Canadian doctor condemns public healthcare

Ace-Of-War

CAGiversary!
File this one under "duh"

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/21/private-healthcare060321.html

[quote name='CBC News, 03/21/06']
Introduce more private medicine, says doctor who challenged Quebec ban

Last Updated Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:55:21 EST CBC News
The doctor who took the Quebec government to the Supreme Court of Canada, causing it to change its policy on wait times and private health insurance, wants to see more privatization.
In his Supreme Court case, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli argued "patients will continue to suffer and die" because of waiting lists.
chaoulli_jacques060216.jpg
[FONT=verdana,arial]Dr. Jacques Chaoulli. (file photo)[/FONT]
Last year, the high court ruled in response that some wait times for medical procedures in the province were unconstitutional. In February, Quebec Premier Jean Charest announced guaranteed wait times for cataract surgery and hip and knee replacements and changes to make it legal for Quebecers to buy private insurance for those three medical services. On Tuesday, Chaoulli called the move a good first step, while urging the Quebec government to go further with privatization.
"I would like that Quebecers have the best value for the public money they spend," Chaoulli said.
He said the best way would be to allow more private medicine, including:
  • Allowing doctors to work in both the public and private systems, such as at a public hospital and a private clinic, rather than one or the other.
  • Privatizing medical schools and hospitals.
  • Loosening legal restrictions that limit private insurance.
The ideas were outlined in a 40-page document Chaoulli submitted to a provincial government commission looking into health reforms.[/quote]
 
Ummm....... he wants more private hospitals. He doesn't denounce the public healthcare system, he wants reforms to make canada more like the rest of the developed world. Canada is one of the only countries of wealth without a significant private hospital system. Most have both public and private ones.

Though canada does have some private hospitals. Though they aren't exactly taking care of themselves and require substantial federal funding to stay afloat.

Nowhere does he mention anything about universal public health care, he doesn't even denounce public hospitals. Your title is incorrect, and the assumptions you appear to be making are also incorrect, assuming you believe he's denouncing universal healthcare.

Besides, you can dig up an example of anything. Now if you have a large amount of canadian doctors (hell, get even a few) advocating a u.s. style health care system, which is much more than simply loosening restrictions on private healthcare, then you may have some evidence for your point.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Now if you have a large amount of canadian doctors (hell, get even a few) advocating a u.s. style health care system, which is much more than simply loosening restrictions on private healthcare, then you may have some evidence for your point.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a few: there's quite a few branches of medicine that could and would make a LOT more money under a fully private health-care system. If you don't care about letting poor people live in pain and misery and/or die and only care about profit potential, then its pretty clear that a private health-care system is the best option.

Of course, if you actually want what's best for society as a whole, then a fully-public healthcare system is a major 'duh'. Canadians recieve MUCH better healthcare depsite spending roughly half of what America does, per patient. Citizens are also much happier with their healthcare system that Americans are.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though canada does have some private hospitals. Though they aren't exactly taking care of themselves and require substantial federal funding to stay afloat.[/QUOTE]

So, just to finish the analogy, this would be like the United States airline industry. Can you say "welfare queens"?

I can.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ummm....... he wants more private hospitals. He doesn't denounce the public healthcare system, he wants reforms to make canada more like the rest of the developed world. Canada is one of the only countries of wealth without a significant private hospital system. Most have both public and private ones.

Though canada does have some private hospitals. Though they aren't exactly taking care of themselves and require substantial federal funding to stay afloat.

Nowhere does he mention anything about universal public health care, he doesn't even denounce public hospitals. Your title is incorrect, and the assumptions you appear to be making are also incorrect, assuming you believe he's denouncing universal healthcare.

Besides, you can dig up an example of anything. Now if you have a large amount of canadian doctors (hell, get even a few) advocating a u.s. style health care system, which is much more than simply loosening restrictions on private healthcare, then you may have some evidence for your point.[/quote]
[quote name='CBC']Jacques Chaoulli, the physician who challenged Quebec's monopoly on health insurance, expressed dissatisfaction with the limitations on private care, saying "patients will continue to suffer and die" because of waiting lists.[/quote]
That's basically what I'm pointing at, and he's exactly right to make such an attack on the system. The article itself talks about people waiting over nine months for serious surgery, but don't take my word for it. According to AP writer Beth Duff-Brown, "A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The Yahoo article has since been taken off, but you're more than welcome to look up the entire thing where it's posted on the internet:

Canadians Face Long Waits for Health Care

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto..._wait_your_turn
By BETH DUFF-BROWN, Associated Press Writer

TORONTO - A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart
patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in
three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated
letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to
The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians
who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter
are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care
.


Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed
at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or
poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut
staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she
would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee
ligament
.


