
> If you want to go on saying I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, go ahead, knock yourself out, I won't be replying to any of it. So if you're going to "go again" you'll be doing it without me.



Stating a position is not rebutting anything.... especially when there is no factual basis behind it....

You were asked to support your position of where you get that the government or anyone else owes you to take care of personal responsibilities and well being....

Perhaps you should learn what a rebuttal is...



Main Entry:
    re·but Listen to the pronunciation of rebut
Pronunciation:
    \ri-&#712;b&#601;t\ 
Function:
    verb 
Inflected Form(s):
    re·but·ted; re·but·ting
Etymology:
    Middle English, from Anglo-French reboter, from re- + boter to butt  more at butt
Date:
    14th century

transitive verb
1: to drive or beat back : repel
2 a: to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or *countervailing proof* b: *to expose the falsity of* : 
refuteintransitive verb: to make or furnish an answer or counter *proof*

And a little knowledge of the constitution helps as well

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 9, 2009)

> Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.



Not when we have a system the makes this healthcare unreachable by many Americans who are working more than one job.

Our system sucks.  It is the most expensive per person and yet is not anywhere near the top in quality.  The lobbyist for the Managed Care companies have been very successful in making folks think that this is socialized medicine and will drive out quality and incentive.  Total bullshit.

Medicare and Medicaid have worked.  Universal Healthcare would be similar to those programs.

The doctors are not hired by the goverment and they won't go broke.

I worked in the healthcare system for 14 years.  It's broken all to shit.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 9, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Not when we have a system the makes this healthcare unreachable by many Americans who are working more than one job.
> 
> Our system sucks.  It is the most expensive per person and yet is not anywhere near the top in quality.  The lobbyist for the Managed Care companies have been very successful in making folks think that this is socialized medicine and will drive out quality and incentive.  Total bullshit.
> 
> ...



Do laws surrounding availability of healthcare need to be looked at? Possibly... Regulation of it? Possibly

That still does not make it something that is owed to anybody by anyone else, or by the government

And your myth that we are NOT the top in quality is utter horse shit... We ARE the top in quality... your little WHO ranking is not taking that into account whatsoever...


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 9, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Not when we have a system the makes this healthcare unreachable by many Americans who are working more than one job.
> 
> Our system sucks.  It is the most expensive per person and yet is not anywhere near the top in quality.  The lobbyist for the Managed Care companies have been very successful in making folks think that this is socialized medicine and will drive out quality and incentive.  Total bullshit.
> 
> ...



You're an idiot.

MEdicare and Medicaid work?  Are you out of your fucking mind?  THEY ARE GOING BROKE.  

Thank god you don't work in healthcare anymore.

Our quality of care is top fucking notch if you have the adequate coverage...whyd o you think that fat fuck Kennedy didn't go to Venezuela, Canada or Cuba to go get treated for his tumor...he got treated here and got seen by the best doctors in the world.  If there was universal health he would probably be dead right now.

Who the fuck is healthcare unreachable for?  Yeah, you hear the number 40 million people in this country without insurance, yet over 60% of that number is illegal aliens.

Perhaps healthcare in this country is so expensive because everyone is so god damn sue happy and people don't take care of themselves and stuff their face with mcdonalds everyday and are 200 pounds over weight.

I agree goverment needs to help make healthcare more attainable, but they should do it in the way to make it more lucrative for employers to offer it to their employees...not doing it themselves.


I can not fucking believe people actually want the government to run their hospitals and doctors.  It is mind boggling


----------



## pfife (Jan 9, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> MEdicare and Medicaid work?  Are you out of your fucking mind?  THEY ARE GOING BROKE.



Why are they going broke?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2009)

Amanda said:


> No, not here we go again. I'm not going again. I stated my position, it stands. Done. Rebutted. Adios!
> 
> If you want to go on saying I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, go ahead, knock yourself out, I won't be replying to any of it. So if you're going to "go again" you'll be doing it without me.



So I guess Amanda's not going to post anymore, since she just told us that her statement is the last word on the subject, she won't be deigning to recognize anyone who DARES to disagree with her revealed wisdom from on high - "I like universal healthcare, therefore it's right, because my opinion constitutes proof".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2009)

pfife said:


> Why are they going broke?



Because there's no such thing as a government program that's cost-effective, that's why.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Because there's no such thing as a government program that's cost-effective, that's why.



While I agree with you, some people might prefer to see facts and numbers, beyond your opinion.


----------



## pfife (Jan 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Because there's no such thing as a government program that's cost-effective, that's why.



I asked why its broke, not why it isn't cost effective.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2009)

Paulitics said:


> While I agree with you, some people might prefer to see facts and numbers, beyond your opinion.



You need facts and numbers to tell you that no government program is EVER cost-effective?  Do you also need a computerized color analysis to tell you that the sky is blue?

Feel free to name me the government program or department that is free of fraud and waste.


----------



## Chris (Jan 9, 2009)

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that *every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.* Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company and that would be the government.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2009)

pfife said:


> I asked why its broke, not why it isn't cost effective.



It's broke because it isn't cost-effective.  Duhhh.

Okay, Economics 101 for the kindergarten crowd.  In a private business, the incentive is to make a profit.  You do this by providing a product or service that people need or want, at a lower cost to you than you are charging them.  The more you can cut the expense of producing the good or service, the higher your profit margin and the more money you make.  If the cost of doing business becomes more than you take in, you go broke and your business closes.

In the government, they don't make a profit.  Budgets are decided basically by how much money the department submitting the budget would like to have.  In fact, one of the major no-nos in government budgeting is to EVER ask for less money than you asked for the previous year.  Another big no-no is to spend less money than you got, because that might lead people to believe you need less money, and they might cut your next budget appropriation.  So there's always a big push to spend as much as possible, rather than to cut spending.

Now, by any reasonable standard, a government that spends much, MUCH more than it takes in - as ours does - could be said to be broke.  Yes, in this case it doesn't mean they're going to go out of business, as a private business would, but if the government is heavily in debt - and it is - then that would mean that the programs it runs are ALSO in debt and broke, particularly when the programs in question are entitlement spending, which takes up the bulk of our federal budget to begin with.  In other words, they are among the major reasons the government is into the red ink.


----------



## pfife (Jan 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's broke because it isn't cost-effective.  Duhhh.



So by your own admission, you answered the question "why is it broke" with "because its broke, duhh"? 

Care to answer why its broke without merely rephrasing my question as a statement? And I'm asking about Medicare and Medicaid, not all government programs, thanks in advance.


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 9, 2009)

t_samford said:


> What do you think about it? Personally i think it will take away the incentive to make more money because the government will be paying the doctors bills and the government will not pay much. Why? Because its the government for Christs sake. There will be no reason to pay more to go through college to be a doctor because whats the point in spending more time and money to be a doctor if a school teacher is making just as much?



I know it works, that's what I think about it.


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 9, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Please show me where in the constitution it says every american deserves government provided healthcare.
> 
> Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.



Or somewhere in the constitution that says government is not able to do it.

The status of healthcare, right or not a right, isn't germane to the argument.  If government chooses to do it then, unless it's specifically prohibited, government can go right ahead and organise it.


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 9, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> You're an idiot.
> 
> MEdicare and Medicaid work?  Are you out of your fucking mind?  THEY ARE GOING BROKE.
> 
> ...



You have incompetent government then.  Get a competent one.


----------



## pfife (Jan 9, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> You're an idiot.
> 
> Our quality of care is top fucking notch if you have the adequate coverage...whyd o you think that fat fuck Kennedy didn't go to Venezuela, Canada or Cuba to go get treated for his tumor...he got treated here and got seen by the best doctors in the world.  If there was universal health he would probably be dead right now.



Why would he travel for health care when he has health insurance in the US because he's a Senator?


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 9, 2009)

Just one example of a cost-effective government programme:

BioMed Central | Full text | Cost-effectiveness analysis of a state funded programme for control of severe asthma

Extract:



> Background
> 
> Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases and a major economical burden to families and health systems. Whereas efficacy of current therapeutical options has been clearly established, cost-effectiveness analysis of public health interventions for asthma control are scarce.
> 
> ...



It can be done, it just requires competent government.


----------



## Chris (Jan 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's broke because it isn't cost-effective.  Duhhh.
> 
> Okay, Economics 101 for the kindergarten crowd.  In a private business, the incentive is to make a profit.  You do this by providing a product or service that people need or want, at a lower cost to you than you are charging them.  The more you can cut the expense of producing the good or service, the higher your profit margin and the more money you make.  If the cost of doing business becomes more than you take in, you go broke and your business closes.
> 
> ...



Wrong.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. 

The Germans have had one since 1886!


----------



## garyd (Jan 9, 2009)

Yes Chris and every other country has also found it necessary by fair means or foul to limit access to that care in one way or the other. Most often penalized are the elderly.


----------



## pfife (Jan 9, 2009)

garyd said:


> Yes Chris and every other country has also found it necessary by fair means or foul to limit access to that care in one way or the other. Most often penalized are the elderly.



So does the US.  Most often penalized are the poor and those without insurance.


----------



## Chris (Jan 9, 2009)

garyd said:


> Yes Chris and every other country has also found it necessary by fair means or foul to limit access to that care in one way or the other. Most often penalized are the elderly.



Bullshit.

When Canadians were asked in a poll to vote for the greatest Canadian in history, they voted for the man who developed their healthcare system. A single payer system is cheaper because you don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. Every other Western democracy uses a single payer system because it is better and more fair. Only Americans are too stupid to see that our system is expensive, bloated, and unfair.


----------



## Chris (Jan 9, 2009)

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

US doctors support universal health care - survey | Reuters


----------



## garyd (Jan 9, 2009)

Yes, the French  routinely do not provide kidney transplants and possibly dialysis to people over 67.

Of course the doctors are supporting it but what they envision will not be what they get. It never is. They are supporting it largely because it will get the legal monkey of their back, which is where ninety percent of the cost is.

So basically your argument is that you think several thousand more bureaucrats with in the medical establishment will be cheaper long term that paying lawyers to go away.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2009)

pfife said:


> So by your own admission, you answered the question "why is it broke" with "because its broke, duhh"?
> 
> Care to answer why its broke without merely rephrasing my question as a statement? And I'm asking about Medicare and Medicaid, not all government programs, thanks in advance.



I did not say, "It's broken because it's broken".  I said it's broken because it's designed to be broken.  By any reasonable standard, it's not INTENDED to work well, and it doesn't.

Care to read the post and try to understand it without sounding like a dumbass?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 9, 2009)

My first post on these boards when I first joined-


"A lot of people are on the bandwagon thinking that Universal Healthcare will be the greatest thing to happen to this country since the industrial revolution. It is just one step closer to be a socialistic society and taking a step that has known massive failures all around the world. 

There are many countries that use this sort of socialistic health program however; they have their problems as well. Once we are in a society that has a Universal healthcare program established, you will see many things change in the things we were accustomed too.
Let's take a good look to the best example our wonderful tundra to the north, Canada. 

http://www.fraserinstitut...newsrelease.aspx?nID=4967 


"Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment), at 15 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada" 

25 weeks to see your MD. We complain about having to wait 45 minutes in the doctor's office. 

How about the wait tile from the MD to a specialist?
"The First Wait: Between General Practitioner and Specialist Consultation
The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks), and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).
The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland (13.5 weeks), and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks)." 

I can also site examples of cases where people have gone to their MD about let's say a 
"Headache" and have to wait 3 months to see a specialist and in those 3 months die. 

It isn't pretty. 

Let's say you finally get to that specialist and you need to get an MRI or a CAT scan...Well, I know I myself won't have to wait more then a few days here to get one. Go to Canada. 

"The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Manitoba (8 weeks). The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks). The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks), while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks)." 

8 weeks for a cat scan? 20 weeks for an MRI? Are you serious? Is this what people actually want for our great country, having to wait 5 months to receive an MRI? 

If Universal healthcare is so great, why didn't Ted Kennedy receive his treatment in Canada or Cuba? He didn't, he received the best treatment money can buy. 

Let's take a swim across the ocean to our wonderful allies in England. 

How many people have died because the government won't pay for a certain type of medication because it is 

A- Too Expensive 
B- Only meant to extend life. 


Look at these examples: 
http://www.nypost.com/sev...would_kill_ted_114032.htm
"Problem is, governments that promise to "cover everyone" always wind up cutting corners simply to save money. People with Kennedy's condition are dying or dead as a result.
Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.
Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.
Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.
Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.
Barack Obama - and other Democrats - have been pushing a Senate bill to set up a similar US "review board" for Medicare and any future government health-care plan.
After denying this treatment completely for seven years, the NICE (did whoever named it intend the irony?) relented - partly. Even today, only a handful of Brits with brain tumors can get Temodar.
And if you want to pay for Temodar out of your own pocket, the British system forces you to pay for all of your cancer care - about $30,000 a month. " 

30 grand a month, just to be able to live a little longer. God Save The Queen, I hope God has his own personal PPO. 

