View Full Version : The US Health Care System Not as Heartless as Some Would Have You Believe
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 19:17
Invariably, whenever we get into discussions of health-care, and one payer systems in here, people use the US as an example of the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. Even though defenders of the US system point out that hospitals cannot deny treatment based on the ability to pay, many people on these boards claim the defenders are (sometimes willfully) wrong and that the US does in fact deny treatment to all but the wealthiest Americans as a matter of course. If that's the case, please explain why Congress is issuing emergency funding to hospitals in border states to treat illegal immigrants:
We're nowhere near as tight with health care as you say (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/223556_immig10.html?source=rss)
Of particular note:
Members of Congress from border states had sought the money. They said treatment of illegal immigrants imposed a huge financial burden on many hospitals, which are required to provide emergency care to patients who need it, regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay.
Now, they do point out that hospitals are allowed to try to determine a patient's citizenship status, but they are not allowed to deny treatment, regardless of the answers they receive. In other words, I'm allowed to try to get information from you in the hopes I might get paid one day, but I'm not allowed to hinder your care, even if you refuse to cooperate. Game, set, match.
Ironside
05-10-2005, 19:32
So you only end up bankrupt? :book:
deuce
LittleGrizzly
05-10-2005, 19:43
My understanding is they'll cover you for emergency's but what about non-emergencys can you get anything treated or are there limitations ?
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 19:49
Irosnside, not exactly. What appears to upset those on the Left is that we have the colossal gall to still actually assess a cost to health care. But as I've said time and time again, if you can't pay, nobody can deny you care and they could go to jail for attempting to do so, even surreptitiously. A large percentage of Americans use the emergency room of their local hospital as their regular physician, for this very reason.
But we're not going broke. This is part of why health care costs in America have outpaced inflation. Most of our hospitals are not-for-profit, so they don't have large cash reserves sitting around to soak the slack up. They pass the cost along to those people do have insurance or can pay their bills out of pocket.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 19:50
Depends on what you mean by non-emergency Griz. Yes, you can get checkups and get long term health issues resolved. No, if you're a whino, you can't walk into a hospital and get free viagra or plastic surgery.
Ironside
05-10-2005, 19:54
And your oppinion on a solution for this problem is...? I assume you know mine. ~;)
1-0 in set
0-15
LittleGrizzly
05-10-2005, 19:57
Depends on what you mean by non-emergency Griz. Yes, you can get checkups and get long term health issues resolved. No, if you're a whino, you can't walk into a hospital and get free viagra or plastic surgery.
i wouldn't expect free viagra or plastic surgery there not free over here (not 100% sure on viagra it might be allowed in some cases)
im having headaches but cant afford to pay anything can i get a check up to try and identify the problem maybe i'd need tests done and if they discover some discomforting illness but not life threatening but requiring some longer term treatment.
would they allow that with the inability to pay ?
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 19:57
This is my point Ironside. We don't have the problems you all think we do. Nobody gets turned away for lack of ability to pay. If somebody tried that, they'd 1) have the IRS go over their books for the past 5 years 2) they'd be facing contempt of Congress charges and 3) they'd probably wind up doing jail time. The idea that 40% of our population is wandering around over here without access to proper health care is a myth.
Perhaps if you could articulate the problem you see, I could offer a possible solution. For example, doctor's fees.... put in two torte reforms 1) limiting liability in non-culpable malpractice suits and 2) forcing the losing party to pay the legal bills when the lawsuit is shown to be extraneous. You'd see liablity insurance premiums drop overnight if those two pieces of legislation would get passed.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 20:00
Griz,
In the case you describe, you'd be given some paperwork to fill out. Whether you do so, and whether the information is accurate, yes, they'd have to treat you. You would technically be responsible fiscally for paying the hospital or clinic back, but they'd have to accept any payment terms you offered, because they can't say no. If you told them "look, I don't work, but I want to do the right thing. I'll give you 10 bucks a month", they'd still have to treat you. No kidding.
LittleGrizzly
05-10-2005, 20:05
Griz,
In the case you describe, you'd be given some paperwork to fill out. Whether you do so, and whether the information is accurate, yes, they'd have to treat you. You would technically be responsible fiscally for paying the hospital or clinic back, but they'd have to accept any payment terms you offered, because they can't say no. If you told them "look, I don't work, but I want to do the right thing. I'll give you 10 bucks a month", they'd still have to treat you. No kidding.
would this apply to almost all healthcare (things which require attention not things like viagra and plastic surgery)
Big King Sanctaphrax
05-10-2005, 20:08
Griz,
In the case you describe, you'd be given some paperwork to fill out. Whether you do so, and whether the information is accurate, yes, they'd have to treat you. You would technically be responsible fiscally for paying the hospital or clinic back, but they'd have to accept any payment terms you offered, because they can't say no. If you told them "look, I don't work, but I want to do the right thing. I'll give you 10 bucks a month", they'd still have to treat you. No kidding.
If you can just dicatate how much you pay, why does anyone get life insurance or pay at all? ~:confused:
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 20:33
First, the quality of care you receive in an emergency room or a clinic is nowhere near as good as you would receive from an actual practice. If it's not an emergency, plan on waiting a long time (4+ hours). If you leave, when you return you start from scratch.
Second, you're cheating the system if you claim you cannot pay but you really can, but I don't know what the penalties are for this.
Finally, as I said, a lot of people actually do just that. They go in, tell the hospital they can't pay, get treated and go on their merry way. Why do you think Congress has to bail these hospitals out?
The problem with American health care isn’t that everyone can’t get emergency help. If you’re not DOA the ambulance will get you to a hospital whoever you are. But because so many people have no insurance they don’t get any preventive care.
Instead of getting regular checkups that can lead to meds for risks like hypertension, high cholesterol or diabetes, to name just a few common ailments, the uninsured simply have strokes and heart attacks first. THEN they get some care after the 911 call. Until they leave the hospital at least.
One day, when enough voters are without health care, the USA will find a way to provide adequate health benefits to everyone, universally. Until then, we will go on looking to all the world like a place run by the selfish “I’ve got mine” crowd of miserly Scrooges.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 21:28
You absolutely can get regular health care. What do you think County Health Departments are all about?
Your problem is that not everyone gets the same level of care. Well, let me ask you this, how do you draw the line?
Let's take the Mickey Mantle example... somebody has drunk their liver away. Should they be guaranteed a stay at Cedar's for the most expensive, most experimental procedures available? If they want to pay for it out of their own pocket, that's one thing. But why should I have to?
It is too easy to hang your argument on self inflicted injuries like alcoholism. That’s like using the “welfare queen” stories to avoid buying food for other poor folks. Should any amount of fraud or any imperfection at all in benefit distribution deter quality health care for all? I think not. Not for a society as affluent as ours. The good could be far greater than the evil.
And how many counties are there in the US? Because that’s how often benefits can differ. We all need health care, from Bill Gates to the panhandlers we see on street corners. Ruinous costs should not loom like such terrible potential devastation over so many uninsured people.
Don, I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I expect that the well healed among us will always be able to get the best possible care. But what we have now if woeful IMO.
Instead of getting regular checkups that can lead to meds for risks like hypertension, high cholesterol or diabetes, to name just a few common ailments, the uninsured simply have strokes and heart attacks first. THEN they get some care after the 911 call. Until they leave the hospital at least.
