View Full Version : Socialist Canadian Healthcare Fails
Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html?ex=1298610000&en=c2dd6e7e8f107208&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
"In a free and democratic society where you can spend money on gambling and alcohol and tobacco, the state has no business preventing you and me from spending our own money on health care."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Capitolism begins to win!
Crazed Rabbit
03-05-2006, 06:23
About time Canada allows people to pay for healthcare.
Crazed Rabbit
Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years in discomfort before receiving treatment
Gee, I wonder why it's failing? :book:
Byzantine Prince
03-05-2006, 07:07
It is really interesting how americans like to comment on us. You don't have to live here ok, stop bothering to say if we are doing good or bad. Do you think we are your 51st state or something?
It is really interesting how americans like to comment on us. You don't have to live here ok, stop bothering to say if we are doing good or bad. Do you think we are your 51st state or something?
Tell you what, when everyone stops criticizing the US, I won't criticize anyone else.
Oh and btw, if Quebec ever breaks apart from you guys, you will be our 51st state.
About time Canada allows people to pay for healthcare.
Crazed Rabbit
No Health Insurance Coverage - 2004 US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
16% of all Americans (45,000,000 - More than the entire population of Canada)
10% of all children
20% of children in poverty
20% Black Americans
29% Native American
32% Hispanic origin
We want your F-22s, your bourbon, and Jessica Alba, we do not want your health care system thank you very much. We'd prefer to fix the one we have. :bow:
Oh and btw, if Quebec ever breaks apart from you guys, you will be our 51st state.
I thought it would be better for all involved if you were our 11th province instead.
Words can't describe how unfair I think the canadian healthcare are. :shame:
Shame on Canada.
Gee, I wonder why it's failing? :book:
Because it has a greater load than your does. AS every citizen and permanent resident can use it for free it gets used much more.
Because it has a greater load than your does. AS every citizen and permanent resident can use it for free it gets used much more.
Yes, that is the point.
Do you think we are your 51st state or something?
Well slightly right and wrong there, if Puerto Rico ever actually has a vote on ratifying the consititution they'll be our 51st. If Canada will just finally get around to voting on the constitution you'd be our 52nd state. So come on Canada we want an "Up or Down vote" on that issue, we've been waiting a couple centuries over here. Even fought a couple war's with britian to spead up that pesky annexing process.:laugh4:
It is really interesting how americans like to comment on us. You don't have to live here ok, stop bothering to say if we are doing good or bad. Do you think we are your 51st state or something?
So are you going to stop commenting on the United States?
If not then whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
Who said our healthcare has failed?
Goodness knows we have to protect ourselves from corporate interests though. There's always going to be some deviant dirtbag who wants to make a profit off of people who are sick and dying, but who says we have to do what they want?
We don't want Wal-Mart hospitals. We want to use a medicare card - not a credit card (as Jack Layton would say). We would rather have the flaws in our system (as there are in all systems) than to replace it with one that is inherently flawed because it is biased towards those with money. It's better if the fault is in the system than in those who use the system. It's better that the hospital says we don't have the space because we're full than to have them say you can't have the space because you're poor.
Absolutely we need to fix our system, it is desperately in need of repair. But we sure as shoot don't want one that, even when it works, leaves 20% of our poorest children and over 30% of some minority groups without any health coverage at all. Plainly said, for-profit healthcare run by large corporations is an anachronism in a progressive society. It's a throwback to the days of snake oil salesmen and debtor's prisons. It is a savage cruelty and an insulting indignancy upon the weakest members of a society who have a right to protection by the country they live in.
What's next, the police and firemen don't respond unless you give your Mastercard # to the 911 operator? And if you don't have the cash, do they send rookies with older equipment instead of the pros with the newest technology, just as poor people get poor people hospitals instead of rich people hospitals?
It's exactly the same thing.
Kaiser of Arabia
03-05-2006, 21:03
It is really interesting how americans like to comment on us. You don't have to live here ok, stop bothering to say if we are doing good or bad. Do you think we are your 51st state or something?
You *are* our 51st state. :furious3: :laugh4:
Who said our healthcare has failed?
Goodness knows we have to protect ourselves from corporate interests though. There's always going to be some deviant dirtbag who wants to make a profit off of people who are sick and dying, but who says we have to do what they want?How many medical breakthroughs are a result of someone being nice and doing charity work and how many make the inventor rich? Your system is dependant on 'for profit' medicine. What really irks me about it is that Americans are subsidizing Canadian healthcare by paying higher prices for medicine that allow Canadians to get government discounted rates. We have to fund the R&D out of our pockets.
What I'd like to see happen is widespread re-importation from Canada to the US of cheap medication(like our government constantly tries to stop). Once the drug companies profits started drying up, they'd renegotiate their Canadian contracts right quick and you guys would have to start paying your fair share(whether via the welfare state or personally), lowering our costs in the process. :bow:
Crazed Rabbit
03-05-2006, 21:20
Beirut, anyone in the US can get quick healthcare without worrying about money just be going to an emergency room. They are required, by law, to treat everyone.
Goodness knows we have to protect ourselves from corporate interests though. There's always going to be some deviant dirtbag who wants to make a profit off of people who are starving, but who says we have to do what they want?
Ban all private food manufacturers and distributers! Don't let anyone make such a gross thing as profit off the essentials of life! Make sure everyone gets the same quality food! It's for the children!
You need to read some more Adam Smith.
Crazed Rabbit
P.S. Just curious, but are you against anybody paying for healthcare even if Canada keeps its national healthcare system?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2006, 21:50
Well slightly right and wrong there, if Puerto Rico ever actually has a vote on ratifying the consititution they'll be our 51st. If Canada will just finally get around to voting on the constitution you'd be our 52nd state. So come on Canada we want an "Up or Down vote" on that issue, we've been waiting a couple centuries over here. Even fought a couple war's with britian to spead up that pesky annexing process.:laugh4:
This attitude is really disturbing, what give you the right to frame a constition for a whole continant without asking anyone else?
As to this issue, well public helfcare basically just needs an injection of cash and common sense. Oh, and it should only ever be run to brake even, etra cash should all go back into the system.
What really irks me about it is that Americans are subsidizing Canadian healthcare by paying higher prices for medicine that allow Canadians to get government discounted rates. We have to fund the R&D out of our pockets.
I've heard the big drug companies charge US citizens up to ten times as much for the same drugs as many Europeans pay. That's not us doing that - it's the drug comanies. The drug companies are like the oil companies, always crying about how tough things are and all the while they're making profits on a galactic scale. I have no problem with them making money, but I do have a problem with them making supertankers full of cash while crying poverty and gouging the public at the same time
Ban all private food manufacturers and distributers! Don't let anyone make such a gross thing as profit off the essentials of life! Make sure everyone gets the same quality food! It's for the children!
You need to read some more Adam Smith.
Crazed Rabbit
P.S. Just curious, but are you against anybody paying for healthcare even if Canada keeps its national healthcare system?
We don't let people starve to death. For-profit medicine does allow people to die for lack of money. Also, decent food is an affordable commodity in North America. I've been poor and I never went to bed hungry. You just need to be educated about how to shop and how to eat well. Being sick is beyond anyone's control and the costs can destroy even a well off family. Also, this extreme burden of making large payments comes at exactly the time when making those payments is most difficult and the family is already under severe stress.
I don't want anybody paying because it creates a slippery slope. I view healthcare as a right, just like having the police and fireman and the judge help you in times of need. If some people get "better" service on a for-profit basis, that means someone else is probably getting less service, they being less-equal as it were. Canada, like the US, is a very rich country full of intelligent and creative people, there is no reason whatsoever that we cannot care for all of us equally and well. It's simply a lack of will power on the part of those in charge.