Here is another example from that article from Canada again- 

"Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.
And Health Canada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.
Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.
His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But Health Canada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.
Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21." 

There is a new term going around these days, perhaps many people are not familiar with it. It is called "Medical Tourism". Basically it means a person from Canada, England etc... come to a country like the United States and on their 'vacation', BOOM I need a knee replacement. Happens constantly. 

Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

"While much attention has been given to the growing trend of U.S. citizens seeking health care in other countries, other evidence points out that the largest segment of medical travelers are headed stateside.[" 

Now, the main argument is everyone deserves insurance and to be covered and we have something like 45 million uninsured. 

Well let us take a look at that a little more closely...
HOW COVERAGE VARIES



Illegal immigrants are less likely to have health coverage than others:
Adults
Type
 Uninsured



U.S. citizens
 14%



Legal immigrants
 25%



Illegal immigrants
 59%



Children
Type
 Uninsured



U.S. citizens
 9%



Citizens whose parents are legal immigrants
 13%



Foreign-born children of legal immigrants
 25%



Citizens with illegal immigrant parents
 25%



Foreign-born children of illegal immigrants
 53%



Source: Pew Hispanic Center, 2005


So, to sum it up 
in Adults you have 59% of the uninsured are illegal immigrants compared to 14% US citizens 

Children- 53% Foreign born children of Illegal Immigrants and 25% of citizens with illegal immigrants. Compared to 9% US citizens. 

Seems to me we have an immigration problem, not so much a healthcare problem. 

And when it comes to premiums, I have said this many times myself, premiums are individually based. I am in the Insurance business (not medical). However, if you smoke and weigh 300 pounds then yes you are going to pay more. The problem in this country is obesity and quite frankly no one takes care of themselves anymore, and the insurance companies are on the hook. You know a lot of companies out there, Humana being one of them will pay your gym membership. 

Say NO to Universal Healthcare! "


----------



## Chris (Jan 9, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> My first post on these boards when I first joined-
> 
> 
> "A lot of people are on the bandwagon thinking that Universal Healthcare will be the greatest thing to happen to this country since the industrial revolution. It is just one step closer to be a socialistic society and taking a step that has known massive failures all around the world.
> ...



We already have universal healthcare. It's called the emergency room.

Every other Western country in the world has a single payer system except for us. Why? Because it works better and cheaper. Our system is expensive, bloated, and unfair. It also makes our companies less competitive worldwide. Toyota recently located a plant in Canada because healthcare costs here are too high. So, guess what? We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really, bad version of it.


----------



## garyd (Jan 9, 2009)

He has just shown you that their system is also bloated and unfair. Or can't you read. The government is essentially killing people in order to save money under those systems. And you think that is fair?


----------



## pfife (Jan 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I did not say, "It's broken because it's broken".  I said it's broken because it's designed to be broken.  By any reasonable standard, it's not INTENDED to work well, and it doesn't.
> 
> Care to read the post and try to understand it without sounding like a dumbass?



How is it not intended to work well?


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

garyd said:


> He has just shown you that their system is also bloated and unfair. Or can't you read. The government is essentially killing people in order to save money under those systems. And you think that is fair?



Yes, our system is bloated and unfair and profit driven.

Check out this from Robert Bazell....

Let me be clear, the vast majority of interventional cardiologists &#8212; the doctors who perform angioplasties &#8212; are honest and caring physicians. *But I remember standing in scrubs outside a procedure room in Miami when the other doctors (who mistook me for a colleague) were bragging about how many &#8220;normals&#8221; they had done angioplasties on. That&#8217;s right, people came in complaining of shortness of breath or chest pain, so the doctors put them into the cauterization lab and examined their vessels, then told these patients they needed an angioplasty and did it knowing full well it was unnecessary. *For many doctors and hospitals, angioplasty has been the mother lode. I&#8217;ve had young  interventional cardiologists brag to me of their multi-million dollar signing bonuses to change hospitals.

This specialty faces a mine field of potential conflicts because so much of it is based on self-referral. An interventional cardiologist diagnoses the blockage by injecting dye into the coronary arteries with tubes inserted from vessels near the groin. All too often the doctor will tell the lightly sedated patient he or she has one or more blockages, which can be taken care of right away with an angioplasty. That sure sounds great but it doesn&#8217;t always work. And there's no opportunity for the patient to weigh other options; no chance for a second opinion

Conveyor-belt cardiology puts profits first - Second Opinion- msnbc.com


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

garyd said:


> He has just shown you that their system is also bloated and unfair. Or can't you read. The government is essentially killing people in order to save money under those systems. And you think that is fair?



Fraser Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists[citation needed] for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work.*


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 10, 2009)

garyd said:


> Yes Chris and every other country has also found it necessary by fair means or foul to limit access to that care in one way or the other. Most often penalized are the elderly.



Not in Australia.  It is true that our system is strained and that's because of underfunding by the previous conservative government during its 11 years in office.  It hated our system but knew that if it tried to dismantle it we would run them out of office immediately, so they tried to starve it to death.  That didn't work.  The result of the mismanagement and ideological blindness of the previous federal government has seen elective surgery queues lengthen and the only way to shorten them is better funding.  I think that's on the way.  As far as access is concerned, no, it's not limited, if someone needs treatment they get it and it's no walk in casualty treatment, it's treatment for anything and everything.


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 10, 2009)

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

Extract:



> I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here.
> 
> To that end, here's the first of a two-part series aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Not in Australia.  It is true that our system is strained and that's because of underfunding by the previous conservative government during its 11 years in office.  It hated our system but knew that if it tried to dismantle it we would run them out of office immediately, so they tried to starve it to death.  That didn't work.  The result of the mismanagement and ideological blindness of the previous federal government has seen elective surgery queues lengthen and the only way to shorten them is better funding.  I think that's on the way.  As far as access is concerned, no, it's not limited, if someone needs treatment they get it and it's no walk in casualty treatment, it's treatment for anything and everything.



Sounds like the Bush administration...


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Sounds like the Bush administration...



Close, very close, it was John Howard who presided over that 11 years.  I don't know if Bush is an ideologue but Howard certainly is and he would have loved to have dismantled our health care system if he thought he could get away with it.  But he knew it would be political suicide.  As it was he fiddled around with our industrial relations system and got the boot but that's off topic here so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## pfife (Jan 10, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Close, very close, it was John Howard who presided over that 11 years.  I don't know if Bush is an ideologue but Howard certainly is and he would have loved to have dismantled our health care system if he thought he could get away with it.  But he knew it would be political suicide.  As it was he fiddled around with our industrial relations system and got the boot but that's off topic here so I'll leave it at that.



Normally I'd say Bush is an ideologue, but quite frankly his Medicare PartD program was a rather large step toward socialized medicine especially for someone ideologically opposed to socialized medicine.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2009)

pfife said:


> So does the US.  Most often penalized are the poor and those without insurance.



It's amazing how life just generally penalizes you for being less successful at it.  But there's a big difference between the cosmos saying, "You're a loser.  Suffer for it" and the government doing so, because you're entitled to expect the government to give you the same as it gives everyone else, and you're not entitled to jack from the cosmos.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2009)

pfife said:


> How is it not intended to work well?



For starters, as I have pointed out, the goals and incentives for government are completely different from those for private businesses.  So if your standard is the sorts of achievements you get from private business - like cost effectiveness and efficient customer service, for example - an organization designed to do something completely different can't possibly work as well.

In addition, since one of the major goals of government programs in general is to perpetuate people's jobs and solidify and even expand their power and influence, those programs are NOT going to be designed to actually SOLVE the problems they're created to deal with.  They're going to continue and exacerbate the problem.  If you get paid by the government to fight poverty, for example, then eradicating poverty is going to put you out of work.  Not much of an incentive to accomplish anything, is it?


----------



## pfife (Jan 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's amazing how life just generally penalizes you for being less successful at it.  But there's a big difference between the cosmos saying, "You're a loser.  Suffer for it" and the government doing so, because you're entitled to expect the government to give you the same as it gives everyone else, and you're not entitled to jack from the cosmos.



Being poor means you're not successful at life?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2009)

pfife said:


> Being poor means you're not successful at life?



Generally speaking, yes.  Being too poor to provide yourself with the basic necessities of life means you're pretty much a failure.


----------



## pfife (Jan 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> For starters, as I have pointed out, the goals and incentives for government are completely different from those for private businesses.  So if your standard is the sorts of achievements you get from private business - like cost effectiveness and efficient customer service, for example - an organization designed to do something completely different can't possibly work as well.
> In addition, since one of the major goals of government programs in general is to perpetuate people's jobs and solidify and even expand their power and influence, those programs are NOT going to be designed to actually SOLVE the problems they're created to deal with.  They're going to continue and exacerbate the problem.  If you get paid by the government to fight poverty, for example, then eradicating poverty is going to put you out of work.  Not much of an incentive to accomplish anything, is it?



Again, I'm asking about medicare & medicaid specifically, not all government programs.  What specifically was intentionally done to the design of these specific programs to make fail - intentionally - as you've argued?


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Please show me where in the constitution it says every american deserves government provided healthcare.
> 
> Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.



So, just end government funding of health care? I think most real Conservatives support this sick position. It would led to so much needless suffering that its almost unconscionable to think of, but this is the world Conservatives want. They are sick people


----------



## pfife (Jan 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Generally speaking, yes.  Being too poor to provide yourself with the basic necessities of life means you're pretty much a failure.



Health care insurance is a basic necessity of life?


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jan 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Generally speaking, yes.  Being too poor to provide yourself with the basic necessities of life means you're pretty much a failure.



So being born rich means you are a success!


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Generally speaking, yes.  Being too poor to provide yourself with the basic necessities of life means you're pretty much a failure.



So if you get cancer and can't work and pay insurance premiums, it's your fault.


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org
> 
> Extract:



That is one of the best articles I've read on the difference between our system and the single payer system.


----------



## editec (Jan 10, 2009)

t_samford said:


> What do you think about it? Personally i think it will take away the incentive to make more money because the government will be paying the doctors bills and the government will not pay much. Why? Because its the government for Christs sake. There will be no reason to pay more to go through college to be a doctor because whats the point in spending more time and money to be a doctor if a school teacher is making just as much?


 
You are assuming that the system becomes entirely socialized, right?

Yes, in a completely socialized system Doctors and most HC providers would make less than they do currently, I quite agree.

Now where you get the opinion that they'll only make as much as school teachers is a bit mystifying, _but your point does have merit._


----------



## editec (Jan 10, 2009)

pfife said:


> Again, I'm asking about medicare & medicaid specifically, not all government programs. What specifically was intentionally done to the design of these specific programs to make fail - intentionally - as you've argued?


 
Very simple...they forgot the basic laws of supply and demand.

The increased the demand by paying for the aged and infirmed without in ANY WAY doing anything to the supply side to keep the market forces from dramatically increasing the cost of health care.

If we really wanted our HC system to cost us less, we'd be busting our asses to train and many HC professionals and techies as possible.

OR alternatively we could just let tens of thousands of CUBAN doctors to emmigrate to this nation, too.

Fiel might not have done much right, but one thing he invested heaviliy in is training enough medical personnel to make HC available to everyone.

True they don't have much money to buy the advanced things we do, but their personnel are, I am informed, as good as HC professional here.


----------



## pfife (Jan 10, 2009)

editec said:


> Very simple...they forgot the basic laws of supply and demand.
> 
> The increased the demand by paying for the aged and infirmed without in ANY WAY doing anything to the supply side to keep the market forces from dramatically increasing the cost of health care.



That could very well be the crux of the issue,  in fact it probably is - but alas, Cecilie1200 said it was done *intentionally* - Do you believe this was intentional?  The use of the word "forgot" suggests to me that it was not intentional.

Additionally, doesn't this suggest an issue of incompetence, not an issue of intrinsic failure by nature of it being a government program?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> And that is where you are wrong....
> 
> Nobody owes you squat....
> 
> ...



So you say. I say differantly. This is what elections are about. The nations with national health care systems have longer life spans, healthier old age, and much lower infant mortality than we do. Obviously their system is working better. Not only is their system working better, but at half the cost, or less, of our system.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we cannot choose to have a national health care system. Long past time to change.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2009)

pfife said:


> Normally I'd say Bush is an ideologue, but quite frankly his Medicare PartD program was a rather large step toward socialized medicine especially for someone ideologically opposed to socialized medicine.



Socialized medicine that gave a huge gift to the pharmacuetical companies. Like most things under Bush, it was massive welfare for the already wealthy.


----------



## pfife (Jan 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Socialized medicine that gave a huge gift to the pharmacuetical companies. Like most things under Bush, it was massive welfare for the already wealthy.



You get no objection from me on that assertion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2009)

garyd said:


> Yes Chris and every other country has also found it necessary by fair means or foul to limit access to that care in one way or the other. Most often penalized are the elderly.



