debate on universal access to health care

deronmoped said:
Canadian health care is no model.

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

Deron.

They're finding a mixed model is probably best and that's what I was suggesting was possible - it's like pure capitalism, in the way that public and private sectors can both compete with each other, except one isn't as susceptible to profit-maximizing monopolization and so it's "real competition" in a sense - competition of all possible competitors instead of just profit-maximizing ones. Consumers will vote for which systems serve each individual best with their feet, and each consumer would have their own choice.
 
swbluto said:
deronmoped said:
Canadian health care is no model.

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

Deron.

They're finding a mixed model is probably best and that's what I was suggesting was possible - it's like pure capitalism, in the way that public and private sectors can both compete with each other, except one isn't as susceptible to profit-maximizing monopolization and so it's "real competition" in a sense - competition of all possible competitors instead of just profit-maximizing ones. Consumers will vote for which systems serve each individual best with their feet, and each consumer would have their own choice.

The only system that works is where the consumer of the goods controls how their dollars are spent on it. It's really that simple, the farther you insulate the consumer from their dollars the less control the consumer has over the product.

To expect someone else to do a better job of making ones purchases is not reality.

Here are two different systems.

1) You go out make some health care money and buy health care with that money directly from the doctor.

2) You go out make some health care money, the government takes that money, they hire a bunch of people to collect the money, hire people to bank the money, hire people to distribute the money, hire people to make decisions about everyone's health care, hire people to combat fraud from all the corruption, hire people for oversight, hire people to do studies, hire people to hire people...

It becomes what it is like in my City, pretty soon most of the money is eaten up by salaries, benefits, pensions, studies, corruption...

I mean, what would you expect, you just gave the decision on how your hard earned money is going to be spent by someone who could care less about you.

"Lets see, increase my salary, increase my retirement, increase my benefit package, more days off, build my staff, build fancy new office, new car, unlimited gas allowance, junkets... or I could help "Joe Schmo" with his chronic constipation".

Deron.
 
deron
well said!
reminds me of the lottery. people dream they will HIT IT BIG.
Like Bob, dreaming his cheap boss or the state is somehow going to look after him! What a pipe dream.
Decades ago I had an injury, could not work for a while and applied for benefits. I paid into the system, so, i should get the $$$ when i needed it, right?
They turned me down! I was only after $150 in total! So, what did i do? I said NEVER AGAIN and i dropped out of the system. Stock trading is exempt from payroll tax! What a joke! They never got another cent.
 
Matt Gruber said:
deron
well said!
reminds me of the lottery. people dream they will HIT IT BIG.
Like Bob, dreaming his cheap boss or the state is somehow going to look after him! What a pipe dream.
Decades ago I had an injury, could not work for a while and applied for benefits. I paid into the system, so, i should get the $$$ when i needed it, right?
They turned me down! I was only after $150 in total! So, what did i do? I said NEVER AGAIN and i dropped out of the system. Stock trading is exempt from payroll tax! What a joke! They never got another cent.

You do have to report income though, right? You are just saying as long as the stocks are not turned into income to you, you do not have to report it? Otherwise I missed the boat.

What is the old saying, "If it is too good to be true, then it probably isn't true". People want to believe that there is some shortcut to whatever, but it is just not going to happen. If you want something, you are going to have to work for it. If you want the very best of something, guess what, you are going to have to work extra hard and earn it, no one is going to give it to you.

Deron.
 
More news from the Nirvana of Canada's medical system.

Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.

“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”

The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only.

“It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo.

Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor

Deron.
 
Deron
Social Security/Disability is covered by a payroll tax.
Stock trading is subject to a capital gains tax only- no payroll tax. I Paid 100% of the taxes due, but not a cent for SS/Disability since the 80's. Why pay in if they had the nerve to deny my claim? It is all perfectly legal. Fool me once, shame on them! Twice? Not a chance.
In fact, the IRS has some complicated rules, if i can convince them my trading is a full time job, only then will they take more of my money, for SS/D.
Recently, I got a letter from SS saying I DO NOT QUALIFY FOR DISABILITY. Well, Duh, i didn't pay in and don't expect, nor can i get, 1 cent ever. No lottery ticket for me.
 
deronmoped said:
Canadian health care is no model.

Deron.