I've heard the big drug companies charge US citizens up to ten times as much for the same drugs as many Europeans pay. That's not us doing that - it's the drug comanies. The drug companies are like the oil companies, always crying about how tough things are and all the while they're making profits on a galactic scale. I have no problem with them making money, but I do have a problem with them making supertankers full of cash while crying poverty and gouging the public at the same timeYes, and I had posted a solution too- make everyone else pay their fair share via market forces. If Canada gets meds on the cheap, let Americans buy their medication from Canada. Then, the drug companies will have no choice but to make Canadians pay their fair share- as I said.
discovery1
03-05-2006, 22:09
I've heard the big drug companies charge US citizens up to ten times as much for the same drugs as many Europeans pay. That's not us doing that - it's the drug comanies. The drug companies are like the oil companies, always crying about how tough things are and all the while they're making profits on a galactic scale. I have no problem with them making money, but I do have a problem with them making supertankers full of cash while crying poverty and gouging the public at the same time
Beruit, while they may be making galactic sized profits, that matters little if they can't do better in the stock market. IE, if they put x amounts of money into R&D, they expect to get back X as much and then some. And that extra would be the return they expect to get in the stock market. If they can't do that well, then there is no point to investing in new medicine. Now, if you could prove that the rate of return on their investments in new drugs is much more than that on the stock market, then you would have an arguement.
And Xiahou, don't be too sure that the Canadians paying their fair share would lower drug costs here much. There are how many Canadians and how many Americans in the drug market?
Yes, and I had posted a solution too- make everyone else pay their fair share via market forces. If Canada gets meds on the cheap, let Americans buy their medication from Canada. Then, the drug companies will have no choice but to make Canadians pay their fair share- as I said.
You want to make medicine more affordable by charging us more for it? Thanks, I feel better already. What about Europe, are you ready to tell them they have to pay ten times as much for their medicine as they do now? Do you think they'll want to fork over all that cash for the drug companies who are doubtlessly posting record profits as speak?
This is an interesting link.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
In truth, the drug companies are a side issue. The real issue is that the government should take control of healthcare and make it a priority and fight sickness with the same energy as it fights a war. Every year cancer kills a hundred times more Americans than the 9/11 attacks did. And it does it year after year, decade after decade. Where are the hundreds of billions that could be spent on the battle to save those American lives? Why are their lives left to the whim of insurance companies and private corporations while other people's lives merit the the expenditure of the full weight of government money and resources. I just don't get it.
My concern is with saving lives. Period. Call it anything you want, capitalism, communism, liberalism, or just plain stupidity. The only goal is to ease people's suffering. That your country and mine have not figured out how to do this properly is criminal.
You want to make medicine more affordable by charging us more for it? Thanks, I feel better already. What about Europe, are you ready to tell them they have to pay ten times as much for their medicine as they do now? Do you think they'll want to fork over all that cash for the drug companies who are doubtlessly posting record profits as speak?As Discovery1 rightly pointed out, Canada alone wouldnt have a great impact on our prices (although every bit counts), so yes, we'd have to do the same thing to Europeans so they'd pay their fair shares as well.
Canada can do what it wants, the US will keep taking their paying customers who dont want to suffer in line for a year to get treated. And that's the problem with a 'one size fits all' government enforced system. Different people have different healthcare needs, including people who cause their own health problems by over-eating, smoking, heroin, whatever- yet, everyone pays that same amount even if you dont use the system. As a result, many could care less about the financial impact of their life-decisions since they'll pay no more or less than anyone else. Unfortunately, the US healthcare system is leaning more and more towards socialization as well- with the increased costs and ineffeciency that goes with it.
Papewaio
03-06-2006, 05:40
I assume Canada has private hospitals and such as well... so those who can pay for it have the option of skipping the queues/having a wider set of choices/more privacy/quicker response for elective surgery.
Australia has a medicare card. And we have Private Health funds. Once you are 30 you have to pay for a private health fund, and for every year you delay doing so you get a permanent 1% surcharge. There is a tax deduction for a portion of the private health fund too.
Now if you are poor and cannot afford a private health fund you still will get all the normal medical treatments. Private health funds really only help pay for glasses/contact lenses, long hospital stays, elective surgery, and expensive dental work. Public health is generally better for things like emergency care, children's wards and maternity wards (in an emergency a lot of private hospitals transfer the patient to the public hospital... the only real benefit is a private room).
As for the drug companies... they will gouge as much as they can off whomever they can.
Do you think we are your 51st state or something?
Wait Canada isn't part of the U.S.:shrug:
Guess you learn something new everyday.:laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
03-06-2006, 06:57
And that's the problem with a 'one size fits all' government enforced system. Different people have different healthcare needs, including people who cause their own health problems by over-eating, smoking, heroin, whatever- yet, everyone pays that same amount even if you dont use the system. As a result, many could care less about the financial impact of their life-decisions since they'll pay no more or less than anyone else.
Since when are Americans health conscious? :inquisitive:
Medical breakthroughs as a result of capitalism are good and all, but the cooporations are only going to develop what they can sell, even if it isn't what's needed (like all those cholesteral drugs on the market). I'd sooner have the gov't fund the research.
Ironside
03-06-2006, 08:56
As Discovery1 rightly pointed out, Canada alone wouldnt have a great impact on our prices (although every bit counts), so yes, we'd have to do the same thing to Europeans so they'd pay their fair shares as well.
Interesting statement.
So according to you the solution for the unusal high prices on food here in Sweden (even compared without taxes) is to rise the prices in the rest of Europe. :2thumbsup:
Such a brilliant and capitalistic statement. :wall:
Samurai Waki
03-06-2006, 09:03
I like Canada and I couldn't image it as any American territory...EVER... where else in North America can I go to Sex Clubs?:laugh4:
As Discovery1 rightly pointed out, Canada alone wouldnt have a great impact on our prices (although every bit counts), so yes, we'd have to do the same thing to Europeans so they'd pay their fair shares as well.
You make it sound like the whole world is living off the backs of the poor underfunded US drug companies and by proxy off the backs of the US citizens.
Just so you know, many crucial life-saving drugs used today were invented decades ago. In other countries believe it or not.
Like insulin.
In Canada.
Canada can do what it wants, the US will keep taking their paying customers who dont want to suffer in line for a year to get treated.
The US can do what it wants. Canada will keeping taking in its poor who do not want to suffer the immoral indignity of being told they are going to die because they don't have any money.
(I edited quote below)
And that's the problem with a 'one size fits all' government enforced system. Different people have different police and fire needs, including people who cause their own problems. Yet, everyone pays that same amount even if you dont use the system. As a result, many could care less about the financial impact of their life-decisions since they'll pay no more or less than anyone else. Unfortunately, the US police and fire system is leaning more and more towards socialization as well- with the increased costs and ineffeciency that goes with it.
I replaced the word "healthcare" with "police and fire". If capitalism is capitalism, shouldn't the above statement be true as well?
Watchman
03-06-2006, 13:06
What the fig is it with this "privatize privatize" mania anyway ? There's a pretty blatantly obvious problem in leaving issues that, on the whole, aren't so good at actually making profit up to mechanisms that ultimately rely on greed. Quite a few important services quite simply cannot be provided for everyone who needs them if you also want to avoid deficit on the side, period.
Proposing to leave such life-or-death matters up to the vicissitudes of profiteering capitalism is either insane or criminally neglicient IMO.
...sometimes I wonder if Americans who keep going on about it actually just want everyone else's systems to get screwed as totally as theirs already is... maybe just for their own peace of mind, since in their worldview "socialist" arrangements cannot work and any that actually do cannot be accepted else the whole thing starts falling apart...