I see. That is why their average life spans exceed ours? And why their old people are on the average more healthy than ours? Come on, quit blindly repeating lies, and just say that you prefer that those that do not belong to your defined "winners" have no access to health care.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> That is one of the best articles I've read on the difference between our system and the single payer system.



shocking you would enjoy an article by a left wing nut  like sara robinson and not from non partisan institutes that actually list facts and numbers about Canada's healthcare wait times and problems.

You guys are fucking loons


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> shocking you would enjoy an article by a left wing nut  like sara robinson and not from non partisan institutes that actually list facts and numbers about Canada's healthcare wait times and problems.
> 
> You guys are fucking loons



I'll take that as a "fuck, I don't know how to respond to this, I'm right out of ideas, oh I know, I'll attack people, that'll do it!" 

Okay, that was funny.  Now, what about this alleged "non-partisan" source?  Or sources?  

You mean the Fraser Institute?  Non-partisan?  

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute

Not non-partisan at all.


----------



## Spare (Jan 10, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> EDIT: I ask please, if anyone bothers to respond, I'm really looking for someone to shed light on the first point: Where are the hordes who want to abolish their national health care? That's what I'm really confused about. A lot of people here talk as though it's some sort of huge unknown. Something new and scary, which has never been tried before in the history of man kind. That's not true. There's dozens of examples to choose from. If indeed national health care fucks the doctors, fucks the quality, and fucks the national budget: where's the heat? I really wanna know.]




You, of course, fail to recognize the personal advantage vs. personal disadvantage element of the question. People only complain when the disadvantage is personal ... in other words, that which is bad for the country may actually be good for you, and thus, you won't complain. Anything that is free is good .... for you .... let those who are damaged complain.

This is the crux of the Democratic Party platform. They have created targeted giveaways that have solidified their voting base ... 'what's in it for me?' probably will be the theme of their next national convention.

But, I digress .... your arguments are specious, at best, because they fail to address the key elements ... motive and motivation. As long as I get free (pick one .... food/housing/healthcare/retirement/tax relief), I won't complain... let the people who have to pay bitch about it. As long as the tax is on cigarettes, I'm all in favor of if because, after all, I don't smoke and I get something for nothing. As long as I am the one who will get free tax money under Obama's program, I'll vote for him because I get something for nothing.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> I'll take that as a "fuck, I don't know how to respond to this, I'm right out of ideas, oh I know, I'll attack people, that'll do it!"
> 
> Okay, that was funny.  Now, what about this alleged "non-partisan" source?  Or sources?
> 
> ...





Ok, Should I link some Hannity, or Glenn beck things about Universal healthcare..would you take them seriously?  Thats what that link from that sara robinson woman is like

As far as my knowledge fraser institute is an independent orgnization


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Ok, Should I link some Hannity, or Glenn beck things about Universal healthcare..would you take them seriously?  Thats what that link from that sara robinson woman is like
> 
> As far as my knowledge fraser institute is an independent orgnization



Okay you're pulling my leg with Hannity and Beck 

Robinson - show me a decent rebuttal of her claims and I'll be interested to read it.  

The Fraser Institute has it's own partisan agenda, it isn't independent.  

Look, you think I hop into these flame-infested canyons called "universal health care threads" because I want to be some sort of cyber smoke-jumper?  It's not much fun I can tell you.  Why I hop in is because I don't like seeing countries which have single payer systems or universal health care systems being misrepresented - not accusing you of that, making a general statement about the gathering in of material which suggests that those systems don't work (they do), materials produced by people and organistions with vested interests.

Let me just make one point.  In my country - I'm not making my country out to be superior to anyone else in anything (not even cricket ) just making a point - a person will not go bankrupt if they get seriously ill and need treatment.  I understand that that can happen in the US.  If someone here is seriously ill they will get the treatment they need and without limitation. 

They will not have to pay for it because all of us taxpayers pay a levy on our taxable income to maintain our health system so that everyone benefits from it.  That's the principle behind it.  It's not a bad thing.  We haven't gone commo over it, we just like it the way it is.  It can be done in the US, I mean you have the most technologically and industrially developed nation on Earth but the vested interests have conned the citizenry into believing that universal health care or single payer systems are ideologically bad.  Fuck ideology Andrew, it's time for some clear-eyed thinking about how the US health system can be made to work for all.  It doesn't fuss me personally because every time I visit I have insurance to the eyeballs just in case I need health care.  I've spoken to expat Australians living in the US who cannot understand why so many ordinary Americans have this mindset against universal/single payer systems, even to the point of the swallowing the propaganda from the vested interests without casting even a quizzical glance at the claims.  

You can do it - yes you can


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> shocking you would enjoy an article by a left wing nut  like sara robinson and not from non partisan institutes that actually list facts and numbers about Canada's healthcare wait times and problems.
> 
> You guys are fucking loons



Shocking that you wouldn't respond to the facts in the article or the fact that every other Western nation has a single payer system and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and get better results. Why? *Because Americans would rather get screwed by for profit healthcare and have to declare bankruptcy and lose their competitive edge worldwide than admit they were wrong about ANYTHING!*


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Okay you're pulling my leg with Hannity and Beck
> 
> Robinson - show me a decent rebuttal of her claims and I'll be interested to read it.
> 
> ...




thats a fair point...yet people who have coverage here get possibly some of the best treatment in the world.

No liberal ever wants to mention the fact that over half of the uninsured in this country are illegal immigrants.

I am sure a signle payyor system has its benefithowever it also has its faults and the point is no one wants to look at the negatives.

Our current system has its faults but also has its positives.

Almost every state has a system for people to get quality care...I live in Florida and children can be covered under kid care till 18 years of age if the parents dont make enough money or their employers don't offer coverage.

There is medicare and medicaid

I don't want my money I work for to pay for everyone elses healthcare to be quite honest, I pay for my own and you pay for yours.

I guess this makes me a greedy conservative right wing asshole to believe that people should get what they work for.

Single payor is nice because everyone has insurance but the fact remains is the government makes the decision on what kind of treatment you should get...just like I listed in my post before there are many cases people have died because the giverment doesn't approve medication that is their to "extend" life.

I don't want us to go down that road.  Healthcare needs to be reworked but not in a signle payor form, the government needs to make it more appealing to employers to offer it, and people need to stop suing for every single thing that happens.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Shocking that you wouldn't respond to the facts in the article or the fact that every other Western nation has a single payer system and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and get better results. Why? *Because Americans would rather get screwed by for profit healthcare and have to declare bankruptcy and lose their competitive edge worldwide than admit they were wrong about ANYTHING!*




Get better results?  Did you read my article you moron...tell you what, lets go to a single payor system, then get a headache, in the 5-7 months it takes you to see a doctor, get a catscan, see the doctor again for the results...you might be dead.

Cause that happens to people in that kind of system, examples listed in my post.

We complain about waiting 30 minutes at the doctors office, imagine 9 mweeks to get an MRI.

I am not rich, and I have always had healthcare insurance...my employers have always offered it...also guess what if I had to pay for it...IT WOULDNT BE EXPENSIVE.

Wanna know why?  Cause I take care of myself and don't weigh 450 pounds.
I have gotten quotes for personal policies and they came out to around 120 bucks a month for the best policy with a 500 dollar deductible.

Maybe if this country stopped going to Burger king and had some grilled chicken instead premiums wouldn't be so high


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 10, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Or somewhere in the constitution that says government is not able to do it.
> 
> The status of healthcare, right or not a right, isn't germane to the argument.  If government chooses to do it then, unless it's specifically prohibited, government can go right ahead and organise it.



Please tell me you're a hair smarter than that Di.  You really don't see a problem with interpreting a document such that government can do anything as long as a written document doesb't say the CAN'T?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> When Canadians were asked in a poll to vote for the greatest Canadian in history, they voted for the man who developed their healthcare system. A single payer system is cheaper because you don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. Every other Western democracy uses a single payer system because it is better and more fair. Only Americans are too stupid to see that our system is expensive, bloated, and unfair.



cheap does not equal quality or easy access as has shown to be the case.  Minor detail


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2009)

OK, enough of the stupidity about the very long waits, and other silly ignorant lies concerning many other health systems around the world. Here is a site with a video about the health systems in Great Britian, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan. How they work, who pays, what the results are. None of the foolish lies of the right wingnuts;
FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

From your own sight


United Kingdom- What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- *still has some truth*. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

Japan-  What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home

Lets get serious...Japanese people take care of themselves...they arent obese.  If Americans had their diet our premiums would be minimal.  


Germany
What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some *German doctors feeling underpaid.* A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) *Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.*

So what you're saying is people who have private care get treatment faster then those under the goverment plan...interesting.

Switzerland

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens...IS THAT CHEAP?

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year

What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.


Thanks for the link...I now know I never want to live in Switzerland


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, enough of the stupidity about the very long waits, and other silly ignorant lies concerning many other health systems around the world. Here is a site with a video about the health systems in Great Britian, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan. How they work, who pays, what the results are. None of the foolish lies of the right wingnuts;
> FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS



Don't bother them with the facts. The rest of the world gets it, but we are falling further behind. The lack of a single payer healthcare system is one of the reasons U.S. companies are becoming less and less competitive.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

yes, lets have the government run our healthcare...everything they have touched has gone broke....from social security to the fucking postal office....but you want them in charge of healthcare...you are an idiot


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> cheap does not equal quality or easy access as has shown to be the case.  Minor detail



Minor detail that every other Western nation finds a single payer system better, cheaper, and more fair, but we in our infinite wisdom are smarter.

Right.....


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> yes, lets have the government run our healthcare...everything they have touched has gone broke....from social security to the fucking postal office....but you want them in charge of healthcare...you are an idiot



When someone runs out of ideas, they resort to personal attacks.

My friends from Canada LOVE their healthcare system. Every system has its problems, but the single payer system is better and cheaper, that is why everyone else uses it.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

Buyer Beware: The Failure of Single-Payer Health Care


good read...I mean you guys like to link left wing tard sights right...some excerpts cause I know most of the lefties don't enjoy reading something unless it agrees with their philsophy.

So what has happened in Canada? Why is it that we've gone from being very bullish on this health care system to having great reservations? Part of it is that Canadians read newspapers, and it doesn't much matter whether you're on the west coast or the east coast; it doesn't much matter whether you're a Globe and Mail reader, or a National Post reader; every single day, there are stories describing the system.

I've just randomly chosen a few stories that have come to light recently.

    * *The head of trauma care at Vancouver's largest hospital announces that they turn away more cases than any other center in North America. He's quoted as saying this would be unheard of in the United States.*

    * In Manitoba, which is my former home province, the premier--the political equivalent of a governor--concedes that his pledge to end hallway medicine has fallen short. Hallway medicine is the phenomenon where the emergency rooms are so filled with patients that people are forced to lie on stretchers in hallways, often for days. Overcrowding is a periodic problem. In fact, the overcrowding is worse than last year. The community is rocked by the death of a 74-year old man who had waited in the emergency room for three hours and had not been seen.

    * *New Brunswick announces that they will send cancer patients south to the United States for radiation therapy. New Brunswick, a small maritime province, is the seventh to publicly announce its plans to send patients south. In the best health care system in the world, the vast majority of provinces now rely on American health care to provide radiation therapy. Provinces do this because the clinically recommended waiting time for treatment is often badly exceeded. Ordinarily, oncologists suggest that there should be a two-week gap between the initial consult by the family doctor and the referral to the oncologist, and then two weeks more from the oncologist to the commencement of radiation therapy. In most Canadian provinces, we exceed that by one to two months, sometimes three.*

    * I*n Alberta earlier this year, a young man dies because of the profound emergency room overcrowding. He is 23. On a winter's night, he develops pain in his flank and goes to the local emergency room. It is so crowded that he grows impatient and goes to another. There, he waits six hours. No one sees him. Exhausted and frustrated, he goes home. The pain continues, so he finally decides to go to the local community hospital. It's too late: His appendix ruptured. He dies from the complications hours later.*


-For example, Angus Reid, a well-respected Canadian pollster, asked Canadians to rate their health care system. When they started doing this polling in 1991, a clear majority of Canadians gave the system top marks: excellent or very good. Last year, when they did the poll again, under one in four gave the system that rating.

Angus Reid has done other polls as well. A year and a half ago, a poll sent shock waves across the country when 73 percent of Canadians described their health care system as being "in crisis." Reid actually went back and redid the poll six months later: 78 percent of Canadians now thought the system was in crisis.


-The Fraser Institute, a major think tank in Canada, does a survey of 2,300 physicians across 12 specialties and asks them to estimate the wait time between the initial visit with the family doctor to the surgical therapy. They do this every year. Right now, the average wait time is 14 weeks. What's very impressive is the extent to which that has grown; 14 weeks marks a 5.3 percent increase over the last year, despite the fact that government spending in health care has grown by 22 percent over the last three years.