I have insurance and don't get regular checkups. I try to get one every few years or so, but at my age, if I'm not having problems, Im not too concerned. I constantly hear advertisements for free cholesterol or diabetes screenings and there are clinics that give care for little or nothing. If you dont get checkups, for the overwhelming majority at least, it's because you didn't want one.
Don, I believe that 40% number you mentioned has been since proven false- if you were referring to people without insurance. The actual number is believed to be significantly lower.
I don't see what is so bad about USA healthcare system, if you have no insurance you are pretty much screwed here as well (you will be helped but you will have serious debts, just like over there). The only difference is that over here you have to wait for months even if you have insurance.
ICantSpellDawg
05-11-2005, 12:55
I like the US and our health care
most jobs with even incredibly low wages have the oppurtunity for a decent health care plan
and i know friends of mine in boston - one of which has NO insurance and wasnt even a student who got a COLONOSCOPY and regular health care for nothing for a prolonged period of time
and im sitting here paying out me butt....
im joking - i get them regularly and love my health care - i have a problem - i go in and see a doctor
i need a surgury - i go in and get it that night
I like thise country very much in terms of standard of living
You treat immigrants because otherwise they give horrible diseases to everyone they come into contact with, which then spread, and end up costing lots of lives and millions of dollars.
Which is pretty similar to why its cheaper to just give people free checkups and treatment straight away; much better than waiting until they are at death's door and it costs a fortune to get them back together.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-11-2005, 14:45
Don, I believe that 40% number you mentioned has been since proven false- if you were referring to people without insurance. The actual number is believed to be significantly lower.
The actual number is more like 10%. Many here qualify for health benefits and dont even apply for them.
And how many counties are there in the US? Because that’s how often benefits can differ.
Well theres only 1 so I guess we have universal coverage. ~:)
First, the quality of care you receive in an emergency room or a clinic is nowhere near as good as you would receive from an actual practice.
Only as far as follow up goes. Whether you can pay or not they emergency room treats you the same.
You treat immigrants because otherwise they give horrible diseases to everyone they come into contact with, which then spread, and end up costing lots of lives and millions of dollars.
No we treat immigrants because the law says we cant refuse anyone treatment. There are even cases where they have sued the hospitals for malpractice and won millions.
Don, I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I expect that the well healed among us will always be able to get the best possible care. But what we have now if woeful IMO.
Move to Canada or Cuba where they have universal healthcare and you will see woefull. Its just the opposite of here. Yes you can get free check ups and the like but then when they find something wrong you have to wait months or years to have it fixed.
Ironside
05-11-2005, 15:11
US counties
http://geography.about.com/library/graphics/counties.gif
I don't think that qualifies as one Gawain. ~;)
Move to Canada or Cuba where they have universal healthcare and you will see woefull. Its just the opposite of here. Yes you can get free check ups and the like but then when they find something wrong you have to wait months or years to have it fixed.
So you treat all people, get non-vital operations done immidiatly, got the best and most expensive care in the world, get sued on millions for maltreatments and everything still cost less than socialised healthcare.
It's brilliant!!!! ~:eek:
And why to I smell something fishy? :inquisitive: hmmm...
"Move to Canada or Cuba where they have universal healthcare and you will see woefull."
Ah, so tempting... ~D
Gawain of Orkeny
05-11-2005, 15:26
I don't think that qualifies as one Gawain.
Me bad I read countries not counties ~D
So you treat all people, get non-vital operations done immidiatly, got the best and most expensive care in the world, get sued on millions for maltreatments and everything still cost less than socialised healthcare.
See even you agree it still cost less than socialised healthcare. ~D
Ironside
05-11-2005, 15:33
See even you agree it still cost less than socialised healthcare.
Well, that is what is claimed. Otherwise it would be quite stupid.
"Our system is better on all points and only cost twice as much than your system."
Well duh! It should be!
Actually to make your system go around I will have to say this. It seems that the poor get "free" treatment while the rich ends up paying for it. If that isn't income redistribution I don't know what is. ~D ~;)
KukriKhan
05-11-2005, 15:36
Maria Hernandez, my 60-year old neighbor, emigrated legally here in the 60's, via a guest-worker program. Naturalized in 1969.
Her older brother (from Sinaloa, Mexico) visits every year. Last month, on his annual visit, he collapsed during dinner. Maria called 911. In the Emergency Room, after tests, they determined that he had tuberculosis.
Now, 3 times a week, a home-care nurse arrives at Maria's house with her brother's meds, and checks up on him. Free of charge. The ambulance ride and ER visit were also free, after Maria filled out papers detailing her (low) income.
That's how uninsured non-citizens are treated in our county. If the guy had no relatives here, I'm not certain ... I'm sure he'd have gotten ER treatment, but maybe not the homecare stuff.
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 16:00
The number one problem with the American healthcare is not a payer or a medical issue. Lawyers have convinced people that unless a medical procedure/diagnosis/ prescription works 110% the way described, they're entitled to get rich. We are the most litigious society on the planet, and the majority of all lawsuits filed are for 'malpractice'. But understand, the American definition of 'malpacrtice' is radically different than the rest of the world. The high cost of malpractice insurance for hospitals and doctors, due to repeated abuses by the trial attorneys, is putting many doctors out of business. Those that stay move into less risky, and less necessary fields of medicine, or to states that have implemented torte reforms. Even simple reforms, like requiring a lawyer to file a case in the state where the 'malpractice' occurred are bitterly fought by the Democrats, because the trial attorneys are forcing them to.
I saw a documentary with Walter Cronkite that showed film of a woman with brain cancer being told by her doctor that it was operable, and that she could be saved, but since she didn't have insurance or money, that the hospital refused to treat her and she would have to go home and die.
They also showed a case of a very sick person who was covered by her employer's insurance. The insurance company told the employer to fire her, thereby cancelling her coverage, or the company's rates would go up by hundreds of percent. That would mean no one would be covered. She lost her job.
For-profit medicine is not merely wrong, it is a perverted ideal, a horrid and barbaric practice, and an abomination imposed by the government on its people. If the government can use the people's money to enact laws, enforce those laws, build jails, imprison us, draft us into wars and force us to kill, all for the public good(?), there is not one, not one decent reason why they cannot take care of the health of the citizens. All this cow crud about competition being good is just that. Crud! How many people would be dee-lighted! to be treated at a top notch army hospital? I'd say, oh, all of them. Since when are army doctors looked at as second rate since they don't face competition?
For God's sake, it's literally a matter of national security. 3000 die in a terrorist act and hundreds of billions are spent and hundred of thousands are mobilized with the full force of the government. Entire countries are shaken to their roots. Cancer kills millions, weakens the country, destroys lives full of potential to help and strengthen the state, and the government encourages us to have charity bake sales and walks to raise cash. What a disgusting and insulting crock of ****!
Move to Canada or Cuba where they have universal healthcare and you will see woefull. Its just the opposite of here. Yes you can get free check ups and the like but then when they find something wrong you have to wait months or years to have it fixed.
The American Army sucked in the mid-70s after Vietnam. Terrible moral and efficiency. But the army was not disbanded, it was fixed. The system was not in need of being destroyed, only repaired. Canadian medicine is exactly the same. We have a fantastic system, I've used it and my family has used it and our people are the best in the world. The efficiency simply needs to be upgraded.
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 16:09
"Our system is better on all points and only cost twice as much than your system."
Well duh! It should be!
Our system wouldn't cost twice as much if suing your doctor wasn't the first thing in every patient's mind. If they had to pay legal bills for the defendant when their claims were shown to be patently ridiculous, this nonsense would stop immediately.