"It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid
for the car, but you can't have it right now," said Jane Pelton. Rather than
leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to
pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with
no help from the government.


"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's
just not there,
" said Pelton.


The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes
each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province
to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of
every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation.


The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax
reform and private enterprise in health care.



It calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of
its budget on health care by 2035. "We can't afford a state monopoly on
health care anymore," says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the
federation. "We have to examine private alternatives as well."


The federal government and virtually every province acknowledge there's a
crisis: a lack of physicians and nurses, state-of-the-art equipment and
funding. In Ontario, more than 10,000 nurses and hospital workers are facing
layoffs over the next two years unless the provincial government boosts
funding, says the Ontario Hospital Association, which represents health care
providers in the province.


In 1984 Parliament passed the Canada Health Act, which affirmed the federal
government's commitment to provide mostly free health care to all, including
the 200,000 immigrants arriving each year. The system is called Medicare (no
relation to Medicare in the United States).


Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare as a marker of
egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from
the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health insurance.


Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of Toronto,
believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest.


"Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they will get
care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't understand how
they got to this worship of markets, to the extent that they're perfectly
happy that some people don't get the health care that they need."


Canada does not have fully nationalized health care; its doctors are in
private practice and send their bills to the government for reimbursement.


"That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going to pay the bill,"
said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's absolutely
nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone."


Deber acknowledges problems in the system, but believes most Canadians get
the care they need. She said the federal government should attach more
strings to its annual lump-sum allocations to the provinces so that tax
dollars are better spent on preventive care and improvements in working
conditions for health-care professionals.


In Alberta, a conservative province where pressure for private clinics and
insurance is strong, a nonprofit organization called Friends of Medicare has
sprung to the system's defense. It points up the inequities in U.S. health
care and calls the Canada's "the most moral and the most cost-effective
health care system there is in the world." "Is your sick grandchild more
deserving of help than your neighbor's grandchild?" It asks.





Yes, says Dr. Brian Day, if that grandchild needs urgent care and can't get
it at a government-funded hospital.

Day, an English-born arthroscopic surgeon, founded Cambie Surgery Center in
Vancouver, British Columbia - another province where private surgeries are
making inroads. He is also former president of the Arthroscopy Association
of North America in Orlando, Fla.

He says he got so frustrated at the long delays to book surgeries at the
public hospitals in Vancouver that he built his own private clinic. A
leading advocate for reform, he testified last June before the Supreme Court
in a landmark appeal against a Quebec ruling upholding limits on private
care and insurance.

George Zeliotis told the court he suffered pain and became addicted to
painkillers during a yearlong wait for hip replacement surgery, and should
have been allowed to pay for faster service. His physician, Dr. Jacques
Chaoulli, said his patient's constitutional rights were violated because
Quebec couldn't provide the care he needed, but didn't offer him the option
of getting it privately.


A ruling on the case is expected any time.

If Zeliotis had been from the United States, China or neighboring Ontario_
anywhere, in fact, except Quebec - he could have bought treatment in a
private Quebec clinic. That's one way the system discourages the spread of
private medicine - by limiting it to nonresidents
. But it can have curious
results, says Day.

He tells of a patient who was informed by Ontario officials that since
Ontario couldn't help him, they would spend $35,000 to send him to the
United States for surgery.


Day said his Vancouver clinic could have done it for $12,000 but the Ontario
officials "do not philosophically support sending an individual to a
nongovernment clinic in Canada."

Canadians can buy insurance for dental and eye care, physical and
chiropractic therapy, long-term nursing and prescriptions, among other
services. But according to experts on both sides of the debate, Canada and
North Korea (news - web sites) are the only countries with laws banning the
purchase of insurance for hospitalization or surgery.

Meanwhile, the average wait for surgical or specialist treatment is nearly
18 weeks
, up from 9.3 weeks in 1993, according to the Fraser Institute, a
right-wing public policy think tank in Vancouver. A Fraser study last year
said the average wait for an orthopedic surgeon was more than nine months.

Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government has pledged $33.3 billion in
new funding to improve health in all provinces and territories over the next
10 years. But critics aren't impressed.

"It won't make a difference," said Sally C. Pipes, a Canadian who heads the
conservative Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. "They need to
break the system down, or open the system up to competition."

Pipes is a big supporter of the Bush administration proposal to allow
Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into medical savings
accounts. She claims the two-tiered system feared by Canadian liberals
already exists because those with connections jump to the head of the
medical queue and those who can afford it can get treated in the United
States.

"These are not wealthy people; these are people who are in pain," said
Pipes.

Another watershed lawsuit was filed last year against 12 Quebec hospitals on
behalf of 10,000 breast-cancer patients in Quebec who had to wait more than
eight weeks for radiation therapy during a period dating to October 1997.