Maybe no model but with #8 life expectancy at birth (#7 for Australia, also with a mixed public/private health system) they are delivering tangible results.
I suspect they are doing better than, for example, Albania, or other nations that far down the "life expectancy at birth" chart.

source: CIA The World Factbook -- Country Comparison :: Life expectancy ..
 
zog said:
deronmoped said:
Canadian health care is no model.

Deron.

Maybe no model but with #8 life expectancy at birth (#7 for Australia, also with a mixed public/private health system) they are delivering tangible results.
I suspect they are doing better than, for example, Albania, or other nations that far down the "life expectancy at birth" chart.

source: CIA The World Factbook -- Country Comparison :: Life expectancy ..


Ah, that is just a bunch of statistics.

When you start to try and point out why something is such and such you have to include all the factors. The predominant race of the country being probably the biggest one, education being another big one. Then you have to include what your life expectancy is when you have reached other ages other then birth.

Really all that maters is, what "your" life expectancy is. You could live in a sh!thole of a country and still outlive someone in a country with the best health care in the world if you took better care of yourself then the other person. I mean look at the people here in the US, with prosperity comes over indulgence, what percentage of the people have "self-inflected" medical problems. Fat, drinking, drugs, no exercise...

Deron.
 
Matt Gruber said:
deron
well said!
reminds me of the lottery. people dream they will HIT IT BIG.
Like Bob, dreaming his cheap boss or the state is somehow going to look after him! What a pipe dream.
Decades ago I had an injury, could not work for a while and applied for benefits. I paid into the system, so, i should get the $$$ when i needed it, right?
They turned me down! I was only after $150 in total! So, what did i do? I said NEVER AGAIN and i dropped out of the system. Stock trading is exempt from payroll tax! What a joke! They never got another cent.

No. It has nothing to do with wanting a free ride. I am relatively well-off and already have excellent insurance coverage. My parents are also relatively well off and are able to afford the $900 per month they are currently paying for private insurance. My family supports reform because we recognize that we are the lucky ones. There are a lot of other people out there who are above 50 years old but not yet eligible for Medicare, and who can't afford $900 per month for two people. I believe it would benefit me and my family if all 55 year old people would have the same access to health care as someone on Medicare.

NOBODY wins when someone goes into bankruptcy. The whole economy just has to write it off and absorb the loss, and it raises prices everywhere. Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. I would rather just pay these people's medical expenses, and have them continue to be positive contributors to the economy, than trip over them as they lay untreated in the gutter.

It's a matter of philosophy. Some people would like to live in a world of ultra-wealthy sultans surrounded by a sea of poverty and disease. If that's the world you want, then keep voting the way you have been. You can pretend that means everyone gets a free ride all the way, but that's not what I'm saying, and that's not what I've been saying. Everyone should get a basic level of care whether they can afford it or not. It's just basic humanity and compassion. Just enough to keep them capable of getting on their feet and paying their own way.

Sure, some of them will not stay on their feet. But they should be given the opportunity to do so, even if it means I won't be able to afford that Tesla Roadster I've had my eyes on. I'm OK with that.
 
I'm for reform too! If there must be a pool,
Just put us in charge of managing payments for our needs.
Subject to clear guidelines as to what is covered or not.
.
I agree bankruptcy laws need to delay medical forclosure until the house is sold by the owner, or he dies. Don't kick bob out on the street! He is a good guy and will pay the bill.
 
Ah, that is just a bunch of statistics.

And the article you quote "represents ideas only."

So, facts (statistics) vs assertions (your nonsense); which has more credibility here?

This congressman might be on to something here:

[youtube]nYlZiWK2Iy8[/youtube]
 
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Leaves Joe Scarborough Speechless:

[youtube]toXQGSqIWP8[/youtube]
 
julesa said:
Matt Gruber said:
deron
well said!
reminds me of the lottery. people dream they will HIT IT BIG.
Like Bob, dreaming his cheap boss or the state is somehow going to look after him! What a pipe dream.
Decades ago I had an injury, could not work for a while and applied for benefits. I paid into the system, so, i should get the $$$ when i needed it, right?
They turned me down! I was only after $150 in total! So, what did i do? I said NEVER AGAIN and i dropped out of the system. Stock trading is exempt from payroll tax! What a joke! They never got another cent.