The Fraser Institute not only asks physicians how long patients wait, but they ask doctors how long they think patients ought to reasonably wait. In every single category, patients wait too long, in the opinion of the physicians.


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Though little known at the time of its founding, the Institute has been a source of controversy since its beginning. It was founded by T.Patrick Boyle with a grant from forestry giant MacMillan Bloedel Limited[citation needed], at a time when MacMillan-Bloedel was in conflict with the left-wing NDP government of British Columbia then led by Premier Dave Barrett. The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls. The CEO of MacMillian-Bloedel at the time supported wage and price controls.

Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. Institute supporters claims their research is peer-reviewed both by internal and external experts.[2] The Institute's Environmental Indicators (6th Ed) has an academic article devoted to its flaws: McKenzie and Rees (2007), "An analysis of a brownlash report", Ecological Economics 61(2-3), pp505-515.

In 2002, a study by Neil Brooks of the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claimed the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study stated that the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year.[3] The Institute counters that Professor Brooks confuses the aggregate tax burden with the tax burden borne by those who actually pay tax.[citation needed]

In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists[citation needed] for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work.

Fraser Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

All patients are waiting longer to see doctors in emergency rooms, a study by Boston-area researchers says, but for people with serious conditions such as heart attacks, the time it takes has risen more rapidly. 

Between 1997 and 2004, wait times went up an average of 4.1 percent per year for all patients, but for heart attack patients, the waits stretched 11.2 percent per year, researchers from Cambridge Health Alliance report in today&#8217;s issue of Health Affairs. Blacks, Hispanics, women, and patients in urban hospitals waited longer than other patients.

"The striking finding is that waits are increasing for all Americans, for people who are insured and for people who are uninsured," lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, also a fellow in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in an interview. &#8220;For patients with severe illnesses, it is troublesome.&#8221;

The median amount of time between registering in the emergency department and being examined by a physician was 22 minutes in 1997, according to an analysis of more than 92,000 medical records in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. By 2004, the median wait time was 30 minutes, the study says. Whether patients had insurance made no difference in how long they waited to see a doctor.

For patients ultimately diagnosed with heart attacks, the wait time rose from 8 minutes in 1997 to 20 minutes in 2004. Patients who needed attention within 15 minutes, according to triage nurses who evaluated them, waited 10 minutes in 1997 but 14 minutes in 2004.

In urban hospitals, the emergency room wait was 30 minutes compared with 15 minutes in nonurban locations.

For black patients, the wait took 31 minutes, for Hispanic patients it was 33 minutes, and for white patients it was 24 minutes. Women waited 26 minutes, one minute longer than men. The longer waits for black and Hispanic patients reflect greater crowding at hospitals serving mostly minority patients, the authors said. They did not find evidence of bias in how patients were triaged.

The longer wait times were tracked during a period when hospital emergency departments were being closed even though patient visits were going up, the authors say. Emergency visits climbed 78 percent from 1995 to 2003 but the number of emergency departments fell 12.4 percent from 1995 to 2003.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2008/01/all_patients_ar.html


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

so the institution is not valid because they dont think government should be regulating tobacoo?

One has nothing to do with the other.

O wait.. I see because one left wing nutjob orgnization like left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives wants to dismiss them..we all should too.

Chris..its not a personal attack.

You're a fucking idiot


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> All patients are waiting longer to see doctors in emergency rooms, a study by Boston-area researchers says, but for people with serious conditions such as heart attacks, the time it takes has risen more rapidly.
> 
> Between 1997 and 2004, wait times went up an average of 4.1 percent per year for all patients, but for heart attack patients, the waits stretched 11.2 percent per year, researchers from Cambridge Health Alliance report in todays issue of Health Affairs. Blacks, Hispanics, women, and patients in urban hospitals waited longer than other patients.
> 
> ...




yeah lets compare 15-20 minutes to waiting for 6 hours in the ER waiting room

God, you get dumber with each post


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> so the institution is not valid because they dont think government should be regulating tobacoo?
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> ...



Hardly...

The truth of the matter is that we already have universal healthcare, just a really, really, bad version of it in which the rich get good care, and the poor don't get care at all until they are at death's door when care is the most expensive. And guess who pays for their expensive emergency room care? We do.


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> yeah lets compare 15-20 minutes to waiting for 6 hours in the ER waiting room
> 
> God, you get dumber with each post



I don't believe your source. 

I specifically asked my Canadian friends about wait times, and they said it was not a problem. 

You can continue to believe right wing propaganda or you can do a little research and figure out the truth. The rest of the world does a lot things better than we do, and we are falling further behind as time goes on.


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Wiki has a pretty good overview of the subject....

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

ooo shit well what good is a source when you have a canadian friend lol

what a joke you are

I have a canadian friend too and he says the system sucks

and my cousin is a well known orthapedic surgeon in Spain and guess what, he says the system there sucks and doctors all flock to their private practices rather the the public ones.


and my brothers friend cousins lesbians brothers unclues father newphew friend who knows a guys girlfriend says Englands healthcare sucks also


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

ahh..wiki

the all knowing never wrong wiki

please stop posting chris really


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> ahh..wiki
> 
> the all knowing never wrong wiki
> 
> please stop posting chris really



Never.

One of the things that is great about the overview in Wiki is it goes through every country individually and give a good overview.

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A single payer system is better and more efficient, and that is why every other Western democracy in the world uses it. 

Our system is twice as expensive because we have to pay 150 different insurance companies, liability lawyers, and Big Pharma. That is also why American seniors go to Canada and Mexico to buy drugs.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

yeah, can you also explain why the first private hosital that opened up in vancouver is soo busy that its turning away patients

Can you explain why so many canadians flock to the United States to receieve medical treatment


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> yeah, can you also explain why the first private hosital that opened up in vancouver is soo busy that its turning away patients
> 
> Can you explain why so many canadians flock to the United States to receieve medical treatment



Because we have good healthcare for the wealthy. 

Every healthcare system is going to be a compromise, so if you are happy with paying twice as much for healthcare, so that insurance companies, liability lawyers, and Big Pharma can continue to screw us, so be it. But there is a better way, a fairer way. Our system is very destructive to our society. Major illness is the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country. The lack of a single payer healthcare system is hurting our competitiveness worldwide. Toyota recently located a plant in Canada because company healthcare costs are cheaper there. Healthcare is now 16% of our GDP and that percentage is rising. Our system is bloated, expensive, and unfair and will break down in the near future as the bulk of the Baby Boomers age. We can't afford to continue on the path we are on.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

yes lets switch t a single payor system because the illegal immigrants need insurance

Good point


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> yes lets switch t a single payor system because the illegal immigrants need insurance
> 
> Good point



Illegal immigrants already have insurance. It's called the emergency room. 

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really, expensive and inefficient version of it.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 10, 2009)

yeah, so lets just insure them totally and pay for their normal doctor visits too right


----------



## Spare (Jan 11, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Please tell me you're a hair smarter than that Di.  You really don't see a problem with interpreting a document such that government can do anything as long as a written document doesb't say the CAN'T?



Actually, that's exactly the inverse of the intent of the founding fathers .... INDIVIDUALS can do anything NOT expressly forbidden, while the GOVERNMENT can only do those things explicitly allowed.

Well, it was a good idea, anyway .....


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 11, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Buyer Beware: The Failure of Single-Payer Health Care
> 
> 
> good read...I mean you guys like to link left wing tard sights right...some excerpts cause I know most of the lefties don't enjoy reading something unless it agrees with their philsophy.
> .................



But, but, but....all those contributors are from the right.  

David Gratzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CNE Event - 25 May 2005 - Dr Tim Evans at PAF

Richard Teske - $1,000 in Political Contributions for 2008

And Teske is a lobbyist for private health care

RICHARD TESKE Federal Lobbying activities for 2005 - www.implu.com

And you're having a go at the Canadian woman?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 11, 2009)

pfife said:


> Again, I'm asking about medicare & medicaid specifically, not all government programs.  What specifically was intentionally done to the design of these specific programs to make fail - intentionally - as you've argued?



Again, why do you think trying to single Medicare and Medicaid out from other government programs is going to change the answer?  They are operated on the same basis as any government program:  keep people in need and dependent on them in order to perpetuate jobs.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 11, 2009)

pfife said:


> Health care insurance is a basic necessity of life?



When did I say that?  I'd say basic, life-saving, health-maintaining health care is a necessity, but that's not the same thing as insurance, and perhaps you should stop conflating the two and then stuffing your confusion of the issue into other people's mouths.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 11, 2009)

Orange_Juice said:


> So being born rich means you are a success!



Nope.  But it means you're starting with a bigger head start toward success than many other people are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 11, 2009)

pfife said:


> That could very well be the crux of the issue,  in fact it probably is - but alas, Cecilie1200 said it was done *intentionally* - Do you believe this was intentional?  The use of the word "forgot" suggests to me that it was not intentional.
> 
> Additionally, doesn't this suggest an issue of incompetence, not an issue of intrinsic failure by nature of it being a government program?



I don't think I actually did say it was intentional, although it comes out to the same thing.  They DID intentionally set up government programs, including these, with different incentives than private industry has.  And they DO intentionally operate them with different goals.  I also don't think they "forgot" anything.  It's just that government, by its very nature, operates differently from private enterprise, and that is why there are some things that just are better suited to private enterprise than government.


----------



## editec (Jan 11, 2009)

pfife said:


> That could very well be the crux of the issue, in fact it probably is - but alas, Cecilie1200 said it was done *intentionally* - Do you believe this was intentional? The use of the word "forgot" suggests to me that it was not intentional.


 
It is difficult for me to know what they were thinking at the time.



> Additionally, doesn't this suggest an issue of incompetence, not an issue of intrinsic failure by nature of it being a government program?


 
Incompetence or planning to fail...feel free to take your pick.

But anyone with a lick of sense (and I presume that includes many Congressmen and perhaps even one or two economists) knows that if the you increase demand but not supply that costs will rise to absorb the new money.

And here we are AGAIN, and my liberal brothers are telling us that we can dramtically increase demand through universal single payer health care insurance, and not do a damned thing about increasing supply (by increasing the number of HC providers) but they honestly _(?!)_ think that the cost of HC won't increase dramatically?

We would enjoy (for a brief period) the benefit of eliminating the profits and excessive costs that are associated with our current third party payer system, but mark my words...

IF WE initiate single payer universal HC insurance all that will happen is that the HC community will get much much much much richer, and inevitably there will not be enough HC to go around.

We can not afford a system where the average doctor is making ten times what the average family in the USA is making, folks. They're not worth that much, folks, really _they're not._

I'm sorry but we are not getting our money's worth out of our HC systems right now.

We either fully socialize HC and accept the downside of that, or we just let the whole damned system we have  now, continue to give us much worse downsides for all but a handful of the richest Americans.

Those really are our two best choices.  

All hybrid capitalism/socialism systems (which I often think are excellent ideas in other cases like roads and military for examples) FAIL in a health care system because HC does not work in the same way most other goods and services works in a capitalist system.

HC is NOT widgets, folks.

The usual rule sof economcs do NOT apply because _the providers_ end up creating the demand.


----------



## editec (Jan 11, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> yeah, can you also explain why the first private hosital that opened up in vancouver is soo busy that its turning away patients
> 
> Can you explain why so many canadians flock to the United States to receieve medical treatment


 
They do huh?

Show me those numbers.


----------



## garyd (Jan 11, 2009)

Let me explain to you how the single payer system we have in this country already works. The only health care I had access to for nearly 2 years was the VA. I've used it off and on when I didn't have good health insurance for since I got out of the Army in Feb. of 72. It is in my opinion very slightly better than no care at all.  Some examples:

If I wake up with a bad cold and need to go see a doctor, I can go to the clinic about 1/2 a mile from my house and wait very likely all day and may never get to see a doctor or I can take an hour long bus ride to this regions urgent care facility which will still kill pretty much the whole day by the time everything is said and done.

Last summer they found small traces of blood in my urine and asked me to go to Muskogee, Oklahoma for x-rays to check for kidney disease (private practice today generally does this with a cat scan). They gave me 3 gallon bag full of stuff and instruction. Well the night before I go to start the preparation and what do I find?

I find in the warning section of one of these items the following statement: DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT IF YOU HAVE OR THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE KIDNEY DISEASE. (Please note I am quoting here not shouting the warning was printed in all caps...


----------



## editec (Jan 11, 2009)

garyd said:


> Let me explain to you how the single payer system we have in this country already works.


 
The VA is not a single payer universal system. It is fully socialized medicine. 