Just a suspicion I sometimes get in my more cynical and spiteful moments.
Big King Sanctaphrax
03-06-2006, 13:42
There's a pretty blatantly obvious problem in leaving issues that, on the whole, aren't so good at actually making profit up to mechanisms that ultimately rely on greed.
This was one of the reasons that the privatization of the UK's railways went so badly. It's simply not possible to make a profit while providing a service that meets the countries needs-meaning prices have risen while the quality of the service has decreased.
Vladimir
03-06-2006, 15:26
Sorry folks, late to the game. Beirut, luv ya and all but there are a few issues. This study you mentioned:
No Health Insurance Coverage - 2004 US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
16% of all Americans (45,000,000 - More than the entire population of Canada)
10% of all children
20% of children in poverty
20% Black Americans
29% Native American
32% Hispanic origin
Was that the study where if you were uninsured for one day out of the year you were considered uninsured for the whole year? How many of these people chose to not have health coverage (like me for a while)? (no I'm not reading the entire 85 pages)
And about eeeeeevil corporations and the well meaning, benevolent government control:
Who said our healthcare has failed?
Goodness knows we have to protect ourselves from corporate interests though. There's always going to be some deviant dirtbag who wants to make a profit off of people who are sick and dying, but who says we have to do what they want?
I seem to remember something about Canada's government falling due to a massive corruption scandal. You're not one of those corporatephobes, are you?
Beirut, luv ya and all...
Thanks, I love you too. ~:flirt:
This study you mentioned: Was that the study where if you were uninsured for one day out of the year you were considered uninsured for the whole year? How many of these people chose to not have health coverage (like me for a while)? (no I'm not reading the entire 85 pages)
The study was done by the US government Department of Commerce. Why would a Republican administration use criteria in their own study that would make themselves look bad by listing anyone uninsured for a day as uninsured for the whole year?
And about eeeeeevil corporations and the well meaning, benevolent government control:
I seem to remember something about Canada's government falling due to a massive corruption scandal. You're not one of those corporatephobes, are you?
Yep, that's exactly right. That's why our government fell.
No I'm not a corporatophobe. I'm all for profit and capitalism and all that, but some things are more important than profit. Life itself being one of them. When we arrive at a day where some dirtbag in a thousand-dollar suit makes the decision on whether you live or die based on your cash flow, than we are well and truly screwed.
For-profit medicine allows this to happen. It has happened and it will continue to happen. I watched a documentary done by Walter Cronkite about the US healthcare insurance system. He filmed a woman suffering from brain cancer sitting in a doctor's office while the doctor said point blank - "Your insurance won't cover you so we cannot operate on you. Sorry." They sent her home to die. Welcome to for-profit healthcare.
Crazed Rabbit
03-06-2006, 16:32
I assume Canada has private hospitals and such as well... so those who can pay for it have the option of skipping the queues/having a wider set of choices/more privacy/quicker response for elective surgery.
Nope (though that's changing) -and Beirut wants to keep it that way:
I don't want anybody paying because it creates a slippery slope.
Beirut- remember- free care at ER's. And if your system is so great, why is it falling apart? Why is there popular support for being able to legally do medicine w/o government oversight?
Crazed Rabbit
discovery1
03-06-2006, 16:34
(I edited quote below)
I replaced the word "healthcare" with "police and fire". If capitalism is capitalism, shouldn't the above statement be true as well?
No. Even among 'conservative' economists(would this guy qualify? been accused of being a lap dog of the bush admin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Gregory_Mankiw)) it is widely viewed that these are 'public goods' since they protect areas, NOT indivduals. Thus they are non-excludable, at least how the system is set up now. Heath care is both excludable and non-excludable here in the sense that you can't be turned away by emergency rooms but you can be turned away from just about everything else.
Link on public goods, which I imagine are central to this debate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods)
Edit: Oooh, the forum says this thread has an unread post even though mine is the last one.
Goofball
03-06-2006, 17:37
Beirut, anyone in the US can get quick healthcare without worrying about money just be going to an emergency room. They are required, by law, to treat everyone.
Sure. That's okay if you have a gunshot wound or a broken arm.
What if you have breast cancer and require surgery followed by chemotherapy and years of follow-up treatment? Can you just pop into the emergency room and get that?
I think we both know what the answer to that question is.
Having said that, I am completely in favor of opening up our healthcare system to a blend of public and for-profit health care providers.
In a recent study done by the Fraser Institute that measured effectiveness of health care across about twenty countries that offered socialized medecine to their citizens, Canada ranked close to the top in the amount we spent on health care per capita. Conversely, we ranked close to the bottom with respect to wait times for surgery (by the "bottom," we were the longest, not the shortest), availability of machines (i.e. MRI), survivability, and a few other key measures. Countries that were spending far less per capita (Japan, for example) on health care ranked well above us when measuring the effectiveness of their health care systems.
The difference between Canada and those other countries?
They all allowed a blend of public and for-profit health care.
Canada was the only one on the list that didn't.
You do the math Beirut.
rory_20_uk
03-06-2006, 17:53
How did the UK do on that list? I imagine OK, since we are masters in list fixing (ever heard of waiting lists to get on the waiting list??!?)
Public healthcare has to have limits placed that are immovable, and for those that require or desire treatment that is not on this list they have to go private. As treatments get more sophisticated, the cost increases dramatically, but the benefits are only marginal.
Sure, as new technologies mature this cost premium decreases, and at that point their role in the public healthcare can be reevaluated. Either way, I'm getting BUPA when I'm older...
~:smoking:
Vladimir
03-06-2006, 18:25
The study was done by the US government Department of Commerce. Why would a Republican administration use criteria in their own study that would make themselves look bad by listing anyone uninsured for a day as uninsured for the whole year?
Why would the State Department undermine certain efforts overseas? Why would the CIA leak classified information? I'm not sure what type of government you think we have but we're not a de facto despotism. The Navy doesn't tell the Marines how many pull-ups they have to do on their PT test and Commerce will use their own criteria when conducting their evaluation.
For-profit medicine allows this to happen. It has happened and it will continue to happen. I watched a documentary done by Walter Cronkite about the US healthcare insurance system. He filmed a woman suffering from brain cancer sitting in a doctor's office while the doctor said point blank - "Your insurance won't cover you so we cannot operate on you. Sorry." They sent her home to die. Welcome to for-profit healthcare.
The current Canadian system creates long delays for the poor while the rich exploit our pay for service system. How would you control health care? In Cronkite's (no doubt unbiased [sic] opinion) chances are that person would have been told: "We'll treat you. Get in line or we'll call you in a year."
There is a dirty little secret that most illegal immigrants know...You don't need health insurance in the US. As a matter of fact, you don't even need to pay your hospital bill. If you show up at the Emergency Room they HAVE to treat you and you can always skip out on the bill.
I really don't think Canada's health care system will change much because people can always come down here for treatment if they don't want to wait forever. Our hospitals also stay open if there is a government shutdown or if a funding bill is delayed. Competitive medicine is good and which is better: a fat cat corporate type or a fat cat bureaucrat?
There is a dirty little secret that most illegal immigrants know...You don't need health insurance in the US. As a matter of fact, you don't even need to pay your hospital bill. If you show up at the Emergency Room they HAVE to treat you and you can always skip out on the bill.
And for this reason, you should avoid the ER at all costs here in the States. It takes forever to get served, and is full of people with normal colds and other non-emergency ills. Unless you can spray blood at least 3 feet away, you will get better service by going home and making a regular appointment with your doc.