Come over here and watch American television sometime. It's impossible to watch an hour of television and not see an amublance chaser on TV saying "Were you injured? Have you been sick? You deserve to get rich, and I'll make anyone associated pay out the nose. I'll sue the company that made the roadsign you were watching when you crashed your car".
Actually to make your system go around I will have to say this. It seems that the poor get "free" treatment while the rich ends up paying for it. If that isn't income redistribution I don't know what is. ~D ~;)
Almost... it's more accurate to say that those who can pay, do so. Those who can't don't. One thing that hasn't come up yet is the whole concept of credit. If you blow off a hospital or a doctor bill, they are legally required to keep treating you. But you can forget about getting a mortgage or a new car after that trick. Expect your credit card interest rates to skyrocket, too. Poor people generally don't care about their credit score, so it's really more a restriction on the rich (as you say) and the middle class, who care quite a bit about this stuff.
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 16:16
I saw a documentary with Walter Cronkite that showed film of a woman with brain cancer being told by her doctor that it was operable, and that she could be saved, but since she didn't have insurance or money, that the hospital refused to treat her and she would have to go home and die. This is patently illegal and the hospital could have been shut down. Any management involved in this discussion could be facing jail time. Walter Cronkite is an avowed mouthpiece for the trial attorneys, and this is how he funds his retirement. It's a shame that a journalistic icon like him is selling his integrity like that.
They also showed a case of a very sick person who was covered by her employer's insurance. The insurance company told the employer to fire her, thereby cancelling her coverage, or the company's rates would go up by hundreds of percent. That would mean no one would be covered. She lost her job. Again, this is illegal. Her employer is facing 1) significant fines from the labor bureau 2) the state regulating authorities will remove their 'right' to provide insurance for their employees (in other words, they won't be able to hire anyone) and 3) individuals involved in this decision could face personal liablity, including jail time.
Beirut, I appreciate that this is an emotional issue for you, but the fact remains, at the end of the day, all economic decisions stem from who makes the decision? In your system, your government tells you what treatment you are allowed to have, regardless of how much you'd be willing to pay for it. In ours, an insurance company tells you "we'll pay this much, for this treatment. If you're willing to pay it out of your own pocket, go ahead and do it". Which sounds more fair to you?
I saw a documentary with Walter Cronkite that showed film of a woman with brain cancer being told by her doctor that it was operable, and that she could be saved, but since she didn't have insurance or money, that the hospital refused to treat her and she would have to go home and die.
They also showed a case of a very sick person who was covered by her employer's insurance. The insurance company told the employer to fire her, thereby cancelling her coverage, or the company's rates would go up by hundreds of percent. That would mean no one would be covered. She lost her job.
For-profit medicine is not merely wrong, it is a perverted ideal, a horrid and barbaric practice, and an abomination imposed by the government on its people. If the government can use the people's money to enact laws, enforce those laws, build jails, imprison us, draft us into wars and force us to kill, all for the public good(?), there is not one, not one decent reason why they cannot take care of the health of the citizens. All this cow crud about competition being good is just that. Crud! How many people would be dee-lighted! to be treated at a top notch army hospital? I'd say, oh, all of them. Since when are army doctors looked at as second rate since they don't face competition?
For God's sake, it's literally a matter of national security. 3000 die in a terrorist act and hundreds of billions are spent and hundred of thousands are mobilized with the full force of the government. Entire countries are shaken to their roots. Cancer kills millions, weakens the country, destroys lives full of potential to help and strengthen the state, and the government encourages us to have charity bake sales and walks to raise cash. What a disgusting and insulting crock of ****!
Careful now - this little rant is just that. I can quote horror stories of the Canadian Socialized Medicine that equal and exceed the ones that you just mentioned.
As stated before people who can not pay and do not have health insurance do get treated and it does not cost them. Is it preventive medicine - no, is it a perfect system, no - however once again instead of looking into all aspects of the system that we do have here in the states you chose to rant about how our system works and complain about other necessities of our government at the same time.
I pay my taxes Beriut - and on my Pay stub there are three catergories of taxes taken out.
Federal Withholding that is geared torward the Federal Government General Fund.
Social Security which is geared to the governments Social Security Insurance Fund. Notice its not a welfare program or a retirement fund - which is the lie that many beliefe it is - the initial setup was for taking care of older people if they lived beyond the retirement age which is going up again.
And hold on to your head because its going to explode.
Medicare and Medicaid gets a portion of my earnings also which is matched by my employer.
Then I go to my property tax allocation - and guess what the local community hosiptal that is geared to providing aid and healthcare to the poor in my community gets a portion of my property tax.
Then there is the county health clinic which provides free preventive health care for anyone -
Now should I go into the horror stories about the Canadian System that I have heard - or is it fair to say each system has its problems and shortfalls.
Ironside
05-11-2005, 16:24
Social Security which is geared to the governments Social Security Insurance Fund. Notice its not a welfare program or a retirement fund - which is the lie that many beliefe it is - the initial setup was for taking care of older people if they lived beyond the retirement age which is going up again.
I'm curious, does US have the problem with that people who gets unemployed around thier 50:ties have a huge problem of getting any jobs?
It's a known problem here atleast.
For Instance Beriut
Canada's Medical Nightmare
Written By: Robert J. Cihak, M.D.
Published In: Health Care News
Publication Date: September 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For decades, Canadians have cast pitying glances at us poor American neighbors who actually have to pay for our medical care while they get theirs for "free."
Yet the major candidates in Canada's recent national election both agreed the country's health care system is failing. They made the usual socialist diagnosis of "not enough money." None of the candidates mentioned government control as what ails the Canadian system.
On this side of the border, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), with presidential candidate Senator John Kerry, also from Massachusetts, in tow, promotes Canadian health care to U.S. voters, in the hope we too can have "free" medical care.
High Costs, Low Quality
A July 2004 study by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, Paying, More, Getting Less, concluded that after years of government control, the Canadian medical system is badly injured and bleeding citizens' hard-earned tax dollars. The institute compared health care systems in the industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and found Canada currently spends the most, yet ranks among the lowest on such indicators as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.
One of the major reasons for this discrepancy is that, unlike the countries in the study that outperformed Canada--Sweden, Japan, Australia, and France, for example--Canada outlaws most private health care.
If the Canadian government says it provides a particular medical service, it is illegal for a Canadian citizen to pay for and obtain that service privately. At the same time, the Canadian government bureaucracy rations medical services. According to another Fraser Institute survey, Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (13th edition, October 2003), a Canadian health care patient, on average, must wait 17.7 weeks for hospital treatment. Those who live in Saskatchewan waited an average of 30 weeks, those in Ontario a relatively expeditious 14 weeks.
Dying in Queues
In 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa, described in remarks for the Canadian Institute for Health Information how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, the doctor said, "71 Ontario patients died before surgery, 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery," and 44 left the province to have the surgery, many having gone to the United States for the operation. (According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 33 Canadian hospitals performed approximately 22,500 bypass surgeries in 1998-99.)
In other words, 192 people either died or became too sick to have surgery before they could work their way to the front of the line.
In a May/June 2004 article in the journal Health Affairs, researcher Robert Blendon and colleagues described the results of a survey of hospital administrators in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. Fifty percent of the Canadian hospital administrators said the average waiting time for a 65-year-old man requiring a routine hip replacement was more than six months. Not one American hospital administrator reported waiting periods that long. Eighty-six percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital administrators said their patients had this brief a wait.