> The only health care I had access to for nearly 2 years was the VA. I've used it off and on when I didn't have good health insurance for since I got out of the Army in Feb. of 72. It is in my opinion very slightly better than no care at all. Some examples:


 



> If I wake up with a bad cold and need to go see a doctor, I can go to the clinic about 1/2 a mile from my house and wait very likely all day and may never get to see a doctor or I can take an hour long bus ride to this regions urgent care facility which will still kill pretty much the whole day by the time everything is said and done.
> 
> Last summer they found small traces of blood in my urine and asked me to go to Muskogee, Oklahoma for x-rays to check for kidney disease (private practice today generally does this with a cat scan). They gave me 3 gallon bag full of stuff and instruction. Well the night before I go to start the preparation and what do I find?
> 
> I find in the warning section of one of these items the following statement: DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT IF YOU HAVE OR THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE KIDNEY DISEASE. (Please note I am quoting here not shouting the warning was printed in all caps...


 
Yup.

Sounds like crappy care to me.

ARe you under the impression that nobody ever gets crappy care except if they are in the VA system?


----------



## garyd (Jan 11, 2009)

No What I'm telling you is that Socialized medicine of the sort they have in Europe isn't going to work here. And delineating why.  

Socialized Medicine is largely the idea that bureaucrats work cheaper than lawyers.


----------



## pfife (Jan 11, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> shocking you would enjoy an article by a left wing nut  like sara robinson and not from non partisan institutes that actually list facts and numbers about Canada's healthcare wait times and problems.
> 
> You guys are fucking loons



ad hominem


----------



## editec (Jan 11, 2009)

garyd said:


> No What I'm telling you is that Socialized medicine of the sort they have in Europe isn't going to work here. And delineating why.


 
Well, you have completely failed to prove your point then.



> Socialized Medicine is largely the idea that bureaucrats work cheaper than lawyers.


 
Interesting theory.


----------



## pfife (Jan 11, 2009)

garyd said:


> No What I'm telling you is that Socialized medicine of the sort they have in Europe isn't going to work here. And delineating why.
> 
> Socialized Medicine is largely the idea that bureaucrats work cheaper than lawyers.



sounds like yet another instance of this nation's govt treating its veterans like trash - not an inherent flaw in the system that makes it impossible to work here.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 11, 2009)

The problem with health care in this country is lack of choice. There is no real competition between providers. If I work for company X, then I have to accept the health coverage they are offering, which is health provider A. If I accept health provider A, I pay a certain amount($20/week in my case,steady for the last 15 years, go figure that one out).That amount is 20% of the total. I pay 20%, company X pays 80%. If I don't choose to do business with health provider A, then I have to pay 100% of the costs. Given the disparity between the contributions, you can't possibly expect consumer choice to factor into this equation at all.We are ready as a nation to condemn free market health care choices when in reality, we have never enjoyed free market health care choices.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> Minor detail that every other Western nation finds a single payer system better, cheaper, and more fair, but we in our infinite wisdom are smarter.
> 
> Right.....



Noted that this is a none response to the issue of the trade off in quality and ease of access.  

The WHO report that has been vaunted by UHC folks does show one important detail.  That the U.S. is THE leader in terms of quality of care.

You are truly naive to believe that there won't be a trade off between the quality we enjoy now and switching to a less expensive system.  A high school friend of mine who has lived and worked in Sweden for that last 3 years recently vistited over the holidays.  When asked what the healtcare was like there he echoed pretty much the same thing we have heard systems like Canada's.  If you need to see a doctor for the every day cough or flu the single payer systems are fine.  If you need something more specialized, you WILL be waiting a while.  That isn't a lie of the right Chris.  That is out of the horses mouth from people that live in those systems. 

Another thing we here is that UHC will be more preventative than the current system.  I honestly don't see how that can be the case when people have to wait.  Look at the the two systems.  We have a more expensive system than most and the left likes to argue that are system prioritizes healthcare based on who has the deepest pockets.  Well that's true in only a very limited sense.  If you need to be treated you will be.  But let's assume for the sake of argument that are system is based soletly on who can pay.  Then we have the other system that, because it is inexpensive is based primarily on actual need of care.  Here's where economic laws throw monkey wrench into things.  If you tool basic econ you know that as price decreases, demand increases.  That is if healthcare is less expensive than more people will use it.  So what happens when there more demand than supply?  Presumabley under a UHC we have to prioritize people based on their level of need. Or put in another way, there level of pain.  The worst get seen first.  Bringing us back to the issue of preventative issue.  How can system that only has time to treat the worst first going to be able practice preventative medicine?


----------



## Chris (Jan 12, 2009)

garyd said:


> No What I'm telling you is that Socialized medicine of the sort they have in Europe isn't going to work here. And delineating why.
> 
> Socialized Medicine is largely the idea that bureaucrats work cheaper than lawyers.



A single payer system is not socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine is what they have in England where the doctors work for the government. 

A single payer system is just the government acting as the insurance company. The doctors still own their practices.


----------



## Chris (Jan 12, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Noted that this is a none response to the issue of the trade off in quality and ease of access.
> 
> The WHO report that has been vaunted by UHC folks does show one important detail.  That the U.S. is THE leader in terms of quality of care.
> 
> ...




So according to you, UHC prioritizes people according to need. 

Our system prioritizes people according to wealth.

Which is better?


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 12, 2009)

A single payer system is when you only have one payer. It doesn't have to be the Government.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 12, 2009)

pfife said:


> sounds like yet another instance of this nation's govt treating its veterans like trash - not an inherent flaw in the system that makes it impossible to work here.



Would you like to take a gander at the Medicaid system, and see if the government treats any of its OTHER healthcare clients better than it does its veterans?  This isn't about any disrespect for this group or that group.  It's about the inherent inability of the government to be efficient, cost-effective, or responsive in the area of customer service.

As the cliche goes, tell me which government department you would like YOUR medical care to be run like.  The DMV?  The Post Office?  Congress?


----------



## editec (Jan 12, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> A single payer system is when you only have one payer. It doesn't have to be the Government.


 
That is an excellent point.

It still won't work not even if its run by a for profit business, of course, unless the system is able to keep prices under control.


As we can clearly see from the continuous rise in prices under the mostly capitalist system we have now, for-profit health care insurance isn't very good at keeping costs down, either.

Why?

They have no real incentive to limit costs, as they can always increase premiums to offset rising costs.

Sorry folks, I know you all think that the market system is a good way to keep the overall cost of health care costs down, but reality keeps showing us that HC doesn't operate in exactly same way most things do.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 12, 2009)

editec said:


> That is an excellent point.
> 
> It still won't work not even if its run by a for profit business, of course, unless the system is able to keep prices under control.
> 
> ...



when will people realize its not the companies fault the premiums are high.....it's yours.

I can go out and buy private insurance for myself...the best plan with a 500 dollar deductible for under 130 dollars a month.

That isn't expensive.

Why.  Cause I take care of myself.  Ever think that the reason this country has such high premium sis because we are also prob of the most unfit countries around.  I think we are the top when it comes in obesity.

Look at Japan...why is it so inexpensive...Because they take care of themselves...I don' thtink anyone would argue that they probably have one of the healthiest diets in the world.

So why should company A who gets a quote request from a 45 year old smoker who is 80 pounds over weight not charge more....it's a higher risk, a higher liability.  I would charge more too.

If you are fit an dhealthy then you won't pay as much.


----------



## editec (Jan 12, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> I can go out and buy private insurance for myself...the best plan with a 500 dollar deductible for under 130 dollars a month.


 
Yeah? Show me that plan.


----------



## t_samford (Jan 12, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Please show me where in the constitution it says every american deserves government provided healthcare.
> 
> Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.



Thank you very much


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 12, 2009)

editec said:


> Yeah? Show me that plan.



Wow, I was off a little

I did one quote for myself from blue cross blue shield

and a 500 dollar deductible

80/20 coinsurance

10 million max

was 176 dollars a month

1500 dollar deductible is 140

very affordable

however if I was a smoker, and 100 pounds overweight it would be double, and SO IT SHOULD BE


----------



## editec (Jan 12, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Wow, I was off a little
> 
> I did one quote for myself from blue cross blue shield
> 
> ...


 
Seriously, I'd like to see that plan.

I might buy into it myself.


----------



## t_samford (Jan 12, 2009)

editec said:


> Seriously, I'd like to see that plan.
> 
> I might buy into it myself.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> So according to you, UHC prioritizes people according to need.
> 
> Our system prioritizes people according to wealth.
> 
> Which is better?



The according to wealth is NOT according to me.  It's according to you technically.  As I said it was a point made for the sake of argument.  In reality are system does not prioritize people based on wealth at all.  It is based on a lot of things but wealth really isn't one of them.  First the majority of Americans do have some form of health insureance whether paid by their employer or some other means.  Secondly the majority of the nation is NOT wealthy and yet the majority by in large are seen by physicians in a timely manor.  It really is a red herring to argue from the postion that we prioritze based on wealth.

I made the argument I made to show a flaw in the UHC system in that by defintion it can't be preventative.  If you spend all your time treating people that need it most due to the increased demand when will you have time to see the peopel that can wait but would benefit from preventative care?

P.S. it is again noted that you failed completely to address and of the main points of the post.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 13, 2009)

Editec, I refer you to my first post in this thread, page 8, #113. You have stated that free market principles have failed us in the health care market. I made the case that we are not currently, nor have we ever, operated under free market principles in that part of our economy. I state again, we as a nation are ready to throw the free market under the bus even though it has never even been given a chance to work.


----------



## t_samford (Jan 14, 2009)

michiganfats said:


> editec, I Refer You To My First Post In This Thread, Page 8, #113. You Have Stated That Free Market Principles Have Failed Us In The Health Care Market. I Made The Case That We Are Not Currently, Nor Have We Ever, Operated Under Free Market Principles In That Part Of Our Economy. I State Again, We As A Nation Are Ready To Throw The Free Market Under The Bus Even Though It Has Never Even Been Given A Chance To Work.



Universal Healthcare Wont Work And Is A Bunch Of Bull


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 14, 2009)

t_samford said:


> Universal Healthcare Wont Work And Is A Bunch Of Bull



No, you have been brainwashed by the GOP and Corporate America through your tv, radio and newspapers.  The internet is the only saving grace.  The GOP government and corporate America have been gouging us for the last 8 years and lowering our wages, not to mention emptying the treasury.

They've been caught lying about every issue.  And one of those issues is healthcare.  Soon you will see a party that works for the people fix our healthcare problem.  Hillary couldn't do it with Newt's congress obstructing progress, but maybe now Obama will get er done.

Conservatives want to socialize the losses and privatize the profits.  That means us tax payers pay so they can make profits.  

Sure government beurocracies can end up costing more than they should, but have you seen what has happened to healthcare costs since the GOP took over in 2000?  Google it.  It went up almost 200%.  

And did you see this story the other day?  Thank God for the Internet:

One of the nations largest health insurers has agreed to pay $50 million in a settlement announced today after being accused of overcharging millions of Americans for health care. 

Health insurer accused of overcharging millions - Health care- msnbc.com


I say socialize oil.  It isn't a normal business anyways, like car manufacturing where a company makes a product from scratch and then sells it.  It is oil companies pumping on government land.  If not socialize it, GOUGE the oil companies.  Remember we considered imposing a maximum profit that the oil companies could make?  Do that!  Or charge them more for our oil when the price of oil goes up.  So see, this isn't a free market situation, because the oil companies want the government to be regulated so it can't charge based on S&D.  Yet the oil companies want to gouge us under "free market" pretences. 

Anyways, stop listening to what Corporate America says.  They are the problem.  Want another example?  Sending good paying American jobs to india, mexico and china.  That can't be good for us.  In fact, it isn't.  See the economy?  

So healthcare should be fixed.  If that means we regulate the industry better, so be it.  If it means socializing it, so be it.  But the status quo is unacceptable.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 14, 2009)

Health insurer accused of overcharging millions - Health care- msnbc.com

PS.  If the GOP were in charge, this company wouldn't even be charged for what they did.  The Bushy US Federal Prosecutors would have just sat on the facts and not brought charges.  That's the difference between Dems and GOP.


----------



## editec (Jan 14, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Editec, I refer you to my first post in this thread, page 8, #113. You have stated that free market principles have failed us in the health care market.


 
What I meant to suggest ( I apparently failed to make my point clear) is that the normal rules of supply demand that generally describe most commodities or services are not in effect in the health care envirnoment.

Doctors, much more than the purchasers of HC, determine the demand for HC. That is the major difference between HC and most things.

Another difference seems to be that the more doctors an area has, the more HC people use but there appears to be no statistically significant benefit for that additional use in the overall morbitity or mortality stats.




> I made the case that we are not currently, nor have we ever, operated under free market principles in that part of our economy.


 
Or in any other that I can think of.  The theoretical FREE MARKET that most people seem to think they want does not exist, never did exist and never can exist.

Not for HC and not for anything else, either.



> I state again, we as a nation are ready to throw the free market under the bus even though it has never even been given a chance to work.


 
Okay, I know you think that.  Lots and lots of people seem to.

You want a completely free market? 

Great then let's get rid of money, and go back to barter.  In that environment the FREE MARKET that you want is at least possible.