One woman went to Turkey for treatment. Another, Johanne Lavoie, was among
several sent to the United States. Diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in
1999, she traveled every week with her 5-year-old son to Vermont, a
four-hour bus ride.

"It was an inhuman thing to live through," Lavoie told Toronto's Globe and
Mail.

"This is the first time someone has decided to attack the source of
problems - the waiting list
," said Montreal attorney Michel Savonitto, who
is representing the cancer victims. "We're lucky to have the system we do in
Canada," he told the court. "But if we want to supply proper care and commit
to doing it, then we can't do it halfway."

An estimated 4 million of Canada's 33 million people don't have family
physicians and more than 1 million are on waiting lists for treatment,
according to the Canadian Medical Association
. Meanwhile, some 200
physicians head to the United States each year, attracted by lower taxes and
better working conditions. Canada has 2.1 physicians per 1,000 people, while
Belgium has 3.9, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.

The World Health Organization (news - web sites) in 2000 ranked France's
health system as the best, followed by Italy, Spain, Oman and Australia.
Canada came in 30th and the United States 37th.

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein is pushing what he calls "the third way" - a
fusion of Canadian Medicare and the system in France and many other nations,
where residents can supplement their government-funded health care with
private insurance and services.

But some Canadians worry even partial privatization would be damaging.

"My concern is that the private clinics would only serve to further drain
the scarce physician resources that we already have," said Dr. Saralaine
Johnstone, a 31-year-old family physician in Geraldton, a papermill hamlet
in northern Ontario.

"We first need to guarantee that everybody has access to quality health
care," she said, "and we just don't have that."
I think the message is clear in the article, look at some of the facts put forth: the Canadian Medical Association estimates 1 million (!) Canadian residents are waiting to be treated. This could be anything from a sprained ankle to serious surgery, as is the case with George Zeliotis. He had to wait over a year to get hip replacement surgery, can you imagine not being able to take a piss without someone's help for over a year? Becoming addicted to medication to ease your pain because the healthcare you pay for and are still paying for won't get around to you? I'm sure it looks nice on paper, that even people who don't pay anything can get free healthcare, but the truth is all of the physicians in Canada either flock to private clinics or to America. Even then Canada cannot keep up with paying to serve all of these people, laying off tens of thousands of nurses and hospital workers, using sub-par medical equipment, all to cut costs and keep the hospital running.

I think the worst part of it, of all of it, is that not only do the Canadian citizens have to let this public healthcare scam steal about a quarter of their annual income, but that they can't even use it. Is that not like the ultimate government slap on the face?

[quote name='evanft']Zo wins.[/quote]
Despite your blatant bias toward one side of the issue to begin with, you could at least wait for a rebuttal before jumping into the circlejerk.
 
Ace, again, all you have done is show what canadians by and large accept, that reforms are needed. You have not argued that universal health care is incorrect, or that a u.s. style health care system is a good goal (in fact, I can dig up plenty of sob stories in the u.s. about lack of health care access). Though americans also largely agree that our health care systme needs reform as well.

Canada isn't the only country with universal health care. To show the u.s. health care systme is better you need to show that the hardships that face canadians as a whole are greater than the hardships that face americans. Remember, they have delayed health care and can get emergency care if desperately needed, many americans only have health care if desperately needed, and then need to find a way to pay for it. And to show that the u.s. style health care is better than universal health care, you have to show that no universal health care system works better than the u.s.'s system. Canada is notorious for wait times, yet some countries with universal health care have comparable, if not lower, wait times when compared with the u.s.

My father has medical issues that are preventing him from working (meaning we can't pay all our bills) and to undergo further tests to attempt to figure out what's wrong, he was told he has about a 6 month wait. That was 3 months ago, they still haven't been able to give him a date yet. These are medical issues preventing him from earning a living, yet he can't get an appointment yet. He's already been out of work for over a year due to them, and repeatedly in and out of the hospital. The insurance company has made him leave before his doctor thought he was ready twice.

Hell I called to try to get an appointment with the dermatologist a few days ago, they told me a minimum 5 month wait, even though I was referred by my primary doctor. I can't go anywhere else either, since my insurance won't pay for it. That's just an appointment, not treatment.

Also, finding support for a two tiered u.s. style health care system is difficult in canada. It was actually used as a political scare tactic against the conservatives, who responded by denying it. If I remember correctly, they wanted to increase funding. Reform and abolish are very, very different things.
 
Universal health care is a bad idea or at the very least impractical for the U.S. population. If you're going to cover everyone equally then quality of care is going to suffer and you're going to have major access problems. The waiting list in Canada for elective procedures is ridiculous, often taking months to years while in the U.S. it's far easier to get procedures and tests done. I don't know the full details of alonozomourning's father's condition and why his testing seems to take so long, but being a health care professional myself, I have very little problems getting tests done on a timely manner (within days) since the quality of health care facilities is so high in the U.S.. The competitive nature of the health care system actually encourages speedier testing and diagnosis since patients are essential consumers and health care systems are aggressively trying to streamline patient care in order to treat more patient and therefore increase revenue. You have no such incentive in a universal system.