Bare-Bones Health Care
Barring epidemics and other disasters, fewer than one out of 10 people in prosperous societies will face a major medical crisis in any one year. Those suffering people, however, are the ones who need help the most, and the aging of the baby boomers in the United States makes it likely more serious illnesses will afflict more Americans in the next couple of decades. The kind of minor health care services the Canadian system provides well are not what America's aging Baby Boomers will need most urgently in years to come.
America's health care system already includes too much Canadian-style bureaucratic delay and inefficiency. For example, the slow acceptance by Medicare and Medicaid of medical innovation, their exacting paperwork requirements, delayed and low payments of claims, and the threat of overzealous prosecution by health care bureaucrats are driving doctors out of business and giving patients fewer medical options.
Fixing those flaws would seem to be a much more promising prospect than a further move down the road Canada has followed to high costs and low quality of health care.
Yep completely flawless 71 people die in one province waiting for an operation
I'm curious, does US have the problem with that people who gets unemployed around thier 50:ties have a huge problem of getting any jobs?
It's a known problem here atleast.
There is another program - the unemployment insurance which every employer pays into a general fund for that state. Unfortunately it will only last so long and is often 50% or less of what the wage earner was makin prior to his/her termination from employment.
There are anti-age discrimination laws that are geared to prevent just what you are talking about - however I do believe there are problems along what you are also experiencing in your country.
However saying that - if an individual wants work - its often not hard to find a low paying service industry job - ie fast food restraunts, Janitor services and the like.
Byzantine Prince
05-11-2005, 16:28
Couldn't agree with you more Beirut. There's so many deseases that kill more then terrorists ever could every year. Those people I guess are not important enough to get any media attention so people and senators combined ignore them.
Careful now - this little rant is just that. I can quote horror stories of the Canadian Socialized Medicine that equal and exceed the ones that you just mentioned.
And rant I do. For many of us Canadians, socialized health care is the be all, end all, of nationhood. For what other reason do you form a group except for the protection and betterment of the group.
Absolutely there are horror stories in the Canadian system. Lots of them. I've seen them. But the idea of the system itself is sound, it simply needs better management.
The idea of for-profit medicine is in itself wrong, revolting, and to me, downright cowardly. It is the abrogation of the most fundemental of responsibilities between a government and it's people. It is allows the worst elements of our nature to interfere with what is not only good and right, but necessary to every single citizen.
To allow the idea of profit to interfere with health care, at any level, is the very worst of our behaviour and shows what a low level bunch of intellectual and moral clods we really are.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-11-2005, 16:39
Absolutely there are horror stories in the Canadian system. Lots of them. I've seen them. But the idea of the system itself is sound, it simply needs better management.
Then take it out of the hands of the government or your doomed.
To allow the idea of profit to interfere with health care, at any level, is the very worst of our behaviour and shows what a low level bunch of intellectual and moral clods we really are.
The idea of profit in healthcare just like every other product in a free capitalistic econmy is to provide the best product at the most competitive cost. It improves healthcare. Money makes the Vorld go round, the vorld go around the vorld boom boom. I love that song. ~:)
It is allows the worst elements of our nature to interfere with what is not only good and right, but necessary to every single citizen.
Who are these 'worst elements'?
The Black Ship
05-11-2005, 16:42
With the US system availabilty of service, and ease of visitation are what you're paying for, just ask Canadian cancer patients that come to the States for treatment. Or, ask the English executive of a radio-pharmaceutical company that flew across the pond to be treated in what he felt to be a more timely fashion the the National Healthcare system deemed reasonable. Availability and ease drive the market.
The uninsured must be treated for any life-threatening illness, it's the law. The uninsured can also receive preventative care, and followup care...it's just not as easy. You have to work the system, find the clinics or aid agencies, put in some effort.
The patient descibed earlier with the inoperable brain tumor, denied the undescribed miracle treatment probably just let it drop, whereas if he/she, or more importantly their family made inquiries at other hospitals/facilities they would likely find someone willing to do the procedure - free. I know this to be true, I've seen it first-hand, I work at such a place. It is common practice for hospitals, doctor groups to dedicate a substantial economic investment into charity work(s).
And rant I do. For many of us Canadians, socialized health care is the be all, end all, of nationhood. For what other reason do you form a group except for the protection and betterment of the group.
Absolutely there are horror stories in the Canadian system. Lots of them. I've seen them. But the idea of the system itself is sound, it simply needs better management.
The idea of for-profit medicine is in itself wrong, revolting, and to me, downright cowardly. It is the abrogation of the most fundemental of responsibilities between a government and it's people. It is allows the worst elements of our nature to interfere with what is not only good and right, but necessary to every single citizen.
To allow the idea of profit to interfere with health care, at any level, is the very worst of our behaviour and shows what a low level bunch of intellectual and moral clods we really are.
And the once again you are ignoring the reality of what I just stated - there is a federally funded health care system designed to take care of those who can not pay for thier own care. Our system is different then the Canadian System - and you don't see me ranting on how your government decides to care for its people no matter how much I disagree with it.
Lets us worry about how we function - the overwhelming majority of th nation at this time does not want socialized medicine - but are pursueing tort reform to prevent individuals from suing doctors out of business.
Your entitled to your opinion - but it seems that many Canadians come to the United States to get health care because of the failures of the Canadian Healthcare system. That to me that is more criminal, wrong and revolting then our system, because your government is failing just as bad as the United States in taking care of its people's health care. Your health care system can not adequately care for its own people - and you dare call the American system as worse. Laughable and sad at the same time.
More horror stories of the Canadian System
Take the tragic case of 18-year-old Joshua Fleuelling of Ontario, who died on Jan. 22 of asthma. It might be more accurate if the death certificate identified the cause of death as “acute failure of the Canadian health care system.” In his effort to become a patient, Joshua instead became a victim — a fatal example of just how sick a government-run health care system can get.
Joshua suffered a severe asthma attack and was rushed to a nearby hospital.
But his ambulance was turned away because the hospital was on “critical care
bypass,” meaning the emergency room was full. The additional 18 minutes it took to reach a second hospital apparently cost him his life.
And why was the emergency room full? Canadian officials recently explained
that Canada has been experiencing an outbreak of the flu. But why are people withthe flu going to the emergency room? Shouldn’t a model of government-run healthcare get those patients to a family physician?
Tit for tat Beriut. Edit: By the way if this would have happened in the states the Hospital and the staff could of been held both criminal and civil liable for their neglect - but I guess in Canada its perfectly acceptable to send a dying patient away to another hostipal to care for non-urgent sick people.
Edit: forgot link
http://www.txccri.org/publications/matthews.pdf#search='Failure%20of%20the%20Canadian%20Health%20Care%20System'
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 18:16
Couldn't agree with you more Beirut. There's so many deseases that kill more then terrorists ever could every year. Those people I guess are not important enough to get any media attention so people and senators combined ignore them.
Well, where do you draw the line? At the end of the day, if we have a heart at all, how can we not sieze everyone's assets & property and use it to fund health care? There's all sorts of diseases we already spend billions on each year researching. Just ask the researchers, there's plenty more we could spend. In fact, let's dedicate our entire economy to this goal.
...and you don't see me ranting on how your government decides to care for its people no matter how much I disagree with it.
Don't take it personally. ~;) I'm not after you or even the US, I am simply against the patient's ability to pay having any bearing whatsoever as far as health care is concerned. Regardless of the country. And yes, I am an unadultered fanatic as far as socilaized medice goes. Lenin was a conservative compared to me on this issue.