Ironside
03-06-2006, 22:17
There is a dirty little secret that most illegal immigrants know...You don't need health insurance in the US. As a matter of fact, you don't even need to pay your hospital bill. If you show up at the Emergency Room they HAVE to treat you and you can always skip out on the bill.
I really love that type of defense.
No our system isn't flawed, because we have a bug in that makes our ER overcrowded and contains uncontrolled systematic theft. Thus making the system cost much more than estimated. Ah well, atleast the bug makes the system more humane.
May I suggest shoplifting as a solution for the high costs of medicines? :idea2:
Sure a proper capitalistic system can work together with social healthcare, but don't even bother trying to convince people that a system that requires you to cheat and abuse the system is better.
Nope (though that's changing) -and Beirut wants to keep it that way:
Beirut- remember- free care at ER's. And if your system is so great, why is it falling apart? Why is there popular support for being able to legally do medicine w/o government oversight?
Crazed Rabbit
Yes I do. :yes:
The system is great, the problem is that it is not being properly run. It's not falling apart - it's simply in need of repair.
Of course there are people with dissenting opnions on health care. Find me one important social issue that everyone agrees on.
Watchman
03-07-2006, 01:16
You know, our "socialized" public healthcare system over here has been hiccuping as of late. Know why ?
Funding cuts. Too few personnel, and they get overworked for fairly little pay.
Know why, and since when ? The big economy crash of the early Nineties and the increasingly "neolib" policies adopted since then.
It's still one of the better ones in the world though. Anything genuinely serious will almost always get processed fairly shortly and cheaply (at least for the individual concerned). Prescription medicines are heavily subscribed so as not to burden the patient too much - these I know well fro personal experiences. The rich, if they want to pay for it, can still get private treatment if they want to - but truth be told, many don't as the top-end public services *are* that good and if you really need them you get them.
You do the math Beirut.
As I said, the system is great but is in need of repair. The only reason the system does not function properly is because those who run it are not doing their jobs.
We are an extraordinarily rich country, in terms of resources, people, intelligence, everything. We have every advantage known to man. That we cannot adequately care for the health of the people is nothing less than criminal and to accept defeat in this matter and give in to for-profit health care shows a contemptuous lack of will power on our part.
We can build a country, forge an army, defeat tyranny, smash the atom, feed the world, send objects into space, invent incredible devices of science and technology, enjoy the highest standards of peace, prosperity, democracy, and the rule of law for generations, yet as soon as Joe Citizen gets sick we throw up our arms and say "Sorry, can't do it. Too hard."
I refuse to accept that limitation. We should all refuse to accept it. When we do, we will overcome it.
I replaced the word "healthcare" with "police and fire". If capitalism is capitalism, shouldn't the above statement be true as well?
Actually, in most places, people are charged fees or fines for abusing their fire protection. So, I guess Im still right. :wink:
What I'd like to see is universal availability of tax-free health savings accounts that carry over from year to year combined with reasonable insurance for catastrophic or longterm care- with premiums that can be raised for people that live 'high risk' lifestyles, such as being morbidly obese or chain smokers. That way, day to day checkups, shots, ect. could be paid for out of your HSA- encouraging most of us to shop around and care more about value and quality of service rather than being forced to go to doctor 'A' by an HMO or socialist system. :bow:
Goofball
03-07-2006, 02:14
As I said, the system is great but is in need of repair. The only reason the system does not function properly is because those who run it are not doing their jobs.
We are an extraordinarily rich country, in terms of resources, people, intelligence, everything. We have every advantage known to man. That we cannot adequately care for the health of the people is nothing less than criminal and to accept defeat in this matter and give in to for-profit health care shows a contemptuous lack of will power on our part.
I guess the difference between us is that you view the allowing of a limited place for for-profit health care providers in our system as a defeat. I, on the other hand, view it as a sound move that will allow our health care system (which I value just as much as you do) to continue to meet the needs of Canadians in the future, rather than becoming further antiquated and inefficient.
You believe that this will lead to a two tiered system, with poor people being left out in the cold. If I also believed as you do, I would be as against for profit medicine as you are. But I don't believe as you do. I believe that the scenario you fear is just a load of crap that has been sold to Canadians by the NDP.
And quite frankly, we already have a two-tiered health care system. The only difference is that right now, rich Canadians go to the U.S. to avoid surgery wait times.
I personally would rather have that money stay in Canada.
Papewaio
03-07-2006, 02:38
Australia has a "two-tier" system... and we have a longer lifespan then either USA or Canada. :laugh4:
Australia has a "two-tier" system... and we have a longer lifespan then either USA or Canada. :laugh4:
If we lived in a place that was summer all year 'round and surrounded by beaches we'd probably want to live longer too.
Actually, in most places, people are charged fees or fines for abusing their fire protection. So, I guess Im still right. :wink:
Right-wing you mean. ~;)
But you used the word "abuse". It's not abusing the system if you're sick and need a doctor. Why would you say that?
[/QUOTE]
...rather than being forced to go to doctor 'A' by an HMO or socialist system. :bow:[/QUOTE]
Socialized medicine does not force you to go to doctor A or B. You still have a choice.
Soulforged
03-07-2006, 03:31
I really don't understand this whole issue, it appears as capitalist extremism to me, but if someone would be kindly enough to explain I've some questions. First of all where do you propose that the national budget is used? Is not healthcare a priority in everybody's list? And finally do you want any national budget at all? It appears that this possition (the one against healthcare) considerers the state as a big bureaucratic organ wich only and limitative purpose is to administrate numbers (i.e. citizens) effeciently. Just wondering really.
I guess the difference between us is that you view the allowing of a limited place for for-profit health care providers in our system as a defeat. I, on the other hand, view it as a sound move that will allow our health care system (which I value just as much as you do) to continue to meet the needs of Canadians in the future, rather than becoming further antiquated and inefficient.
I'm sure you and I have the same goals, just different ways of attaining them. Though I see no reason whatsoever why our system should be either antiquated or inefficient. We simply need to apply the necessary will power to fix it. The ideal of truly universal health care is side by side with the ideal of universal human rights. Would you suggest we stop trying to guarantee everyone's human rights simply because we aren't able to do so at the present time?
You believe that this will lead to a two tiered system, with poor people being left out in the cold. If I also believed as you do, I would be as against for profit medicine as you are. But I don't believe as you do. I believe that the scenario you fear is just a load of crap that has been sold to Canadians by the NDP.
It's not a load of crap at all. It's a wonderful accomplishment in the field of social progress. Everybody has access to all the healthcare they need based solely on their need of it. The payoff is beyond measure. The merits beyond reproach. Can you imagine the increase in productivity and happiness in the country if the burden of being sick was significantly eased? How much do we lose because of sickness and suffering?
Everything we have that is worth having was fought for at enormous cost and with great difficulty. Democracy, human rights, freedom from oppression, all the great battles costs lives and money and took years to win. As a soldier, you understand the necessity of a hard fight. As a Peacekeeper, you understand the need of sacrifice. Everything you fought for was based on simple ideals - life and the easing of suffering. There is no good reason why we cannot fight and sacrifice and overcome an enemy that causes us so much suffering and takes so many lives. What other reason does a government exist for except to organize and make more efficient the protection of those it represents? Health care is a national priority.
That sickness and healthcare is seen by some people as tantamount to paying the hydro bill or choosing your long distance phone plan is ridiculous. It is as fundamental to life as life itself and should be treated as the first priority of any civilized nation. From good health flows all else. Including profit. How can a sick man be a profitable man? A healthy society beats a sickly society hands down. Healthcare should not be left to the private sector any more than national defence should be. Both are too important to be left in the hands of people who see profit as the main goal of their enterprise.