No. It has nothing to do with wanting a free ride. I am relatively well-off and already have excellent insurance coverage. My parents are also relatively well off and are able to afford the $900 per month they are currently paying for private insurance. My family supports reform because we recognize that we are the lucky ones. There are a lot of other people out there who are above 50 years old but not yet eligible for Medicare, and who can't afford $900 per month for two people. I believe it would benefit me and my family if all 55 year old people would have the same access to health care as someone on Medicare.

NOBODY wins when someone goes into bankruptcy. The whole economy just has to write it off and absorb the loss, and it raises prices everywhere. Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. I would rather just pay these people's medical expenses, and have them continue to be positive contributors to the economy, than trip over them as they lay untreated in the gutter.

It's a matter of philosophy. Some people would like to live in a world of ultra-wealthy sultans surrounded by a sea of poverty and disease. If that's the world you want, then keep voting the way you have been. You can pretend that means everyone gets a free ride all the way, but that's not what I'm saying, and that's not what I've been saying. Everyone should get a basic level of care whether they can afford it or not. It's just basic humanity and compassion. Just enough to keep them capable of getting on their feet and paying their own way.

Sure, some of them will not stay on their feet. But they should be given the opportunity to do so, even if it means I won't be able to afford that Tesla Roadster I've had my eyes on. I'm OK with that.

So everyone should be guaranteed a house.

So everyone should be guaranteed a job.

So everyone should be guaranteed a car.

So everyone should be guaranteed a education.

So everyone should be guaranteed marriage counseling.

So everyone should be guaranteed a shrink.

Would you not feel better if you took care of these needs too? Some of them are just as or more important then medical care. You would not want your depressed neighbor to off himself because he did not have the very best shrink money could buy. What about marriage counseling, it is extremely important for people to have successful marriages and raise kids that will not be out on the street killing people.

People should have a nice clean house they can walk right into, we can not have people living on the streets or living in some rat infested dump. That needs to be one of the first fundamental rights.

Look at all the unemployed people, just think if they had guaranteed jobs, no unemployment. How heartless can the American people be, not providing jobs for everyone. It probably would not cost you all that much in extra taxes to put people to work, even if it was just a job digging a hole then filling it back in.

No need to worry, like health care, with this "Magic Government Wand" I will fix everything.

Deron.
 
Yes, Deron, you are correct.

Although we are clamoring for a more efficient and equitable health care system, one that provides stability to families whose breadwinners who are laid off; we are arguing for guaranteed material wealth for the lazy and shiftless.

Please, no smoking in this thread. The glibertarians have filled it with straw.
 
LOL :lol: There's no point in arguing with Deron.

wharrgarbl.jpg


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wharrgarbl
 
Awe, you guys are just sore because Socialism will never work, no matter how much lipstick they put on this pig. :D

Deron.
 
bobmcree said:
i just believe that food, shelter, and access to adequate health care are basic human rights.
I believe that anything beyond the cost of individual rights is slavery, and slavery is always wrong.
Our system has gone too far in the capitalist direction, by which i mean that our democracy is really an oligarchy, and the ruling class are the people with enough money and power to get their way, including the outright sale of congressional votes to the highest bidder.
I agree, but shouldn't we focus on getting back a representative republic based on limited government instead of playing the same game as the power brokers? Might it be that the problem with health care is all the market distortion caused by government interference and that more of the same will make it worse? More government involvement won't make favoratism somehow diminish.

The status quo is not the answer, but neither is any solution that involves more government interference. The best solution is the least government involvement.
 
gogo said:
bobmcree said:
i just believe that food, shelter, and access to adequate health care are basic human rights.
I believe that anything beyond the cost of individual rights is slavery, and slavery is always wrong.
Our system has gone too far in the capitalist direction, by which i mean that our democracy is really an oligarchy, and the ruling class are the people with enough money and power to get their way, including the outright sale of congressional votes to the highest bidder.
I agree, but shouldn't we focus on getting back a representative republic based on limited government instead of playing the same game as the power brokers? Might it be that the problem with health care is all the market distortion caused by government interference and that more of the same will make it worse? More government involvement won't make favoratism somehow diminish.

The status quo is not the answer, but neither is any solution that involves more government interference. The best solution is the least government involvement.

I don't have much faith in the religion of Universal Market Efficiency. Sure, where free markets work, there is nothing better. They don't work well in health care because of the information imbalances inherent to health care (do you know what you need as well as your doctor does?). And if you think a free market can work well without government, go to Africa for a while. Or buy an economics 101 book.