Your health care system can not adequately care for its own people - and you dare call the American system as worse. Laughable and sad at the same time.
Agreed. We have far to go. And the tragedies that have occured here are terrible. You will get no argument from me that Canadian health care is in dire need of repair. I am saying that a fully socialized health care is inherently better than for-profit health care. Perhaps not now as it is being practiced, but in concept, morality and foresight.
Laughable and sad at the same time.
Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry. I'm like those two theater faces aren't I? ~:) :disappointed:
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 18:42
Don't take it personally. ~;) I'm not after you or even the US, I am simply against the patient's ability to pay having any bearing whatsoever as far as health care is concerned. Regardless of the country. And yes, I am an unadultered fanatic as far as socilaized medice goes. Lenin was a conservative compared to me on this issue.
Okay, well, let's start with taking your TV and other frivalous belongings and selling them to pay for the methadone clinic down the street. Fair?
Hmm, I wonder how many articles I could find on the net that proves , how much of a horror story the American health care system is ? I wonder if I could find just one article that would prove my point ? Hmmm...
I tell you what, if you wanna frame the arguement in that way, we can have a post-off. You post one about how bad Canada's health care system is, and I will then post one on how bad America's is, and we can go back and forth like that until we can't google no more, tit for tat. No? Ok.
As far as this little snippet that essentially is proof of your "Horror" stories, Redleg, comon man. Albeit, awful that this kid died, lets look at the facts surrounding this case(and not just the little quote that you have provided and also without the emotion of words like fatal, sick, death certificate ~;) ).
"At 1:00 am on the morning of Jan. 14, 2000, 18-year-old Joshua Fleuelling was having trouble breathing. He had a history of asthma. Despite being given Ventolin and Serevent by his mother, he experienced severe respiratory distress, and at 1:48 am a call was made to 911 asking for an ambulance to transport him to the hospital. Fire personnel arrived first and administered oxygen. At 1:57 am a basic life-support ambulance crew arrived. As they began their assessment, Fleuelling collapsed and experienced full body convulsions. He did not have a pulse. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was initiated and an oral airway inserted. The ambulance crew was advised by the dispatch centre that an advanced life-support unit was not available in the area. Two unsuccessful attempts were made to defibrillate his heart, and CPR was continued. A second request was made for advanced life-support, but a unit was still unavailable. The dispatch centre informed the crew that the nearest emergency department was on critical care bypass. A decision was made to go to another hospital, and the ambulance departed at 2:11 am. The emergency department at the first hospital was not contacted. Defibrillation was attempted again en route, but Fleuelling's heart remained asystolic. CPR was continued, and the ambulance arrived at the emergency department at 2:23 am. An endotracheal tube was inserted and a normal cardiac rhythm was eventually established; however, there was irreversible brain damage, and on Jan. 16, 2000, Fleuelling was declared dead.
Estimates vary as to the extent of the delay in reaching the emergency department. Newspaper reports suggested that the closest hospital was a 10-minute drive from the Fleuelling's home and that the second hospital was 18 minutes away.2 The family has estimated that only 3 to 4 minutes would have been needed to reach the first hospital and that the ambulance was required to travel 4 times as far.A coroner's inquest was held to examine the circumstances surrounding the death. The jury made recommendations with respect to asthma prevention, improvements in the ability of emergency personnel to respond to a problem and to provide advanced life-support, and resolution of emergency department overcrowding."
My Link (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/4/465)
So, by this we can see that on that particular night, the initial emergency room was probably full and so they had to divert the kid to another hospital 8 minutes away. The question in this case seems to be whether that 3-4 minutes would have made the difference in his life, who knows, but it by no means points to a system that is falling apart, even remotely. This begs the question though :
Do American emergency rooms ever become so overloaded that, they may have to divert a patient to another hospital?
Should Canada build hospitals every 4 minutes apart such that this type of thing could be avoided in the future, I mean, 2 hospitals-8 minutes apart seems like an awfully long distance? What do you think?
BTW, There was an inquiry and the hospital and its "Critical Bypass Procedures" were reviewed and recommendations were put forth. I have the link to it if you would like to look at it. ~;)
I could go on, but who cares really? The bottom-line is I-like Beirut, like the system we have, and I don't nor will ever envy yours. You can call it a Horror, Socialist, Cuban, even the living embodiment of Lenin's grand plan, however, it doesn't seem to stop your elderly citizens from buying prescription drugs here, nor does it disway Canadian tax payers from subsidizing Americans, whenever your system can't provide something as simple as flu-shots(LOL) to you or your grandparents/children(as an example). Should I find that revolting, criminal, wrong? No, because I don't. I don't have any problems with helping you or any other American be it a grandparent or child, even if the Canadian tax payers have to take a hit. But thats the difference between seeing health care as a responsibility and not something that can be traded on the stock market the way somebody like Gawain does. I guess this just another example of, "just how sick a government-run health care system can get." ~D
Then take it out of the hands of the government...
The same day you privatize the US Army.
The idea of profit in healthcare just like every other product in a free capitalistic econmy is to provide the best product at the most competitive cost. It improves healthcare. Money makes the Vorld go round, the vorld go around the vorld boom boom. I love that song. ~:)
Then privatize the Army and Air Force and Navy. Why on Earth should the government run, what is considered by many Amricans, to be the most crucial of all efforts?
Who are these 'worst elements'?
Those who seek to make maximum profit with minimum effort. Let Wal-Mart executives run a hospital and then you will see the tragedy of profit and health care reach is zenith.
Okay, well, let's start with taking your TV and other frivalous belongings and selling them to pay for the methadone clinic down the street. Fair?
You don't have to take my things. The tax money the government already takes from me is sufficient. It merely needs to be better managed.
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 18:50
Look, as repugnant as you might find capitalism Beirut, the fact of the matter is when you remove cost from an equation, to the decision maker cost is no longer an issue. But it DOES cost something.
Example: Insurance companies in the US have found that simply raising co-payments on medical procedures (which usually cost hundreds if not thousands) from $25US to $30US, the numbers of procedures being performed drops dramatically. AND THIS IS WHEN THE PERSON THINKS IT COSTS $30!!!
I'm serious about this... if your doctor comes to you and says "Alright Beirut, I've been reading this journal here, and according to it, .03% of lumberjacks have been shown to be deficient in argon in their bloodstream, causing them to have more hot air than the average joe. I'm going to run a diagnostic on you". You ask how much it costs, and he says "Oh, don't worry about it. Your insurance will cover you". You say "cool, go ahead and do it". Now it turns out the procedure costs $15K US. Regardless of the results of the exam, you're perfectly healthy and nothing changes as a result of you having it, other than the doctor having performed another procedure, and some lab techs making a few extra bucks. Who gets hurt?
Without knowledge of relative cost, it's impossible as a consumer to make an informed decision about whether you want a medical procedure or not. If you're one of these 'do whatever it takes, I want to live as long as I possibly can' types, that's fine. I'm not, and I shouldn't have to pay out of my pocket for you to be. I should have to pay for your basic essential care, if you can't afford to, but I shouldn't be on the hook to give you any experimental procedure or test your doctor can come up with.
Hmm, I wonder how many articles I could find on the net that proves , how much of a horror story the American health care system is ? I wonder if I could find just one article that would prove my point ? Hmmm...