We have the money, the brains, and the opportunity. It's not a question of if it's possible, but if we have the guts to do it. The way I see it, the situation is akin to the civil rights movement in the 1960s. We can face off the police dogs, fight for what's right and win a battle that changes society itself, or simply give up and take whatever water fountain is available.
Pardon my endless blathering, but to me there is no more important issue than this.
Papewaio
03-07-2006, 04:15
If we lived in a place that was summer all year 'round and surrounded by beaches we'd probably want to live longer too.
It gets cold in places here. There is even snow in some places.
As far as culture, population, wealth per capita and government systems are concerned Australia is a good comparison for Canada.
Ban all private food manufacturers and distributers! Don't let anyone make such a gross thing as profit off the essentials of life! Make sure everyone gets the same quality food! It's for the children!
You need to read some more Adam Smith.
Crazed Rabbit
Are you okay being in a country of cultural lowlifes?
Vladimir
03-07-2006, 18:51
Ok, my last shot at the tree killer:
Yes I do. :yes:
The system is great, the problem is that it is not being properly run. It's not falling apart - it's simply in need of repair.
Of course there are people with dissenting opnions on health care. Find me one important social issue that everyone agrees on.
Sorry, sounds too much like the Communist apologists: "Communism works; it just wasn’t implemented properly."
Next target:
I really love that type of defense.
Not a defense, just a fact. Too many leftist Cronkite types think everyone without insurance is drug out into the street and left for dead.
Socialized Canadian Healthcare is not failing - it's getting better.
According to a just released report by the Canadian Institute of Health Information, despite increased demand, wait times for tests and surgeries in Canada are staying the same. That means we're doing better - not worse.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=fc52b1da-3370-47f9-b408-f62f17a63a98&k=50879
"For example, the number of heart surgeries rose by 51 per cent between 1998 and 2003, and the number of cataract operations increased 32 per cent over the same period."
Since the for-profit crowd endlessly cite waiting times as the tragic downfall of our socialized system, may we ask if the uninsured rates in the US fell in the same proportion as our productivity rose? If not, then it's a double victory for socialized healthcare.
For-profit hospitals can kiss my Medicare Card. :knight:
Ok, my last shot at the tree killer:
Sorry, sounds too much like the Communist apologists: "Communism works; it just wasn’t implemented properly."
Communism? What, we have to charge a dying person money to stay in the hospital or else we're Marxists? That's a riot. :laugh4:
Not a defense, just a fact. Too many leftist Cronkite types think everyone without insurance is drug out into the street and left for dead.
"Leftist Cronkite types"? Was Walter Canadian too?
Kagemusha
03-07-2006, 19:25
Socialized Canadian Healthcare is not failing - it's getting better.
According to a just released report by the Canadina Institute of Health Information, despite increased demand, wait times for tests and surgeries in Canada are staying the same. That means we're doing better - not worse.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=fc52b1da-3370-47f9-b408-f62f17a63a98&k=50879
"For example, the number of heart surgeries rose by 51 per cent between 1998 and 2003, and the number of cataract operations increased 32 per cent over the same period."
Since the for-profit crowd endlessly cite waiting times as the tragic downfall of our socialized system, may we ask if the uninsured rates in the US fell in the same proportion as our productivity rose? If not, then it's a double victory for socialized healthcare.
For-profit hospitals can kiss my Medicare Card. :knight:
I call that a heymaker.:2thumbsup:
Divinus Arma
03-07-2006, 20:26
ooooh! Fun! I wanna play too!
*claps hands*
*attempts to bite left ear*
*smacks chest with limp right hand*
*drools*
This is a very interesting debate for several reasons:
Conservative Talking Points
- Government is simply less efficient than for-profit industry
- Without competition, government monopolies become unaccountable.
- For-Profit medical industry is responsible for many of the break-throughs in tech, medicine, and treatment that exist today.
- There exists a portion of society who refuse to be insured and expect to recieve free treatment. (ex: A family friend who is wealthy was recently ill and attempted to be treated free of charge in an Emergency room. Once we caught on, he essentially lost all of our friendship and very nearly lost is significant other of 15 years)
Liberal Talking Points:
- The costs of medical care are prohibitively expensive for many people.
- Society as a compelling interest in compassion to care for these people.
Shared View:
- The system as it stands now cannot stand. We must undertake some measure to care for the milliions of illegal immigrants and those others who refuse to pay their fair share.
What to do, what to do. What can we do when we have MILLIONS of people who won't pay in either system- the wretched illegals who slime their way through our coutnry, feeding off of us all like leeches.
Canada provides a health care model for the United States except that Canada does not suffer under the strain of millions of shadow leeches. This makes U.S. needs very unique. Now, just consider if we were to change labor law to increase enforcement of illegal immigration (ya- right, third rail of politics). But just consider if we did... Would then public health care be the answer? Canada is a model for the U.S. - In how NOT to do it.
Perhaps a more limited public health administration, a type of government subsidized insurance company, run by the government but kept more efficient through competition against private industry... Maybe?! The U.S. Post office provides an example of where government has succeeded while competing against private carriers. On the other any state DMV provides the worst-case scenario for treatment. Can you imagine a DMV-like health care system?
Divinus Arma
03-07-2006, 20:36
Are you okay being in a country of cultural lowlifes?
Explain.
Divinus Arma
03-07-2006, 20:48
We can build a country, forge an army, defeat tyranny, smash the atom, feed the world, send objects into space, invent incredible devices of science and technology, enjoy the highest standards of peace, prosperity, democracy, and the rule of law for generations, yet as soon as Joe Citizen gets sick we throw up our arms and say "Sorry, can't do it. Too hard."
You must be refering to western civilization rather than Canada, right?
The last time I checked, America was the breadbasket of the world, stood up the most powerful military force in the history of humanity, was resonsible for victories in both WWI and WWII as well as the economic victory that destroyed the Societ Union, was the first to "smash the atom", the leader in space flight (oooh lookie at what private space flight is doing!), is responsible for the rapid expansion of all those lovely democratic ideals, and has one of the most corruption-free governments on the planet. Hee hee. Sorry a little National Pride. Now if Canada became State #51 they could make this claim too!
But I agree with your medical scenario situation. Problem is- look at all of our wretched humans who refuse to pay into private or public health! Milions and millions!
Vladimir
03-07-2006, 22:58
Communism? What, we have to charge a dying person money to stay in the hospital or else we're Marxists? That's a riot. :laugh4:
"Leftist Cronkite types"? Was Walter Canadian too?
No you're misunderstanding me; I was referring to your reasons for the inadequacies of the Canadian system. And he might as well of been ~;) .
Watchman
03-07-2006, 23:14
But I agree with your medical scenario situation. Problem is- look at all of our wretched humans who refuse to pay into private or public health! Milions and millions!Isn't that what taxes are for ? Not my (or the scenario's) problem if people don't pay those, mind you; if that's the case crappy healthcare is seriously the least of your worries. Just ask the Russians.
Papewaio
03-07-2006, 23:22
You must be refering to western civilization rather than Canada, right?
The last time I checked, America was the breadbasket of the world, stood up the most powerful military force in the history of humanity, was resonsible for victories in both WWI and WWII as well as the economic victory that destroyed the Societ Union, was the first to "smash the atom", the leader in space flight (oooh lookie at what private space flight is doing!), is responsible for the rapid expansion of all those lovely democratic ideals, and has one of the most corruption-free governments on the planet. Hee hee. Sorry a little National Pride. Now if Canada became State #51 they could make this claim too!