Otherwise?  

What you want is really nothing more than an objectivist  libertarians' fairy tale.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 15, 2009)

editec said:


> What I meant to suggest ( I apparently failed to make my point clear) is that the normal rules of supply demand that generally describe most commodities or services are not in effect in the health care envirnoment.
> 
> Doctors, much more than the purchasers of HC, determine the demand for HC. That is the major difference between HC and most things.
> 
> Another difference seems to be that the more doctors an area has, the more HC people use but there appears to be no statistically significant benefit for that additional use in the overall morbitity or mortality stats.



This is true to a marginal extent. But really the argument for having UHC is BASED on supply and demand.  What you are looking at in terms of supply and demand curve is that equilibrium has not been met.  Plenty of people are demanding health care.  they are just demanding it at a lower cost then the industry is supplying it at.  Stated in economic terms that is the basic argument for UHC, that people would use it if they could afford it, which in turn says that if we adopt UHC and thus price reduced demand will indeed go up.






editec said:


> Or in any other that I can think of.  The theoretical FREE MARKET that most people seem to think they want does not exist, never did exist and never can exist.
> 
> Not for HC and not for anything else, either.
> 
> ...



Since when is a lack of a medium of exchange a defining characteristic of a free market?  This is a completely faulty premise ed.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 15, 2009)

Bern, Thank You for taking care of my light work


----------



## Chris (Jan 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> The according to wealth is NOT according to me.  It's according to you technically.  As I said it was a point made for the sake of argument.  In reality are system does not prioritize people based on wealth at all.  It is based on a lot of things but wealth really isn't one of them.  First the majority of Americans do have some form of health insureance whether paid by their employer or some other means.  Secondly the majority of the nation is NOT wealthy and yet the majority by in large are seen by physicians in a timely manor.  It really is a red herring to argue from the postion that we prioritze based on wealth.
> 
> I made the argument I made to show a flaw in the UHC system in that by defintion it can't be preventative.  If you spend all your time treating people that need it most due to the increased demand when will you have time to see the peopel that can wait but would benefit from preventative care?
> 
> P.S. it is again noted that you failed completely to address and of the main points of the post.



You really live in a fantasy world. A lot of people can't afford health insurance. When people get sick and can't work, they especially can't afford health insurance. 

A UHC system can't be preventative? That's absurd. It is much more preventative than our for profit system, because people won't have to forgo treatment because they can't afford insurance. 

So yes, we totally prioritize our system based on wealth. That is why our system is TWICE AS EXPENSIVE per capita as every other Western democracy. Greed is the very basis of our healthcare system.


----------



## Chris (Jan 15, 2009)

t_samford said:


> Universal Healthcare Wont Work And Is A Bunch Of Bull



We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 15, 2009)

Here's an experiment for anyone who cares to try. Next time you go to your doctor, ask your doctor what the procedure/service you just received would cost if you had payed cash, and then ask him/her how much the HC provider is going to pay for the procedure/service. Then ask why. You will then know exactly what is wrong.


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Here's an experiment for anyone who cares to try. Next time you go to your doctor, ask your doctor what the procedure/service you just received would cost if you had payed cash, and then ask him/her how much the HC provider is going to pay for the procedure/service. Then ask why. You will then know exactly what is wrong.



speak English please. what are you trying to say?


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!
> 
> With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.



Chris' (kirk's) big pharma boogy man rears it's ugly head.

Chris believes we can get rid of the big bad drug companies and little Brazilian witch doctors in the rain forest will cure us all of everything....at a minimal cost .


does every western democracy really have a single payer system and do they all pay half of what we pay?

fact check please?


----------



## Dante (Jan 15, 2009)

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 15, 2009)

DevNell, Here it is in English. The health care providers in this country are bidding for doctor exclusivity. They pay no attention whatsoever to the real cost of any procedure. Doctors who want to be paid by the HC providers have to submit an invoice requesting that they be paid according to the fee schedule of the HC provider. A $50 X-ray becomes a $175 X-ray because if the doctor submits a request for anything less, regardless of what he would charge a customer who is paying cash, he will not be paid. If you don't believe me, ask your doctor. When you have HC providers deliberately overpaying doctors in order to get the doctor to freeze out other HC providers from their practices, maybe that explains why costs are high? And as I have already pointed out in this thread, there is no real consumer choice when it comes to obtaining health coverage in this nation. I honestly believe that if we change those two practices, we will see costs come down and we will see more diversity in the plans offered.


----------



## Chris (Jan 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Chris' (kirk's) big pharma boogy man rears it's ugly head.
> 
> Chris believes we can get rid of the big bad drug companies and little Brazilian witch doctors in the rain forest will cure us all of everything....at a minimal cost .
> 
> ...



Do you know what industry has the highest profit margin?

Higher than the oil companies?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 16, 2009)

Chris said:


> Do you know what industry has the highest profit margin?
> 
> Higher than the oil companies?



not the healthcare or pharmecutical companies you numbnuts

The answer is Hedge funds, you know the ones you'reprecious al gore is involved with and what not

At least it was prior to the collapse with a profit margin of 90%


----------



## Chris (Jan 16, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> not the healthcare or pharmecutical companies you numbnuts
> 
> The answer is Hedge funds, you know the ones you'reprecious al gore is involved with and what not
> 
> At least it was prior to the collapse with a profit margin of 90%



Nice try at deflection.

Pharmaceutical companies have the highest profit margin.

Hedge funds were a Ponzi scheme, a criminal enterprize. 

Why didn't you just say the Mafia has a higher profit margin?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 16, 2009)

bvut weren't you the same fag that 7 months ago said profit margins were meaningless since oil companies only have a 8-9% margin?


Now they are important and meaningful cause they benefit your idiotic theories

please stick your head in an oven Chris


----------



## t_samford (Jan 16, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> bvut weren't you the same fag that 7 months ago said profit margins were meaningless since oil companies only have a 8-9% margin?
> 
> 
> Now they are important and meaningful cause they benefit your idiotic theories
> ...


----------



## editec (Jan 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> This is true to a marginal extent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## t_samford (Jan 16, 2009)

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > This is true to a marginal extent.
> ...


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 16, 2009)

I would rather see some minor changes made in the way providers operate as opposed to a major overhaul in the system. I think the insurance industry is the cause of many problems in this country today, and not just the health insurance companies. I believe we have serious abuses occurring in all facets of the insurance industry. I have posted a couple of things regarding the economic realities facing people at the user level. No need for me to rehash them. But, there is a bigger issue in play here. Is healthcare a right? I believe it is. Having accepted that it is, I also have to accept that the government now has a right to get involved. The two beliefs have to go together. At this point, the debate moves away from economics, because once you have public money in play, economics doesn't really matter. The main reason I am against UHC as it has been discussed to this point is that I don't believe it has anything to do with delivering quality healthcare to all. In my opinion, it's about government control, and creating one hell of a huge political football for current and future politicians to play with. If the government wants to establish and attempt to manage individual accounts for every American, I think the task is just too big for them and will not be responsive to the needs of individuals. I have a better idea. Handle healthcare the same way we handle education loans. If someone needs expensive care, have them get a subsidized loan and/or a grant. Some people will default on the loans, but most will probably pay, and the government pays off on the default amount. It's not cheap, but it's better in my opinion than establishing another huge government bureacracy. I will now stop so others among you can once again explain to me why I'm  colossal moron. (Damn that was a lot of typing, I don't know how some of you do this all day long)


----------



## editec (Jan 16, 2009)

t_samford said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> DevNell, Here it is in English. The health care providers in this country are bidding for doctor exclusivity. They pay no attention whatsoever to the real cost of any procedure. Doctors who want to be paid by the HC providers have to submit an invoice requesting that they be paid according to the fee schedule of the HC provider. A $50 X-ray becomes a $175 X-ray because if the doctor submits a request for anything less, regardless of what he would charge a customer who is paying cash, he will not be paid. If you don't believe me, ask your doctor. When you have HC providers deliberately overpaying doctors in order to get the doctor to freeze out other HC providers from their practices, maybe that explains why costs are high?



is this in every state? how prevalent is this? 



> And as I have already pointed out in this thread, there is no real consumer choice when it comes to obtaining health coverage in this nation. I honestly believe that if we change those two practices, we will see costs come down and we will see more diversity in the plans offered.



consumer choice in what...health care, insurance, doctor?

did you see the Frontline episode or read the links to it? How 5 capitalist democracies do it?


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

Chris said:


> Do you know what industry has the highest profit margin?
> 
> Higher than the oil companies?



profit margins are another subject all together. it is a losing argument. arguing over the profit margin has never been an argument that won over the other side or those on the fence. all it does it make people feel smug and superior.

stop being a progressive nitwit. on this one subject you actually do have something to say---when you get your head out of your fat ass.


----------



## editec (Jan 16, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> I would rather see some minor changes made in the way providers operate as opposed to a major overhaul in the system.


 
Okay...like what for instance? 





> I think the insurance industry is the cause of many problems in this country today, and not just the health insurance companies.


 
Totally agree.





> I believe we have serious abuses occurring in all facets of the insurance industry. I have posted a couple of things regarding the economic realities facing people at the user level. No need for me to rehash them.


 
Agreed.



> But, there is a bigger issue in play here. Is healthcare a right? I believe it is.


 
Well...if health care is a right, then you're putting yourself and all of us on a slippery slope where the government, having assumed responisiblity for your health, also has a legitmate excuse to tell you HOW to live, too.

So be careful what you wish for.





> Having accepted that it is, I also have to accept that the government now has a right to get involved. The two beliefs have to go together.


 
Yeah, I think you're right about that, too.  You have to start from the presupposition that health care is a right if you're going to support the government getting involved.

But then, you have to accept that those who do NOT think it's a right can, starting from THEIR presupposition, ALSO have logical arguments for why this is a bad idea, too.

It ALL depends on those presuppositions about HC, doesn't it?




> At this point, the debate moves away from economics, because once you have public money in play, economics doesn't really matter.


 
No it doesn't.  Or perhaps I am failing to understand the point. 



> The main reason I am against UHC as it has been discussed to this point is that I don't believe it has anything to do with delivering quality healthcare to all.


 
Politically, you mean?  Of course it doesn't.  




> In my opinion, it's about government control, and creating one hell of a huge political football for current and future politicians to play with.


 
Yup. 





> If the government wants to establish and attempt to manage individual accounts for every American, I think the task is just too big for them and will not be responsive to the needs of individuals.


 
I don't think anyone has susggested such a plan, have they?





> I have a better idea. Handle healthcare the same way we handle education loans. If someone needs expensive care, have them get a subsidized loan and/or a grant.


 
That will STILL drive up the cost of HC.  And when it does, the cost of HC will rise to capture those extra dollars while slowly but inevitably NOT solving out problem, I think.






> Some people will default on the loans, but most will probably pay, and the government pays off on the default amount.


 
MOST people will not pay off their loans.  First of all most of the money spent on HC now is spend on people in the last year of their life, so you won't be able to get them to pay.

Secondly the cost of last year of life HC exceeds the net lifetime incomes of most people, so it won't be like you can take their estates to pay for that HC, either.





> It's not cheap, but it's better in my opinion than establishing another huge government bureacracy. I will now stop so others among you can once again explain to me why I'm colossal moron. (Damn that was a lot of typing, I don't know how some of you do this all day long)


 
I do NOT think you're a moron.

I just don't think you realize how expensive HC really is.

My mother was a working class woman who worked from the time she was 14 until she was about 70.

So for two years she died by inches, right?

In that time Medicade spend more keeping her dying than she's made in her ENTIRE LIFE.  Just her Oxygen tanks every month cost more than she was making on Social security.  

My mother's example is NOT an uncommon example of the problem we are truly facing.


Her case really exemplifies the imbalance between what most most people are making and how expensive HC had become.


The average FAMILY income is about $50,000 a year.

Any idea how much it costs to die from cancer?

L:et me tell you, no working class person can save enough to pay for that end of life care, and THAT is the problem.


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> not the healthcare or pharmecutical companies you numbnuts
> 
> The answer is Hedge funds, you know the ones you'reprecious al gore is involved with and what not
> 
> At least it was prior to the collapse with a profit margin of 90%



why do you hate Hedge Funds? did you actually have any money in them?


and who gives two shits about Al Gore? 


wingnut alert!


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> I would rather see some minor changes made in the way providers operate as opposed to a major overhaul in the system.


 minor changes is what we've had in the past. It won't work much.