I tell you what, if you wanna frame the arguement in that way, we can have a post-off. You post one about how bad Canada's health care system is, and I will then post one on how bad America's is, and we can go back and forth like that until we can't google no more, tit for tat. No? Ok.
Beriut made the first horror story comment - and you now get upset because I tit for tat for him. Do you understand the point I am making - that most medical systems have flaws in providing care for people - or did I strike the emotional cord that I was going for by doing what I did. Because that is exactly the same type of arguement that Beruit used. However I don't see you attempting to critize Beriut for using that exact same method first.
As far as this little snippet that essentially is proof of your "Horror" stories, Redleg, comon man. Albeit, awful that this kid died, lets look at the facts surrounding this case(and not just the little quote that you have provided and also without the emotion of words like fatal, sick, death certificate ~;) ).
My Link (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/4/465)
So, by this we can see that on that particular night, the initial emergency room was probably full and so they had to divert the kid to another hospital 8 minutes away. The question in this case seems to be whether that 3-4 minutes would have made the difference in his life, who knows, but it by no means points to a system that is falling apart, even remotely. This begs the question though :
Do American emergency rooms ever become so overloaded that, they may have to divert a patient to another hospital?
Should Canada build hospitals every 4 minutes apart such that this type of thing could be avoided in the future, I mean, 2 hospitals-8 minutes apart seems like an awfully long distance? What do you think?
BTW, There was an inquiry and the hospital and its "Critical Bypass Procedures" were reviewed and recommendations were put forth. I have the link to it if you would like to look at it. ~;)
Seems you do get the point - there is always more to the story - just like the story Beriut attempted to use. Where is your criticism for his use of a horror story. Oh wait its about the American medicial system - so its acceptable for you - is that it?
I could go on, but who cares really? The bottom-line is I-like Beirut, like the system we have, and I don't nor will ever envy yours. You can call it a Horror, Socialist, Cuban, even the living embodiment of Lenin's grand plan, however, it doesn't seem to stop your elderly citizens from buying prescription drugs here, nor does it disway Canadian tax payers from subsidizing Americans, whenever your system can't provide something as simple as flu-shots(LOL) to you or your grandparents/children(as an example). Should I find that revolting, criminal, wrong? No, because I don't. I don't have any problems with helping you or any other American be it a grandparent or child, even if the Canadian tax payers have to take a hit. But thats the difference between seeing health care as a responsibility and not something that can be traded on the stock market the way somebody like Gawain does. I guess this just another example of, "just how sick a government-run health care system can get." ~D
And it seems that your citizens must come down to get treatment in a timely fashion from your country. Shall we continue for the tit for tat - because frankly I am game - since you Canadians claim your system is better - however you and others fail to realize that Americans pay taxes for multiple programs that are controlled by the Government in the exact same manner as your Medicial system.
While the system in the United States has its inherient flaws - its our system to either correct or live with - just like your system in Canada is for you to live with or change if it no longer meets your needs.
When outsiders complain that the United States does not have adequate health care - they neglect to mention all of the totally free care that is available nor do they mention the fact that there is two Federal Programs that are designed to care for the poor and the elderly. It seems you are just as guilty of that as the rest of our Canadian Brothers to the north.
Yea get real - don't complain or comment on the American system until yours is fixed and adequate care is given to all your citizens. I guess its easier for you to notice our problems then it is to fix your own.
Look, as repugnant as you might find capitalism Beirut...
I'm a die hard capitalist. I work very hard for my money and I want to keep it. But I understand that I have social responsibilities that I must help fund. And if this included funding a methadone clinic, so be it. Why on Earth would I not shell out a little extra on my taxes to help a fellow Canadian get off heroin? Being a citizen is not merely a right, it is a responsibility.
Regardless of the results of the exam, you're perfectly healthy and nothing changes as a result of you having it, other than the doctor having performed another procedure, and some lab techs making a few extra bucks. Who gets hurt?
I would think that if the system is properly run, this sort of behaviour would be kept to a "tolerable' minimum.
Without knowledge of relative cost, it's impossible as a consumer to make an informed decision about whether you want a medical procedure or not.
Well, for my part, I would rather leave the decision up to my doctor rather than my accountant. My accountant only has a CPR badge from the Boy Scouts.
If you're one of these 'do whatever it takes, I want to live as long as I possibly can' types, that's fine. I'm not, and I shouldn't have to pay out of my pocket for you to be. I should have to pay for your basic essential care, if you can't afford to, but I shouldn't be on the hook to give you any experimental procedure or test your doctor can come up with.
And I thank you for that. :bow: Perhaps that's a difference in our national cultures.
Seems you do get the point - there is always more to the story - just like the story Beriut attempted to use. Where is your criticism for his use of a horror story. Oh wait its about the American medicial system - so its acceptable for you - is that it?
My dearest Redleg, would you do me the courtesy of not taking what I (we perhaps) am saying as a slight against Americans.
I am not bashing the US. I am bashing the idea of for-profit health care. Most vociferously and with great anger I would admit, but I am not bashing the US as either a country or a people.
I love y'all Americans! :iloveyou: I think you're the second greatest country on Earth. And you make the best damn bourbon!
My dearest Redleg, would you do me the courtesy of not taking what I (we perhaps) am saying as a slight against Americans.
however you used a horror story and someone trys to criticize my use of the same tactic in the exact same way you did. And I am not making a slight against Canadians at all.
I am not bashing the US. I am bashing the idea of for-profit health care. Most vociferously and with great anger I would admit, but I am not bashing the US as either a country or a people.
And I am not bashing Canadians either - however I am bashing those who criticize the American system without understanding the amount of Taxes I pay to insure free care is provided to the disadvantage and the elderly - to include giving a portion of my property taxes going to the county hosiptal to insure that it can operate so it can care for those that need the care and can not pay for it.
I love y'all Americans! :iloveyou: I think you're the second greatest country on Earth. And you make the best damn bourbon!
And I love going up into Canada - you have some of the next best nature to see. You got to be jealous that we got the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.
however you used a horror story and someone trys to criticize my use of the same tactic in the exact same way you did.
Then they shouldn't have. Fair's fair.
And I am not bashing Canadians either - however I am bashing those who criticize the American system without understanding the amount of Taxes I pay to insure free care is provided to the disadvantage and the elderly - to include giving a portion of my property taxes going to the county hosiptal to insure that it can operate so it can care for those that need the care and can not pay for it.
I don't think anyone can question what you pay in taxes. Doubtlessly it is too much. It is the very concept of for-profit health care that is the problem, not those are bound to it nor those who subsidize what free health care there is.
And I love going up into Canada - you have some of the next best nature to see. You got to be jealous that we got the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.
Wait a second... I said I loved y'all Americans but you only said you love Canada, not Canadians. Thinking about a wee bit 'o libensraum are we? :inquisitive:
KukriKhan
05-11-2005, 19:44
So now that we have the second war of 1812 almost in a cease-fire, I wonder what kind of health care delivery systems there are in eastern Europe, for example, or India, or Africa.
Is the US the only market-driven (some would say: insurance-company-driven) healthcare delivery system?
And, a second question: are doctors and nurses held in very high esteem elsewhere? Are they 'rich'? Or just seen as public servants?