But I agree with your medical scenario situation. Problem is- look at all of our wretched humans who refuse to pay into private or public health! Milions and millions!
Tongue in Cheek Factoid check:
Wheat USA has a total export equal to that of Canada and Australia combined... mind you that means only 25% by capita.
Most powerful military force in the history of humanity... are we measuring by weapon stockpile or ability to get the mission done. I'm sure there are other nations in the history of the world that have managed to capture and control nations that are only one tenth there size... there was a nation, Britain? that managed to control multiple countries that were magnitudes larger then itself.
Responsible for victories in WWI and WWII. WWI, hastened the victory... WWII... I believe there were a few other members in the team... after all it was called the Allies not the Singles.
Economic victory that smashed the USSR. Well maybe this is a case for weapon stockpiles being how to complete a mission.
First to "smash the atom" of course all the scientists on the Manhatten project bar Feynman were shock horror immigrants. :dizzy2:
Rapid expansion of democratic ideals... I think the (British) Commonwealth has more democracies then the US has ever created. By george I think I hit that bowl for six. So technically the way that the Queen desolved the Empire into a Commonwealth has done more for democracy... :laugh4:
The leader in space flight... Lets see:
First artificial satellite in space... USSR
First animal in space... USSR
First man in space... USSR
First women in space ... USSR
First man on the moon... USA.
Most tonnage to space... USSR.
Most astronauts/cosmonauts to die on a mission... USA.
Yeap clear leaders in umm, deaths per ton to space. :dizzy2:
Corruption free... of course.
Watchman
03-07-2006, 23:29
Bush and the Band are in bed with the oil industry (at least; I'm pretty sure links to the ever-infamous MIC aren't exactly absent either - wasn't some advisor type sacked a while ago for those ?) and we are to believe the country is "corruption free" ? Nevermind those cutesy little scandals some time ago... whatwasthenamenow... Enron ? I forget. :inquisitive:
You must be refering to western civilization rather than Canada, right?
The last time I checked, America was the breadbasket of the world, stood up the most powerful military force in the history of humanity, was resonsible for victories in both WWI and WWII as well as the economic victory that destroyed the Societ Union, was the first to "smash the atom", the leader in space flight (oooh lookie at what private space flight is doing!), is responsible for the rapid expansion of all those lovely democratic ideals, and has one of the most corruption-free governments on the planet. Hee hee. Sorry a little National Pride. Now if Canada became State #51 they could make this claim too!
Nope, I'm refering to us. We can do all those things. We could have nuclear weapons tomorrow if we wanted to. We know how to build them, we simply don't want to (Cheers to us!). We can grow vastly more food than we can eat. We also produce far, far more energy than we use. (You guys buy most of it.) And just to remind you, though the US deserves great admiration for its sacrifices in the world wars, at least have the historical honesty to admit that we were in the mud fighting years before you joined in.
Both times. ~;)
My point was that Canada is smart enough and rich enough to provide healthcare for its citizens, as is the US, and that only a lack of will power and forward thinking prevents us from doing it.
But I agree with your medical scenario situation. Problem is- look at all of our wretched humans who refuse to pay into private or public health! Milions and millions!
Which "wretched humans" do you speak of?
By the by, did you read my post that showed our system is improving? Did you see it? I can link it if you can't find it.
As an example; average waiting time in Canada to fix a broken hip according to the Canadian Institute for Heath Information...
One day.
Explain.
I'm referring to the writings of Adam Smith.
Divinus Arma
03-08-2006, 01:01
Isn't that what taxes are for ? Not my (or the scenario's) problem if people don't pay those, mind you; if that's the case crappy healthcare is seriously the least of your worries. Just ask the Russians.
Illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes. They receive more benefits than they pay into. Haven't you heard my story about the illegal immigrant who makes $5000 a month tax free and gets an additional $500 per kid in welfare because they are citizens and she claims to be in poverty?
Tongue in Cheek Factoid check:
Wheat USA has a total export equal to that of Canada and Australia combined... mind you that means only 25% by capita.
Australia and Canada combined also have far less people given the area of arable land when compared with the U.S. So this makes your per capita figure irrelevant. What happnes when we double our population and export a reduced amount given our increased need?
Most powerful military force in the history of humanity... are we measuring by weapon stockpile or ability to get the mission done. I'm sure there are other nations in the history of the world that have managed to capture and control nations that are only one tenth there size... there was a nation, Britain? that managed to control multiple countries that were magnitudes larger then itself.
Sure. And consider the way they waged war. Far moe brutal. If they didn't like a population, they just brutalized it. Terrible comparison given the fishbowl nature of modern warfare.
Responsible for victories in WWI and WWII. WWI, hastened the victory... WWII... I believe there were a few other members in the team... after all it was called the Allies not the Singles.
Agreed. It was not single handed. Many brave men throughout the world died for these causes.
Economic victory that smashed the USSR. Well maybe this is a case for weapon stockpiles being how to complete a mission.
Yep. Capitalism destroyed communism by breaking their system.
First to "smash the atom" of course all the scientists on the Manhatten project bar Feynman were shock horror immigrants. :dizzy2:
I have no problem with immigrants. I only have a problem with illegal immigrants. Big difference. This country was founded by immigrants and thrives on the ambition of newly minted Americans. There exists a process for citizenship and illegal immigrants operate outside of this system, robbing others of opportunity and facilitated by both parties.
Rapid expansion of democratic ideals... I think the (British) Commonwealth has more democracies then the US has ever created. By george I think I hit that bowl for six. So technically the way that the Queen desolved the Empire into a Commonwealth has done more for democracy... :laugh4:
A democracy of aristocracy with blood line positions. Real democracy. I'm a better bloke because my daddy had more money. Right.
The leader in space flight... Lets see:
First artificial satellite in space... USSR
First animal in space... USSR
First man in space... USSR
First women in space ... USSR
First man on the moon... USA.
Most tonnage to space... USSR.
Most astronauts/cosmonauts to die on a mission... USA.
Yeap clear leaders in umm, deaths per ton to space. :dizzy2:
True, the USSR bested us in the beginning, but ultimately, the United states dominated Space flight and does so to this very day. First man on the moon? That is a lot bigger than just earth orbit! Further, first successful private manned suborbital flight outside of earth's atmosphere? Erm, Spaceship One. And now, American private space travel will rekindle the sapce program.
[qoute]Corruption free... of course.[/QUOTE]
I never said corruption free. Thanks for the spin. :)
Papewaio
03-08-2006, 01:14
Australia and Canada combined also have far less people given the area of arable land when compared with the U.S. So this makes your per capita figure irrelevant. What happnes when we double our population and export a reduced amount given our increased need?
Actually the USA has far more arable land, the great lakes is one of the largest sources of fresh water in the world. Australia on the other hand has very little arable land due to lack of water, while Canada has plenty of water but most of it frozen... they are going to be a breadbasket due to global warming. :laugh4:
I have no problem with immigrants. I only have a problem with illegal immigrants. Big difference. This country was founded by immigrants and thrives on the ambition of newly minted Americans. There exists a process for citizenship and illegal immigrants operate outside of this system, robbing others of opportunity and facilitated by both parties.
And cheap vegetables/builders/cleaners/housemaids are all legal immigrants?
A democracy of aristocracy with blood line positions. Real democracy. I'm a better bloke because my daddy had more money. Right.
So you do agree with the Canadian positon on healthcare then! That a democracy will make sure all its citizens have access to health care regardless of wealth.
The Australian postion being: That democracy will make sure all its citizens have access to health care regardless of wealth... and if you are rich you can pay for private health, leaving more in the public sector for those who can't afford it.