"Best solution" by what measure? There are countries in Africa with zero government involvement in health care...

We have less government involvement than any other western industrialized nation. Is our system more economically efficient than any of those other countries? No. Are we healthier than any of those other countries? No. We pay more than twice as much as they do, and get worse care than many of them. Every other western industrialized nation IN THE WORLD has been kicking our ass at providing efficient health care for decades, and they've been doing it with more government involvement, not less.
 
So more news about Canada's awesome health care system the proponents like to point to as a model we should strive for.

"Three Windsor-area hospitals have arrangements with Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, to provide backup, after-hours angioplasty. Authorities will clear Detroit-Windsor Tunnel traffic for ambulances, if necessary. The Detroit Medical Center also provides Canadians complex trauma, cancer, neonatal and other care."

Cool, I'm all for a system like that, the US can do the same and just send all our patients to Mexico. :lol:

Deron.
 
julesa said:
I don't have much faith in the religion of Universal Market Efficiency. Sure, where free markets work, there is nothing better.
Free markets work when government doesn't distort them.
They don't work well in health care because of the information imbalances inherent to health care (do you know what you need as well as your doctor does?).
So when my doctor tells me I need X, I shouldn't get a second opinion or shop for the X?
And if you think a free market can work well without government, go to Africa for a while.
Or buy an economics 101 book. The Keynsian collectivist trash taught in 101 class is part of the problem.

"Best solution" by what measure? There are countries in Africa with zero government involvement in health care...
Africa is a good example of how bad things can get when governments interefere. Those governments have screwed things up so badly on a fundamental level that they don't have any free markets.

We have less government involvement than any other western industrialized nation.
Half of our health care is directly administered by the government, the other half is distorted by regulation and tax codes.
Is our system more economically efficient than any of those other countries? No. Due to government involvment.
Are we healthier than any of those other countries? No. Cheeseburgers, etc.
We pay more than twice as much as they do, and get worse care than many of them. Twice as much due to government interference. Worse care? BS
Every other western industrialized nation IN THE WORLD has been kicking our ass at providing efficient health care for decades, and they've been doing it with more government involvement, not less. Really now, I haven't heard anyone claim the care is better, only cheaper. That cheapness and the long term effects of government involvement on innovation need to be factored.
 
gogo said:
We pay more than twice as much as they do, and get worse care than many of them. Twice as much due to government interference. Worse care? BS
Every other western industrialized nation IN THE WORLD has been kicking our ass at providing efficient health care for decades, and they've been doing it with more government involvement, not less. Really now, I haven't heard anyone claim the care is better, only cheaper. That cheapness and the long term effects of government involvement on innovation need to be factored.

On what basis do you claim government interference is what's doubling the cost of US healthcare? Do you have any data that backs up your opinion?

Do you really think US health care is as good as or better than any other nation? LOL you have some reading to do:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf
The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than rates in most other developed countries. The relative
position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates,
appears to be worsening. In 2004, the United States ranked 29th in the world in infant mortal-
ity, tied with Poland and Slovakia. Previously, the United States’ international ranking in infant
mortality was 12th in 1960 and 23d in 1990.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/337/jul21_1/a889
The United States ranked last across a range of measures of health care in a comparison of 19 industrialised countries, despite spending more than twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries, says a report published last week.

The report shows improvements in some areas since the previous rating two years ago but found that other countries had improved more quickly. It analysed 37 measures, including access to care, quality of care, and health outcomes.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html
The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.

In terms of efficiently making health care available to its citizens, every other industrialized western nation has been
KICKING OUR ASS for twenty years now.
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/21/opinion/main5257556.shtml

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html
 
From the CBS news opinion piece quoted above:
The "death panel" phrase was shorthand, of course, but it neatly captured the core of the problem

This guy doesn't exactly sound well-informed to me. I believe the reasoning goes something like this: It's OK for insurance companies to ration care and rule out potentially life-saving procedures if the costs are too high, but if the government does the same thing, it's eeeeeeevil. And government agencies can't possibly be more efficient than private enterprise. Right?

'Course Medicare's overhead is about a 4%, which is probably better than any insurance company, but who needs actual facts when we have the unquestionable gospels of Universal Market Efficiency and Universal Government Incompetence.
 
Back
Top