Well, I think Beirut was actually reacting to Gawain referring to the Canadian system as "woeful", when in fact Canada or our health care system has have nothing to do with this thread. Beirut reacts, you(Redleg) then jump in on him, warning him, "Careful now - this little rant is just that. I can quote horror stories of the Canadian Socialized Medicine that equal and exceed the ones that you just mentioned." As well as, "Now should I go into the horror stories about the Canadian System that I have heard - or is it fair to say each system has its problems and shortfalls." Instead of leaving it there as your implying that you are gonna do, you ran off, got yourself an article and posted it as an "instance". Beirut didn't even repond until after you had posted your "instance". Which is kinda funny, because in(Beirut's) subsequent post after your "instance", post he admits Canada's failings and points out that he sees(and I'm paraphrasing) that he just has a problem with the philoshophy of health care being something other then a right. He doesn't even mention the States, nor does he go off and provoke the conversation further by "tit for tat'ing" and getting a counter article. I guess, Beirut must be talking about you, so you run off and get another article and state, "and you dare call the American system as worse. Laughable and sad at the same time." And have then gaul to say, "...and you don't see me ranting on how your government decides to care for its people no matter how much I disagree with it."
From where I'm sitting, you are the only one in here(other then Gawain) that is trying to turn this into a thread where you get to pump your chest. I mean the poor guy even says, "I'm not after you or even the US, I am simply against the patient's ability to pay having any bearing whatsoever as far as health care is concerned. Regardless of the country." I think that pretty much indicates his clear intent right there. Its only you that seems to think that there is some sort slight going against the States and pursues the thread in such a fashion. However, from the title alone, you really didn't think this thread would be some harmonious discussion on how great the United States is, did you ? You can't have a title like "The US Health Care System Not as Heartless as Some Would Have You Believe.", on this board and not have somebody have something bad to say.(Which is pretty sad btw). Give me a break, this sucker was doomed from the "git go".
Moreover, I don't think you are gonna foster a good debate by calling a reponse a rant, stating that you would never do the same, ridiculing that person and then finally responding to that person in the same way that you said you wouldn't. Sorry, after that, you are fair game.
Beriut made the first horror story comment - and you now get upset because I tit for tat for him. Do you understand the point I am making - that most medical systems have flaws in providing care for people - or did I strike the emotional cord that I was going for by doing what I did. Because that is exactly the same type of arguement that Beruit used. However I don't see you attempting to critize Beriut for using that exact same method first..
Why would I critise the guy, I agree with him ?
Seems you do get the point - there is always more to the story - just like the story Beriut attempted to use. Where is your criticism for his use of a horror story. Oh wait its about the American medicial system - so its acceptable for you - is that it?
Please, I know all discussions involving the States usually turn into some ugly mess here back, some warranted, some not. But you will never find me apart of that type discussion. So the poor American victim guilt trip isn't going to work.
And it seems that your citizens must come down to get treatment in a timely fashion from your country. Shall we continue for the tit for tat - because frankly I am game - since you Canadians claim your system is better - however you and others fail to realize that Americans pay taxes for multiple programs that are controlled by the Government in the exact same manner as your Medicial system.
Do really want to? What do you think that will achieve Redleg? Your not gonna change my mind, nor do I think that I'm gonna change yours, nor do I care to for that matter.
While the system in the United States has its inherient flaws - its our system to either correct or live with - just like your system in Canada is for you to live with or change if it no longer meets your needs.
It has always met my needs. ~:confused:
When outsiders complain that the United States does not have adequate health care - they neglect to mention all of the totally free care that is available nor do they mention the fact that there is two Federal Programs that are designed to care for the poor and the elderly. It seems you are just as guilty of that as the rest of our Canadian Brothers to the north.
And I'm guilty of ....?
Yea get real - don't complain or comment on the American system until yours is fixed and adequate care is given to all your citizens. I guess its easier for you to notice our problems then it is to fix your own.
Your the only one complaining and also the only one pointing the finger. Frankly, I don't care what kind of system you have, socialized or profitized. It doesn't matter to me what kind of problems you have, I don't live in the States ~:) , so it isn't of my concern.
So now that we have the second war of 1812 almost in a cease-fire,
Hell it wasn't the second war of 1812 - it was just a minor border violation by the Canadians -
Wait a second... I said I loved y'all Americans but you only said you love Canada, not Canadians. Thinking about a wee bit 'o libensraum are we?
Hell a word I got to look up - and people say you can't learn anything in an internet discussion. ~D
Well since I don't know what that word means - going to have to go with the old - nationalistic saying. Canada and its citizens equal Canada to me. However I don't visit Canada for its people - to much like us Americans to be different - but I do love some of your nature parks and protected areas. Almost as beautiful as the Snake River Valley, The Grand Tetons, and Yellowstone in Eastern Idaho and Wyoming. Which is where I am going in about a month - beating all those tourists that are only visiting for a vacation - I go out and appreciate the natural beauty of the area.
By the way since my son is now 12, we are going to attempt to hike into the Eastern part of the park to see if we can see some of the transplanted Canadian Wolves.
Another wonderful gift from Canada.
Your the only one complaining and also the only one pointing the finger. Frankly, I don't care what kind of system you have, socialized or profitized. It doesn't matter to me what kind of problems you have, I don't live in the States ~:) , so it isn't of my concern.
And your not pumping your chest - how wonderful of you. Could of missed it with your two responses.
Yeah get real. Your just as guilty as I.
Hell it wasn't the second war of 1812 - it was just a minor border violation by the Canadians -
Minor border violation my tuckus.
Allow me to retort...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/PFHHHHHHHT.bmp
~D
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 22:37
God, is everyone on auto-kill today?
Beirut, Redleg meant the fracas in this thread was a minor border crossing, not the war itself (I think that's what's got you issuing such in-depth retorts). He didn't mean the War of 1812 was a minor border crossing....
Redleg, leibenstraum.... 'living room', or as we would say it, breathing room. It was the justification the Nazis used for entering Austria & Czechloslovakia... they just needed a little breathing room...
Btw, Beirut, if you ever find your body can't take the physcial rigors of lumberjacking anymore, I think you've got a hell of a career ahead of you as a police sketch artist... I saw that guy in the park offering candy to small children the other day... simply amazing.
Hee-hee. I knew what he meant. I was just having some fun.
Besides, I'm never on auto-kill. But I do use the cruise control in my brain quite often. I set it at 10mph and just slush on down the intellectual highway.
Putt-putt-putt-putt-putt-putt........................
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 22:58
Hey, cut that putt...putt...put... out!
You're gonna freak Ironside and the rest of the Swedes out. They're gonna think you're Big Potato, here to punish them.
Well now ya really got me confused. :dizzy2:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 00:00
Then take it out of the hands of the government...
The same day you privatize the US Army.
Is your army or any other countries army privatized ? Its a part of the government. When you join the armed forcs you are a representitive of that government and besides that raising and maintaing an army is one of the few powers granted the federal government by our constitution. Theres nothing in it about healthcare.
Then privatize the Army and Air Force and Navy. Why on Earth should the government run, what is considered by many Amricans, to be the most crucial of all efforts?
Read above. Besides who would a private army be responsible to? And do we want to make war a profitable enterprise?
Those who seek to make maximum profit with minimum effort.
Oh you mean the people who want free healthcare.
Ive experienced free healthcare and it sucks. Ask anyone who was in the service. Its nice that its free but its far from what you get in civilian life.
bmolsson
05-12-2005, 05:43
Is your army or any other countries army privatized ? Its a part of the government. When you join the armed forcs you are a representitive of that government and besides that raising and maintaing an army is one of the few powers granted the federal government by our constitution.
BS, Gawain. The army is given a task, just like health care and when it's done, it's over. The only thing really needed to be under government control is the courts. Everything else is just a question of purchasing and tendering services........