True, the USSR bested us in the beginning, but ultimately, the United states dominated Space flight and does so to this very day. First man on the moon? That is a lot bigger than just earth orbit! Further, first successful private manned suborbital flight outside of earth's atmosphere? Erm, Spaceship One. And now, American private space travel will rekindle the sapce program.
Totally agree. Having NASA have a monopoly on space travel is like having any form of transport monpolised by government. NASA should set the polices, set rewards for accomplishments, and investigate crashes. They also should do their own flights, but they should not stop private industry from being there... they should foster them instead (at a $ rate of course).
Watchman
03-08-2006, 01:35
Illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes. They receive more benefits than they pay into. Haven't you heard my story about the illegal immigrant who makes $5000 a month tax free and gets an additional $500 per kid in welfare because they are citizens and she claims to be in poverty?Don't care, as that's the sort of stuff racists spout to justify their noxious little hates. "They come and take our jobs/women/tax money/bus seats!!!!!!"
:rtwno:
Lions.
But for that matter, what's a bigger money-loser for the society - the odd "social bums" leeching off the system, or the unscrupulous rich buggers who dodge taxes ? Betcha it's the latter. At least it's around here, and we have one of the most adamantly honest, law-abiding, corruption-free societies in the world.
All the more so as the "social bums" in fact do pay tax - or aren't the goods and services they use their ill-gotten funds on taxed around your place ? That'd be quite odd, I must say.
I don't think this should become a US bashing thread. I, for one, am a great fan of the USA. :unitedstates: :2thumbsup:
But it is exactly because the US is so rich, so smart, and so capable that its stand on for-profit medicine is seen in such contrast to it's fundamental and constitutional beliefs of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Note that the first word is life.)
If the US fought sickness with the same energy as it fights wars, I do not doubt for a moment that society would be changed on a global scale.
For now, however, I'm more than happy to keep up the fight here in the North and spread the gospel of socialized medicine. Amen.
solypsist
03-08-2006, 01:49
i have never had a problem with adequate healthcare when in a country with socialized healthcare.
Oh, Div Arma, (he asks again) did you see my post that linked to a study showing that socialized medicine in Canada is getting better - not worse.
Did you see the part that showed the average wait time to fix a fractured hip was one day.
The report also says that cardiac surgery wait times are measured in days and weeks. Not months and years.
Cataract surgery wait times average one month.
Obviously we have much to fix, but where in the above do you see a failure of socialized medicine? I think we have an excellent base to build upon. To scrap this and turn the lot over to private insurance companies interested first and foremost in the profit margin would be tantamount to treason.
Might as well install debit machines in police cars and answer calls only on a per-pay basis.
:bobby2: "Yes mam, I understand there's man with a knife trying to rape you, but could you repeat the expiry date of your Visa please? I couldn't make it out with all the screaming on your end of the phone."
It's exactly the same thing.
Divinus Arma
03-08-2006, 02:53
okay, okay. Wow. Too much good stuff, can't respond all at once.
First of all, let me say that If I were not an American, I'd probably be an Australian, Canadian, Brit, Ire...uhm...lan...er? *cough*, or move to Japan. heh. I have great respect especially for Canada and Australia. These two great countries share many cultural values with the States. :2thumbsup:
It's my fault for steering this into a nationalist debate, and I'll stop it on my end. We should all be proud of our achievments as a community of western capitalist democracies.
That said, on topic:
Bush and the Band are in bed with the oil industry (at least; I'm pretty sure links to the ever-infamous MIC aren't exactly absent either - wasn't some advisor type sacked a while ago for those ?) and we are to believe the country is "corruption free" ? Nevermind those cutesy little scandals some time ago... whatwasthenamenow... Enron ? I forget.
I never said the US was "corruption free". But as a nation we suffer very little corruption in government. I would support full and total impeachment and imprisonment of the current administration if REAL proof came to light that indicated the President committed a crime. Look at "Duke" cunnigham. Almost 9 years. Good. I hope he dies in prison, the SOB.
Watchman, As for Enron, arthur anderson, et al, these are private corporations. As you can see, the executives have been paying a hefty toll. Do not confuse unethical behavior by private business with ethics in public administration. Two different entities, my friend.
Which "wretched humans" do you speak of?
Illegal immigrants, mostly.
By the by, did you read my post that showed our system is improving? Did you see it? I can link it if you can't find it.
Yes. And I hope it is a stellar success one day. I hope that Canada becomes the model for government efficieny in Health Care and shows that the system really can work. Until that day...
And cheap vegetables/builders/cleaners/housemaids are all legal immigrants?
Did I say that? No. But you did. And you are mostly correct these days. You have absolutley no idea how bad this problem is. No clue. None.
But that is another topic entirely. Fair enough?
So you do agree with the Canadian positon on healthcare then! That a democracy will make sure all its citizens have access to health care regardless of wealth.
This is where illegal immigration does come into play here. I don't want to argue immigration policy, but let's look at the realtionship between illegal immigration and nationalizeed health care.
(1) Illegal immigrants will get care.
(2) Illegal immigrants do not now, nor will they later, pay for their care.
(3) The united states takes on 500,000 new illegal immigrants per year (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/918e2a54-ae13-11da-8ffb-0000779e2340.html).
(4) See the problem?
I agree that the system is flawed and that some action must be taken to care for tax-paying citizens, even the poor who refuse to educate themselves and yet multiply exponentially by the litter. My suggestion is a government subsidized insurance program. It will pay for care to those who pay into the system beyond just free emergency room care, while encouraging good old competition throughout the private industry.
Totally agree. Having NASA have a monopoly on space travel is like having any form of transport monpolised by government. NASA should set the polices, set rewards for accomplishments, and investigate crashes. They also should do their own flights, but they should not stop private industry from being there... they should foster them instead (at a $ rate of course).
That stuff is just fun, isn't it?:2thumbsup:
Don't care, as that's the sort of stuff racists spout to justify their noxious little hates. "They come and take our jobs/women/tax money/bus seats!!!!!!"
That is so totally unfair that it is just wrong, Watchman.
(1) I don't care WHAT ethnicity races across our border. I care that they are undeucated, poverty stricken, and refuse to assimilate; all the while feeding off of American benefits poured on them by greedy business owners and disgusting politicians.
(2) You have NO idea what you speak of. Nothing. Sorry. Your input is meaningless because you do not live and breathe this infection. And that is eaxactly what it is. An infection. A disease. And it is destroying us from within.
But for that matter, what's a bigger money-loser for the society - the odd "social bums" leeching off the system, or the unscrupulous rich buggers who dodge taxes ? Betcha it's the latter. At least it's around here, and we have one of the most adamantly honest, law-abiding, corruption-free societies in the world.
I hate 'em both. But unfortunately we have a boatload more of the illegal immigrant free loaders than the rich tax dodgers. Oh, don't get me wrong, we have them too. But not upwards of 12 million people.
All the more so as the "social bums" in fact do pay tax - or aren't the goods and services they use their ill-gotten funds on taxed around your place ? That'd be quite odd, I must say.
Sure. Sales tax. I won't argue with you there. But that fact is that they get more than there money back in benefits than anywhere near what they pay in. I'm sure you heard my true horror story about the illegal immigrant barber RIGHT? The united states derives its primary source of government funding via income taxes. Something that illegal immigrants do not pay, meanwhile raping us of welfare money for their anchor babies.
Deport the parents. They have no right to be here. As for the kids, they have dual citizenship. So they can stay in foster care or go with mommy and daddy back to el mexico.
Oh, Div Arma, (he asks again) did you see my post that linked to a study showing that socialized medicine in Canada is getting better - not worse.
I wish Canada the best with that. Hope it works out for ya.