> I think the insurance industry is the cause of many problems in this country today, and not just the health insurance companies. I believe we have serious abuses occurring in all facets of the insurance industry.


 you'll get very few rational and credible arguments that will hold water on this one. 

insurance is the issue most people are talking about when they mention health care in America.

the quality of health care in America is superb. access is one issue than can be addressed quite easily but_ cost...cost...cost..._




> I have posted a couple of things regarding the economic realities facing people at the user level. No need for me to rehash them. But, there is a bigger issue in play here. Is healthcare a right? I believe it is. Having accepted that it is, I also have to accept that the government now has a right to get involved. The two beliefs have to go together. At this point, the debate moves away from economics, because once you have public money in play, economics doesn't really matter.


this is weird. public money has always been involved in the health care industry/system...from scholarships and grants to students, schools, research labs, etc...from tax breaks and incentives to industries, to public monies for start ups and incubator sectors (new science industries/companies...) ... to medicare/medicaid, free fund pools, the poor...




> The main reason I am against UHC as it has been discussed to this point is that I don't believe it has anything to do with delivering quality healthcare to all. In my opinion, it's about government control, and creating one hell of a huge political football for current and future politicians to play with. If the government wants to establish and attempt to manage individual accounts for every American, I think the task is just too big for them and will not be responsive to the needs of individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> I would rather see some minor changes made in the way providers operate as opposed to a major overhaul in the system. I think the insurance industry is the cause of many problems in this country today, and not just the health insurance companies. I believe we have serious abuses occurring in all facets of the insurance industry. I have posted a couple of things regarding the economic realities facing people at the user level. No need for me to rehash them. But, there is a bigger issue in play here. Is healthcare a right? I believe it is. Having accepted that it is, I also have to accept that the government now has a right to get involved. The two beliefs have to go together. At this point, the debate moves away from economics, because once you have public money in play, economics doesn't really matter. The main reason I am against UHC as it has been discussed to this point is that I don't believe it has anything to do with delivering quality healthcare to all. In my opinion, it's about government control, and creating one hell of a huge political football for current and future politicians to play with. If the government wants to establish and attempt to manage individual accounts for every American, I think the task is just too big for them and will not be responsive to the needs of individuals. I have a better idea. Handle healthcare the same way we handle education loans. If someone needs expensive care, have them get a subsidized loan and/or a grant. Some people will default on the loans, but most will probably pay, and the government pays off on the default amount. It's not cheap, but it's better in my opinion than establishing another huge government bureacracy. I will now stop so others among you can once again explain to me why I'm  colossal moron. (Damn that was a lot of typing, I don't know how some of you do this all day long)



Did you hear SCHIP passed?  Bush veto'ed it 2 times and Obama will sign it.  

And I say we socialize medicine.  Fuck tweeking it.  And here's why.  We are the only industrialized country that doesn't offer its citizens free healthcare.

So, if FREE TRADE and open borders are the way of the future, and we have to compete with these countries, then I think it is only fair our corporations don't have to pay for healthcare when companies in other countries don't have to worry about this expense.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 16, 2009)

Sealybobo said:  So, if FREE TRADE and open borders are the way of the future, and we have to compete with these countries, then I think it is only fair our corporations don't have to pay for healthcare when companies in other countries don't have to worry about this expense.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think it's ridiculous that employers are involved in the financing of employee health coverage, all it does is limit choice and raise costs. I made that point in my first post on this thread.


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


> michiganFats said:
> 
> 
> > Sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 16, 2009)

Sealy, why the attack? First of all, I don't know why you have assumed that I'm  GOP voter, because I'm not. Second of all, I don't recall posting anything that defends the actions of large corporations. Third, a lot of what you just posted doesn't seem to jibe with any post I've made on this board in any thread at all. If you want to fight with me, OK, but at least throw my own words back at me first.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Sealy, why the attack? First of all, I don't know why you have assumed that I'm  GOP voter, because I'm not. Second of all, I don't recall posting anything that defends the actions of large corporations. Third, a lot of what you just posted doesn't seem to jibe with any post I've made on this board in any thread at all. If you want to fight with me, OK, but at least throw my own words back at me first.



Oops!  That was for DevNell.

I was defending you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


> michiganFats said:
> 
> 
> > Sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 16, 2009)

Sealy, no problem, we're cool.


----------



## Dante (Jan 16, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> This was meant for you:
> 
> Michigan Fats argues with both sides, so maybe it is you that doesn't keep an open mind.
> 
> ...



my point has NEVER been to copy what others do_. (talk about taking things out of context...geesh)_ The old American ingenuity our nation once possessed in great abundance would dictate we look at what others like us have done and to tweak a program for ourselves or walk away from it all and start over again. 




> Every country handles every major issue differently, because you can never compare two countries as if they are apples to apples. Look at the best country that does universal health vs the worst. Why doesn't the worst just do what the best does? Because they can't, apparently, for many reasons.
> 
> For every one story you showing me why we can't, I can show you 2 on why we can. And I already know we can save money if we change the status quo. You for some reason defend the status quo.


 see my words above nad then take your head out of the fat guy's ass. then wipe the shit off your upper lip. 



> And it isn't like you have an alternative idea. You ONLY want to cock block us on making any progress, on anything.
> 
> Why? Because the way it is now, you have the profits privatized and the losses socialized. Our way the government gets some of the profits too.


 what a wingnutty of a post. whoop dee doo! The alternatives  I offer are many...if you read the linked material instead of shooting shit off your upper lip...shit from having your head up the fat guy's ass.



> Any business that has the government taking on your losses need to share some of your profits with them. Under GOP rule, that'll never happen. And they'll lie on why it is wrong to give the government some of the profits. Meanwhile the treasury is empty and the rich have all gotten richer.
> 
> And you aren't rich, you fucking fool.


 angry and bitter? do you cling to your guns and god?





> You defended staying in iraq because your companies were making money at the tax payers expense. Why leave if you are the corporations? That's why war for profit is bad you stupid idiot!!!
> 
> Maybe if you got your head out of your ass, the country wouldn't be in shambles. But when we have to argue with 30% of the population that the earth is round, the politicians know if they can just keep you chicken hawks defending them, then they can get away with anything....
> 
> and that includes invading iraq for a fucking lie. Stupid fool.


take a suck pill you dope.

ltr

d.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 17, 2009)

Editec, sorry it took so long to reply. I'm very busy Friday night through Saturday afternoon. I'm not going to quote everything back again, I'll just wing it here. First, when you called me out on saying that economics don't matter as far as the government is concerned, you were right. What I should have said was that once the government is involved, the focus isn't so much on operating in the black as it is on mitigating the loss. Second, as far as the slippery slope is concerned, I agree with you, it is a slippery slope. However, I believe that the government will be involved in health care, so the only way to have a say in how it operates is to accept it as reality and base your arguments upon that eventuality. I've been watching a lot of C-span the last few months, and I have watched Pelosi, Reid, Daschle, Kennedy all talk about UHC,and the old Hillarycare plan from 1993 is referenced often. I think that particular plan would be a disaster for this country. Third, I do know how much it costs to be treated for serious illnesses. A mild case of cancer( minor surgery, no chemo,limited radiation), is about $180,000. A typical case( sentinel node procedure, at least one invasive surgery, Radiation, Chemotherapy, extensive drug regimen) goes about $468,000. If you suffer a relapse, go to about $750,000. You aren't the only one who has watched relatives die, my friend. Fourth, I never suggested that everyone should have to repay 100% of the cost, obviously the numbers don't bear that out as possible. That's exactly why I don't want to stick just with insurance providers. I've already outlined my problems with and solutions to the way the providers operate. In closing, and this has nothing to do with anything you have said because I think you've been honest and consistent, I think it's a shame that some people stick to arguments that are flat out wrong(such as the Limbaugh monkeys stating that everyone is already guaranteed health care, or that the Constitution doesn't give the government the right to do it. There are several problems with the second argument). If you inject garbage into a debate, your solution is bound to be garbage. Before I go, thank you for describing my proposed solution as "eccentric". If you had described it as mainstream, I would have had no choice but to start worrying about myself


----------



## editec (Jan 17, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Did you hear SCHIP passed? Bush veto'ed it 2 times and Obama will sign it.
> 
> And I say we socialize medicine. Fuck tweeking it. And here's why. We are the only industrialized country that doesn't offer its citizens free healthcare.


 
That and free college education which most civilized nations offer as well. of course.



> So, if FREE TRADE and open borders are the way of the future, and we have to compete with these countries, then I think it is only fair our corporations don't have to pay for healthcare when companies in other countries don't have to worry about this expense.


 
Sadly I don't think the gameplan is to fix America.  The gameplan is to bankrupt this nation.  HC is, or will become the least of our problems, I think Sealy.

I see absolutely no heroic measures to fix the real problems, like FREE TRADE, deindustrialization, the abortion that our tax policies have become.

All I see is the flight of money out of this nation..the master class is finding other places to invest, but they'll stick around just in case they need more American boys to die so that they can dominate the rest of the world.

Frankly, it's sickening what's happening.

Even more disturbing to me is that a huge percentage of the population, both liberals and conservatives, now, are enabling these crooks.

The American people have been pitted one against the other, neighbor against our neighbor, over issues what are essantially irrelevant to the survival of our nation..GOD, GUNS AND GAYS...the kind of crap that the lil'puts can easily understand and become incensed  about, and while we squabble over irrelevncies,  the masters rob the nation blind.

If the so called bailout cannot make these people understand what is REALLY going on, I'm not sure anything will.

How many people on this board still think the Ds or Rs have all the answers, if but only the other side didn't screw it up?

Most of them, I think.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 17, 2009)

Editec, those are all good points. I actually think you should start a new thread for them. I don't think they have much to do with UHC, but they definitely would draw a response on their own. I for one have been concerned about the black budget and fiscal malfeasance for years.


----------



## editec (Jan 17, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Editec, those are all good points. I actually think you should start a new thread for them. I don't think they have much to do with UHC, but they definitely would draw a response on their own. I for one have been concerned about the black budget and fiscal malfeasance for years.


 
Its' all related, because money we're not spending on HC is getting spent foolishly or sent offshore, instead, Mich.

We can't really fix HC unless we fix the engine that drives our economy, first.

But I understand your point.

Topic drift is a riptide hereabouts.  

_Mea culpa._


----------



## Chris (Jan 17, 2009)

editec said:


> Its' all related, because money we're not spending on HC is getting spent foolishly or sent offshore, instead, Mich.
> 
> We can't really fix HC unless we fix the engine that drives our economy, first.
> 
> ...



Our healthcare system is eating more and more of our economy. 16% of GDP.

The lack of a single payer system is also hurting our competitiveness worldwide. Companies in every other Western democracy do not have to pay for healthcare. This give them a competitive advantage over U.S. companies. Toyota just located a plant in Canada instead of the U.S. because they did not have to pay for worker's healthcare there.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 17, 2009)

Once again, something I brought up before. Having employers paying 80% of their workers healthcare costs is a bad idea. the Fats army grows.


----------



## Chris (Jan 17, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Once again, something I brought up before. Having employers paying 80% of their workers healthcare costs is a bad idea. the Fats army grows.



Other countries do healthcare much better than we do. 

But Americans don't read much.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> We already have universal healthcare. It's called *the emergency room*.




And who pays for this?


----------



## Chris (Jan 18, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> And who pays for this?



We all do.

That's the point.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> We all do.
> 
> That's the point.



Actually no, they cannot turn you away (except in rare cases) but they do still bill the patient, even the ambulance companies bill the patient. I owed a bunch of money once ... but then they sent it to collections and we don't have to pay collection agencies (it's a funny story really).


----------



## Chris (Jan 19, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Actually no, they cannot turn you away (except in rare cases) but they do still bill the patient, even the ambulance companies bill the patient. I owed a bunch of money once ... but then they sent it to collections and we don't have to pay collection agencies (it's a funny story really).



They bill you?

So what?

If you die, or you can't pay, or you declare bankrupcy, or you are an illegal, or if you give a false name, who do you think pays?

How is someone who earns $7 an hour ever going to pay a $100,000 hospital bill?

This is how our version of universal healthcare works. The poor don't get healthcare until they are at death's door, and need the most expensive type of healthcare.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> We all do.
> 
> That's the point.




Right, so in addition to what we pay for ourselves for healtcare, we also get to foot the bill for those who 'can't' pay.  And how is this fair?  Health care should be more afforadable for everyone, not have people like me pay for ourselves _and _for the other guy.


----------



## Chris (Jan 19, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> Right, so in addition to what we pay for ourselves for healtcare, we also get to foot the bill for those who 'can't' pay.  And how is this fair?  Health care should be more afforadable for everyone, not have people like me pay for ourselves _and _for the other guy.



We don't let people bleed to death on the street in this country.

Not yet anyway....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jan 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> How is someone who earns $7 an hour ever going to pay a $100,000 hospital bill?



shit...how is someone making $25 an hour going to pay that?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 20, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> shit...how is someone making $25 an hour going to pay that?




They don't, the bill is footed curtesy of joe taxpayer.  That's what universal health care is just on a bigger scale.


----------



## Gurdari (Jan 20, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> The government exists to serve the country as a whole... not for individual needs of every individual within the country... there IS a huge difference between the 2




Heak=lth care does serve the nation as a whole... would you stop socialized police, fire, schooling, etc?