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 05:50
BS, Gawain. The army is given a task, just like health care and when it's done, it's over.
You cant be that clueless. So we should disband the army as soon as were done in Iraq then. Again our constitution says the federal government can raise and maintain our armed forces. Again who would a private army answer to? What if they go on strike? What if they want more power? Talk about comparing apples and oranges.
The only thing really needed to be under government control is the courts. Everything else is just a question of purchasing and tendering services........
Well this tops the cake. If there ever was a place where purchasing power meant anything its in our courts. Your rich you walk your poor you get put away. Its a matter of how good a lawyer you can afford. I believe you would pay him for services rendered.
bmolsson
05-12-2005, 06:29
You cant be that clueless. So we should disband the army as soon as were done in Iraq then. Again our constitution says the federal government can raise and maintain our armed forces. Again who would a private army answer to? What if they go on strike? What if they want more power? Talk about comparing apples and oranges.
In US everyone have the right to carry a gun, so I can't really see any political risk there. I haven't talked about the constitution at all. I guess that at the time the constitution was written, there was no good tender software to be used for purchase of military forces.
There are no difference between a private held force contractor and a little divison commander. Both can lose their mind.
Further more, soldiers don't strike. If so they just get shot. Just make sure that the teamsters don't negotiate that part away....... ~;)
Well this tops the cake. If there ever was a place where purchasing power meant anything its in our courts. Your rich you walk your poor you get put away. Its a matter of how good a lawyer you can afford. I believe you would pay him for services rendered.
If that is so, change it. Vote ..... ~:cool:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 06:42
In US everyone have the right to carry a gun, so I can't really see any political risk there. I haven't talked about the constitution at all. I guess that at the time the constitution was written, there was no good tender software to be used for purchase of military forces.
Are they selling opium over there again? What the hell are you talking about.? Does everyone have the right to an tank or a jet fighter and be trained in their use? What is tender software?
There are no difference between a private held force contractor and a little divison commander. Both can lose their mind.
What if hes the one in charge of the whole force? Again you dont seem to able to see reality here. In other words your still clueless. ~:)
Further more, soldiers don't strike. If so they just get shot.
No they dont. What if the guy in charge of this private army decides to take over?
If that is so, change it. Vote ..
For what ? Universal legal representation. Now theres a social program I could go along with. Why should the rich get better legal representation than the poor? Everyone should have to use legal aid. That will go a long way in reducing the number of lawyers and law suits we have. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than universal healthcare.
bmolsson
05-12-2005, 07:10
Are they selling opium over there again? What the hell are you talking about.? Does everyone have the right to an tank or a jet fighter and be trained in their use? What is tender software?
Actually not so much these days. Other drugs are available though.
I am talking about privatization of military forces.
For the US, I don't know. I guess the second amendment include tanks.
A tender software is a tool used to achieve the best tender process for a large purchase project. Very common among modern governments.
What if hes the one in charge of the whole force? Again you dont seem to able to see reality here. In other words your still clueless. ~:)
If so, I would guess he could invade a country if he felt for it. Not that it hasn't happened before....
I think that I am more able to see reality than many. If the main goal for a military force is to achieve a contracted target and then leave, there would be less time spent on political agendas and bullshit on what is right and wrong. Isn't that really what this is all about ?
No they dont. What if the guy in charge of this private army decides to take over?
Who said that you hire all your army from one guy or company ? You don't seem to know much about PPI schemes.
For what ? Universal legal representation. Now theres a social program I could go along with. Why should the rich get better legal representation than the poor? Everyone should have to use legal aid. That will go a long way in reducing the number of lawyers and law suits we have. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than universal healthcare.
To make the change you request.
The rich have earned their money, so as long as it's not against the law, what is the big issue ?
Of course everyone should have the right to legal aid, but they would have to deal with the level available, just like in health care.
The Black Ship
05-13-2005, 03:57
Further more, soldiers don't strike. If so they just get shot. Just make sure that the teamsters don't negotiate that part away.......
Interesting fact, the Finnish officer corp justed threatened to go on strike due to their displeasure at renumeration rates for over-seas deployments. Seems they're peeved that civil contractors get extra compensation for such deployments whilst they get none.
Papewaio
05-13-2005, 04:02
Isn't 1/10 the military in Iraq at the moment mercs er 'private security consultants'?
Gawain of Orkeny
05-13-2005, 05:40
Isn't 1/10 the military in Iraq at the moment mercs er 'private security consultants'?
No. Their just glorified security guards . Their hired by independant companies not the US government and they donnt prosecute the war,.
If the main goal for a military force is to achieve a contracted target and then leave,
I guess clueless doesnt even begin to describe this statement. he job of the military is to pretect the nation , its borders and citizens. You dont recieve a contract to go take hill 336 and if you do you then go home.
Isn't that really what this is all about
NO
Who said that you hire all your army from one guy or company ? You don't seem to know much about PPI schemes.
Yeah we will have a bunch of people raise armies and then pick the best one. Or maybe we should go with the cheapest one. This is sheer lunacy. This is just about the only thing the government does right.
The rich have earned their money, so as long as it's not against the law, what is the big issue ?
Of course everyone should have the right to legal aid, but they would have to deal with the level available, just like in health care.
The big issue is you can buy your way out of jail. Who was it who said
The only thing really needed to be under government control is the courts. Everything else is just a question of purchasing and tendering services.......
Well my point is the courts are no different. Maybe we should have privatised courts.
bmolsson
05-13-2005, 06:17
I guess clueless doesnt even begin to describe this statement. he job of the military is to pretect the nation , its borders and citizens. You dont recieve a contract to go take hill 336 and if you do you then go home.
Well, for me a soldier is nothing more than another staff member doing something he is paid for. I can't see any higher glory or "for your country" BS have anything to do with armies.
Each soldier signs a contract to follow orders and is given the rules to follow. Then he receives a task to do. He is expected to do this and only this. When his contract is done, he goes home. If he has been good he get a medal.
Same thing with the factory worker, just that he get a gold watch instead......
Protect the nation is also done by police officers, private security guards etc. Guard the border is done by customs as well as immigration.
I don't think I am that clueless at all. Maybe I haven't seen enough movies with John Wayne though...... ~D
Gawain of Orkeny
05-13-2005, 15:46
Each soldier signs a contract to follow orders and is given the rules to follow. Then he receives a task to do. He is expected to do this and only this. When his contract is done, he goes home. If he has been good he get a medal.
Does a factory worker swear an oath of alligance to his company? When you join the armed services you must swear an oath to protect and serve the government of the US. You are a direct representitive of that government just like a congressman or senator. Would you support jailing people who are late for work or miss a day without an excuse? Because this is what can happen on the military. I dont believe you could have similar disciplines in a civilian or private army. Also what task are you assigened to do? As far as when your contracts up you go home Im afraid there are alot of US soldiers whos contracts are up but there still fighting in Iraq.
Protect the nation is also done by police officers, private security guards etc. Guard the border is done by customs as well as immigration.
Private security guards? These others you speak of are not private firms but like the armed forces representitives of the US government and sworn to uphold our laws.
I don't think I am that clueless at all.
I would hope not. ~D
Doesnt change the fact that you are though ~;)
Well, for me a soldier is nothing more than another staff member doing something he is paid for. I can't see any higher glory or "for your country" BS have anything to do with armies.
I'm damn glad very few soldiers, firemen and policemen feel that way.
Most of the rest of us don’t either.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.