"Yes mam, I understand there's man with a knife trying to rape you, but could you repeat the expiry date of your Visa please? I couldn't make it out with all the screaming on your end of the phone."
It's exactly the same thing.
Eh. No comment. All those gangbangers should be forced to pay society back for the money spent in police and jail services. I have NO problem with indentured servitutude in order to repay society for your ills.
Yay! That was fun. :2thumbsup: :balloon2:
DA, in Canada, you will be refused treatment (in non-emergency cases) if you do not present your Health Card. Is there such an ID in the USA?
This is true, you have to pay if you do not have your card.
About ten years ago it was $17 to see the doctor and get a prescription. About five years ago it was $20. Now it's about $25 I think.
X-rays will cost about $25 to $35.
When I had pneumonia a few years back, and hadn't renewed my card, the whole kit and kaboodle, initial diagnosis, X-rays, medicine, follow up visit and final X-ray was about $200.
However, about six years ago when I was admitted to emergency with a whopper of an asthma attack and serious chest pains (and no Medicare card), I got the doctor, blood analysis, EKG, tread mill stress test, the whole nine yards for a handshake. I was in the doctor's office in sixty seconds I kid you not.
Outright refusals are rare. Usually there is something that can be worked out. Also, you are given a form that will allow you to recuperate 100% of the costs as soon as you do get your card as long as it's within a year of the hospital visit.
Divinus Arma
03-08-2006, 06:06
DA, in Canada, you will be refused treatment (in non-emergency cases) if you do not present your Health Card. Is there such an ID in the USA?
If somebody goes into an emergency room and says they have a runny nose, they will be treated. They will wait for 8 hours, but they will be treated.
And a doctors visit, xrays, and prescrption can cost nearly a grand or more... easy. But then the illegal just throw the bill away.
I know. I was broke once. And I got treated at an emergency room as an adult when I barely made enough to eat. I have no idea what the bill even was. I just filled out a piece of paper that was mailed to me where I basically said I am a poverty-stricken dude and the whole thing ended up being free.
And that is the problem. Because that cost gets rolled over onto the decent folks who pay into the insurance system.
Like I said, I think a govt-subsidized insurance program would not be a horrible idea. It should be required to have at least that, but you should not have to pay into it if you have private insurance.
The biggest problem is these damn illegals. They ruin the chances of even that being successful because they will continue to send their 7 children to the emergency rooms for checkups.
Ironside
03-08-2006, 09:11
Watchman, As for Enron, arthur anderson, et al, these are private corporations. As you can see, the executives have been paying a hefty toll. Do not confuse unethical behavior by private business with ethics in public administration. Two different entities, my friend.
Only a minor note.
Considering that Enron did cost US taxpayers a trillion (american trillion) dollars in the end, I'm not so sure if you can simply put it away as private business as every American felt it, badly.
Needs a "general corruption" category.
Watchman
03-08-2006, 10:39
The biggest problem is these damn illegals. They ruin the chances of even that being successful because they will continue to send their 7 children to the emergency rooms for checkups.Right. Illegal immigrants will be the downfall of your civilization. Sure thing massa. Mesa believe you.
You know, around here certain types of people like to blame about everything on foreigners too, with lines of reasoning oddly similar to yours.
I detest them greatly.
Incidentally, some of what you've been saying meshes rather well with the suspicion I've had for a while about the US society being a borderline "social trap" scenario. That's a political science theory of a sort of vicious self-perpetuating cycle where systems based on cooperation fail out of the sheer inability of the participants to trust in each other to "play fair"; for example, in a badly corrupt state the populace won't want to pay taxes because they know most everyone else won't even if they as individuals do, the corrupt officials will pocket most of it anyway, and whatever reaches the state coffers isn't going to be of much benefit for the taxpayers; and the officials are corrupt almost by necessity because there's little point in being the only honest guy in a rotten rigged game - "who wants to be the sucker ?"
Sound familiar ?
As an example of how that works in practice, the Swedish state receives some 97% of the tax revenues it's due. The Russian state receives and estimate of 40%. Guess which one has about squeaky clean corruption record and virtually unbribable officials ?
Papewaio
03-09-2006, 03:13
Well I've just been to the dentist to have a tooth that was split in half repaired.
So lets play: How much did it cost?
Proletariat
03-09-2006, 03:14
Six hundred dollaree-doos?
If somebody goes into an emergency room and says they have a runny nose, they will be treated. They will wait for 8 hours, but they will be treated.
And a doctors visit, xrays, and prescrption can cost nearly a grand or more... easy. But then the illegal just throw the bill away.
I know. I was broke once. And I got treated at an emergency room as an adult when I barely made enough to eat. I have no idea what the bill even was. I just filled out a piece of paper that was mailed to me where I basically said I am a poverty-stricken dude and the whole thing ended up being free.
And that is the problem. Because that cost gets rolled over onto the decent folks who pay into the insurance system.
Like I said, I think a govt-subsidized insurance program would not be a horrible idea. It should be required to have at least that, but you should not have to pay into it if you have private insurance.
The biggest problem is these damn illegals. They ruin the chances of even that being successful because they will continue to send their 7 children to the emergency rooms for checkups.
You missed my point, mang.
Papewaio
03-10-2006, 04:12
Anymore guesses?
Probably $600 Auzzie bucks. But since you more than likely have some kind of health plan not that much. Depending on what kind of plan you have.
Well I've just been to the dentist to have a tooth that was split in half repaired.
So lets play: How much did it cost?
Lets see - last dental emergancy anyone in my family had was a chipped tooth and that only cost us $185 dollars.
So a split tooth would be significantly more in the United States.
So in your neck of the world - I would think it cost a very minimum amount, depending if you went to private care off of insurance.
Papewaio
03-10-2006, 06:15
$180 Australian. for repairing a tooth that was split in half and was borderline being a root canal job... just by the skin of my teeth not being so. :laugh4:
And $81 back from private health care... it would have been more if the dentist was a preferred choice of the fund.
so $99 for repairing the tooth. ~:)
Or $72 US / $84 Canadian or 42 Pounds.
Mine was free. ~:)
Damn those socialists!
rory_20_uk
03-10-2006, 12:39
You're a student. Wait until you stop being one, then the pain of the dentist is hardly over when he stops in your mouth. That's if you can get an NHS dentist of course...
Personally I'd not trust them as far as I can throw them. One "senior" one in hospital wrote a patient up for 8g paracetamol per day... twice the reccommended limit. Pah, failed doctors the lot of them... ~;)
~:smoking:
Papewaio
03-14-2006, 23:58
Mine was free. ~:)
Damn those socialists!
Students always get discounts... do you get paid to go to Uni... a lot of Aussies do...
The Black Ship
03-15-2006, 15:51
Right. Illegal immigrants will be the downfall of your civilization. Sure thing massa. Mesa believe you.
You have no right to take that tone. Calling someone a slave-holder, or suggesting that they behave as if a slave-holder cannot be passed off as "joking".
Right. Illegal immigrants will be the downfall of your civilization. Sure thing massa. Mesa believe you.It was the downfall of the Roman empire wasnt it?~;p
It was the downfall of the Roman empire wasnt it?~;p
...no.
Sorry, had to dredge this up.
Just read today that prior to Canada moving to socialized healthcare in 1968, nearly 1/3 of the population was uninsured and the #1 cause of bankruptcy was health costs due to catastrophic illness.
The article also said that healthcare costs due to catastrophic illness are the #2 cause of bankruptcy in the US today.
One quick article I found.
http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/blog/canadian-and-us-bankruptcy-rates
Anyone have any figures of how much those bankruptcies cost the US?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.