I suppose you would since that is 'interference', no?


Look how many Canadians want to switch to the US model... or Brits, French...etc


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Our healthcare system is eating more and more of our economy. 16% of GDP.
> 
> The lack of a single payer system is also hurting our competitiveness worldwide. Companies in every other Western democracy do not have to pay for healthcare. This give them a competitive advantage over U.S. companies. Toyota just located a plant in Canada instead of the U.S. because they did not have to pay for worker's healthcare there.



There are a slew of reasons why government run healthcare is not a good idea.  here is one that the afvocates of it seem to ignore and that is the governments running them.  You're really getting to be a broken record on the whole "every other westernized country' crapola.  To believe that what works for A will work for is incredibly naive and lacks a great deal of forsight.

Think for a second Chris.  Why do you think so many of us are oppossed to such a system?  Because we want more people to suffer?  No, it's because we're legitamately worried that more people WILL suffer.  The flaw in your 'every other westernized country' argument is that the governments running the system in every other country are NOT the U.S. government, which does pretty much nothing efficiently.  In economic terms governments are inherently inefficient at spending money and there is no reason to think there is going to be this miraculous change if government gets it's hand deeper into the health care industry.

there is no accountability for money spent at the government level.  No one there saying 'hey we could save some tax payer money if we did this this way' or 'is this a neccessary/wise expendeture?'  Milton Friedman broadly prioritized the most efficient way to spend money from most efficient to least;

1)People spending money on themselves.

2)People spending other people's money on themselves.

and last but not least, what our government does

3) Spend other people's money on other people.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 22, 2009)

Gurdari said:


> Heak=lth care does serve the nation as a whole... would you stop socialized police, fire, schooling, etc?
> 
> I suppose you would since that is 'interference', no?
> 
> ...



This is like saying that it "benefits the nation" for everyone to eat, and therefore food distribution should be socialized, rather than a private, individual concern.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 22, 2009)

TheStar.com | Canada | More private health care urged

MONTREALThe architect of Quebec's now-overburdened public health-care system is proposing a strong and controversial remedy that includes further privatization and user fees of up to $100 for people to see their family doctor.

In a 338-page report, former provincial Liberal health minister Claude Castonguay concluded that Quebec can no longer sustain the annual growth in health-care costs. The province currently spends about $24 billion annually on health care, or about 40 per cent of its budget.

"If nothing is done, at one point we will reach a crisis point ... this is why we say it is urgent to act," Castonguay said. "There's no miracle solution, there is no simple solution."

Castonguay told a news conference in Quebec City that his report is consistent with the guiding principles of publicly funded, universal health care.

However, it makes a raft of bold recommendations, including:

A new tax, including a "health-care deductible" based on income and the number of visits made to a doctor's office or hospital in a calendar year. Low-income families and children would be exempt.

Encouraging private-sector involvement in the management of hospitals and medical clinics.

Lifting a ban that prevents doctors from practising both in the public system and privately.

Raising the provincial sales tax by up to one percentage point.

In the report, provocatively titled "Getting Our Money's Worth," the working group headed by Castonguay also recommends an overhaul of the Canada Health Act, which "sooner or later must be adapted to today's realities."

Though Castonguay said his recommendations don't violate the health act, the report says that "the Canada Health Act is inspired by a centralizing vision of federalism that no longer has its place."

Castonguay was hired by the provincial government last year to consider reforms to Quebec's wheezing health system.

The opposition Action démocratique and Parti Québécois were each asked to nominate a co-commissioner and PQ representative Michel Venne penned a dissenting report.

Though Premier Jean Charest didn't offer any immediate reaction, Health Minister Philippe Couillard wasted no time.

Couillard said it would be "absurd to reject the concept" of blending more private services into the medicare system, but quickly added that the province's doctor shortage makes it impractical to lift the ban on "double-dipping" in both the private and public realms.

He was also lukewarm to the idea of allowing for more private insurance than what Quebec is already planning to do as part of pilot projects for joint replacement surgeries launched as a result of a 2006 Supreme Court decision.

If anything, the report could cause political headaches at the federal rather than the provincial level.

The Quebec Liberals won't likely have a hard time adopting many of its recommendations in the minority National Assembly. While the Parti Québécois fiercely opposed the report, the Action démocratique enthusiastically supports everything except raising the provincial sales tax.

But it's an open question as to how Ottawa would react if Quebec decided to begin challenging the Canada Health Act.

LOOKS LIKE CANADA IS DOING GREAT


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 22, 2009)

Actually, there is quite a bit of government involvement in the production and distribution of food. The government does influence how much of which types of food are produced, and when. They set quality standards. Food is delivered via transportation networks that were built and are maintained almost exclusively with public money. Low income families receive government help purchasing food items that are deemed necessary for a healthy diet. The only thing the government doesn't do is send an agent to your house to go shopping with you(if you are poor).But, give Obama time, after all he only took office this week.


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> TheStar.com | Canada | More private health care urged
> 
> MONTREALThe architect of Quebec's now-overburdened public health-care system is proposing a strong and controversial remedy that includes further privatization and user fees of up to $100 for people to see their family doctor.
> 
> ...



Actually they are doing great. Their system costs much less than ours per capita, and they cover everyone.

They have problems, and they are addressing them. We have problems, and we aren't addessing them.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 22, 2009)

lol yes they are addressing htem...by having to turn over to more private practices you idiot.  They have a population of 30 million and not even close to the illiegal problem we have, and they are having problems adffording it and with time care....we have a population of over 300 million with illegal immigrants all over...but hell it will work for us.

Please go walk into on coming traffic


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 22, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Actually, there is quite a bit of government involvement in the production and distribution of food. The government does influence how much of which types of food are produced, and when. They set quality standards. Food is delivered via transportation networks that were built and are maintained almost exclusively with public money. Low income families receive government help purchasing food items that are deemed necessary for a healthy diet. The only thing the government doesn't do is send an agent to your house to go shopping with you(if you are poor).But, give Obama time, after all he only took office this week.



"Is" and "should be" ain't the same thing.  And while insuring food safety is a legitimate government concern in my book, feeding people isn't.


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> lol yes they are addressing htem...by having to turn over to more private practices you idiot.  They have a population of 30 million and not even close to the illiegal problem we have, and they are having problems adffording it and with time care....we have a population of over 300 million with illegal immigrants all over...but hell it will work for us.
> 
> Please go walk into on coming traffic



Insulting people on a message board because they disagree with you is kind of pathetic really.

The Canadians allocate less money per capita for healthcare than we do, and they cover everyone.  Now they need to kick a little more money into the system in some way. Not too suprising. The single payer system is still cheaper, better, and more fair than our system. That's why every Western democracy in the world uses it except for us.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 22, 2009)

I insult you because I think it would be interesting to see you get hit by a bus and then go to Canada and get treatment.

What are their theories of fixing their system...by allowing more private practice in!

God you are dense


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> I insult you because I think it would be interesting to see you get hit by a bus and then go to Canada and get treatment.
> 
> What are their theories of fixing their system...by allowing more private practice in!
> 
> God you are dense



Allowing more private practices does not mean that they are abandoning their single payer system. The best system is one where the government acts as the insurance company, and the hospitals and doctor's practices are privately owned.


----------



## t_samford (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Allowing more private practices does not mean that they are abandoning their single payer system. The best system is one where the government acts as the insurance company, and the hospitals and doctor's practices are privately owned.



Lets just face it universal healthcare is just one more way of taking the incentive away from todays youth.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Allowing more private practices does not mean that they are abandoning their single payer system. The best system is one where the government acts as the insurance company, and the hospitals and doctor's practices are privately owned.



Please tell me how the goverment is going to act as the insurance company for 300 million people in one of the most obese country in the world, which also ecompasses the best but most expensive treatment you can find.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Insulting people on a message board because they disagree with you is kind of pathetic really.
> 
> The Canadians allocate less money per capita for healthcare than we do, and they cover everyone.  Now they need to kick a little more money into the system in some way. Not too suprising. The single payer system is still cheaper, better, and more fair than our system. That's why every Western democracy in the world uses it except for us.



The concept you have yet to grasp Chris that Canada and other countries that have single payer systems is that cheaper health care does not equal better health care.

I know you lefties like to think you have lots of unique ideas, but really every leftists solution to a problem is one of two things: 1)throw money at it or 2)or let government take care of it.

The vast majority of Americans do have affordable healthcare coverage.  Does 14 million uninsured really mean government needs to be the answer to the problem?  There can certainly be a government role in the solution perhaps by facilitating conversations between parties in an effort to come up with ways to improve the cost issue related to our system.  

As I said before your 'everyone else does it' argument is weak because everyone else is not the U.S.  Many of us don't like the idea of government involvement in health care not because we're greedy are like people to suffer but because we believe it will be an inferior system to what we have now.  Given OUR governments track record on efficiency and effectiveness of tax payer dollars I think many of our right in being less than enthusiastic about government having much to do with our health


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Please tell me how the goverment is going to act as the insurance company for 300 million people in one of the most obese country in the world, which also ecompasses the best but most expensive treatment you can find.




We have 150 insurance companies plus the government acting in that capacity. The inefficiency in that system is one of the reasons our healthcare costs almost twice as much per capita as ever other Western democracy.

And don't kid yourself that we don't already have universal healthcare. We do. Just a really, really, bad version of it.


----------



## p kirkes (Jan 27, 2009)

The population of the USA over 65 is now around 13% and rising.  

The costs for assisted living or nursing home is so much that many older folks are electing to spend their later years in other countries.

The cost of assisted living in Mexico is 1/3 that of the US and that's with all the amenities, safe and beautiful facilities deep the heart of Mexico.

A major industry is sprouting up in Mexico to support the influx of Norte Americano's.  However, in less than ten years the Mexican government will begin to regulate this new industry so that the cost differential will not be as much.

Then where will I go.  I was so hoping for a place in the Sun with pretty senorita's caring for my every need.  Since I'm only seventy it will be another decade before I'll need personal care.  Drats.


----------



## t_samford (Jan 28, 2009)

why dont you all just shut the hell up and admit it wont work


----------



## oreo (Jan 29, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> > Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We are all witness to how our government screws up everytime they get into the private sector.  Look at Fannie/Freddie & our social security system,  (which will be the next one to collapse, surprise/surprise.)

As far as national health care?  Yes, I would love to stop paying out that $800.00 per month medical insurance premium for my husband & I.  I would love the taxpayers of this country (via the federal government) to flip that tab.

But, I am realistic at the same time.  If the government is going to pay $800 per month for my husband & myself--they are going to have to pay for the other 93 million of the rest of us.  It's not affordable--that's the problem & that's where we have to attack it at.

It's completely understandable why 1/2 of this nation is not covered.  Group medical insurance rates in my State--are actually 40% higher than single payer rates.  Henceforth, small business cannot afford to cover employees.

So a solution:  

1.  Put nurse practitioners in every single Walgreens, Walmart or any other places where there is a pharmacy.  People with common cold & flu symptons go there for treatment, versus filling our hospital emergency rooms (at an exhorbatant cost) that they normally will not pay anyway--causing the cost of medical premiums of the insured to sky-rocket.

2.  Force people to have medical insurance, like we're forced to pay for automobile liability insurance:  I was struck by the state of Mass. whose govenor (Mitt Romney) discovered that over 60% of the uninsured in his state made over $75,000 per year.  They just chose not to cover themselves.  They found that when they forced them to pay for it, medical insurance rates to all came down to affordable.  (The dirt poor where still eligible for medicade.)

_There are really better solutions out there, than trusting our very inept & reckless government to run another program into the ground--then coming back to us for another bail-out_.


----------



## Chris (Jan 29, 2009)

oreo said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > > Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.
> ...



Socialist!


----------



## jodylee (Jan 30, 2009)

Chris said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > rayboyusmc said:
> ...




you can keep on thinking the rest of the world is mad for having free health care, it dosn't bother me cause I get free heath care and I have no worries. 
I suppose you think like this bacause:
1. your government is in the pockets of the heath insurance lobbyists.
2.The media is in the pockets of the politicians and corporations.
2. you the people, are in the pockets of the media.

and you've been told that to nationalise heath care is socialisum, well what about other funamental services, the police, shall we privatise that, no! oh your all socialist then.
the fire service, no! socialist
government its self, no! SOCIALIST.
Do yourselves a favour and demand free health care. you buch of spaz mongs.


----------



## cunclusion (Jan 30, 2009)

Truth is this you can either find a way to get everyone insured or we just keep going down this spiral or increasing cost.  Some people cannot afford basic care much less the more expensive. Now its easy for people who have the money to pay for good health insurance saying their is no need for universal health insurance but they need to find a area in between. The costs keep going up because people cant pay back so the hospital has to take the loss. So to cover some of the lose they raise costs just a spriral that keeps going up.


----------



## Chris (Jan 30, 2009)

jodylee said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



Jodylee, my post was a joke, not serious.


----------