And if you though insurance companies are heartless penny pinchers (which they are) the government would be even worse. For example, in England the government no longer covers Aricept (a medication clinically proven to slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease) since the cost was too high to provide a medication that prolongs the life of non-productive individuals. Now that's cold. No way would I want the government running the health care system.
 
Dopa, I'm not sure where you go but experiences like that are common around here. 6 months for tests to see why someone can't work? 5 months just for a dermatology appointment? The only thing you can get quickly is a visit with internal medicine, which would be your primary care doctor or an equivalent.

If you want stories of heartless insurance companies go find a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist who works in a hospital. They'll be able to tell you stories of lives that were ruined due to insurance companies refusing treatment, families running out of money etc. People who could have led productive lives with proper care, care that their psychiatrist often says they need, end up homeless, in and out of care (meaning no time to build any form of a succesful life), or even dead.

Though, again, if wait times are a direct cause of universal health care, then please explain why wait times vary so significantly from country to country. People erroneously assume that there is only one model for universal health care. People love to pick out canada, but conveniently ignore places like sweden. You can't argue against a type of health care while only focusing on one countries implementation of it.

People also seem to avoid comparisons. There's problems, so it must be worse. If people want to comapare the health of citizens overall, overal quality of care etc., then I'll listen. Whatever we do in health care, we are dragged down by the tens of millions without health care. Those people who don't recieve health care need to be taken into account.

People often like to take one example and generalize it to the whole.
 
Alonzo, you're also using your personal experience and generalizing as well. I've just stated a few facts, I'm happy to supply more but I figure most people wouldn't be interested. I'm perfectly open to acknowledging there are imperfections to our system but as a doctor, I work in this system on a daily basis and have personally studied health care policy as part of my medical training so I've put a lot of thought into this problem.

The tax rate in Sweden is sky-high. No way would anyone be willing to pay 50% of their paycheck for sustaining universal health care in the U.S..

I agree that there are better models; actually Germany has a good model in principle where employers actually are required to pay into a national fund to cover heath insurance for all workers. It makes sense since employers have a natural incentive to keep workers healthy since healthy workers equals more productive workers and fewer sick time lost.

In a nutshell, the things we really suck at are a) indexes for preventative care (we rank near dead last among industrialized countries for infant mortality for example) and b) covering the poor. Otherwise, we excell in almost all other aspects of health care; quality of care, technology and access. The solution is actually fairly simple. Actually cover preventative medicine for a change and encourage people to see their doctors for regular checkup or even penalize people that fail to do so. Medicare doesn't cover annual physical exams; they only cover acute care costs (so in other words, rather than pay the $200 for a doctors visit that could prevent your heart attack, they rather wait until you get a heart attack and pay thousands of dollars/day for your hospital stay. Makes no sense whatsoever). Likewise Medicare requires patients to stay in the hospital for 3 days minimum before they can be discharged to a rehab facility. I can't tell you how many times we've had patients well enough to go to rehab after a one to two day hospital stay yet they have to stay around in the hospital incurring additional costs, not to mention increasing their risk from getting a hospital related complication like a resistant infection. Do away with social security and instead put that money into medical savings accounts (after all, in your retirement, your main expenses are going to go to medical care anyway). Tort reform to curtail the ridiculous malpractice costs for insurance (a simple "loser pays system" by itself would dramitcally cut the number of frivolous lawsuits.

At the end of the day, the quality of health care in the U.S. is second to none. If you have alife-threatening illness, there is no other place in the world you would rather get your health care than in the U.S..
 
[quote name='dopa345']Alonzo, you're also using your personal experience and generalizing as well. I've just stated a few facts, I'm happy to supply more but I figure most people wouldn't be interested. I'm perfectly open to acknowledging there are imperfections to our system but as a doctor, I work in this system on a daily basis and have personally studied health care policy as part of my medical training so I've put a lot of thought into this problem.[/quote]

The personal experience was basically just an attempt to point out that wait times depend on many things, the type of health care isn't the real issue, it's how the system is set up. The significant differences in wait times by country support that. One may be more prone to certain problems if improperly run, but it's not a given.

Though the point with mental health care is well documented. But that may have been a little off topic.

The tax rate in Sweden is sky-high. No way would anyone be willing to pay 50% of their paycheck for sustaining universal health care in the U.S..

But they pay less per citizen, and that's true of every other country with universal health care. Taxation is used to fund it, but more of you tax dollars goes towards that goal than that of a taxpayer in Sweden.

In a nutshell, the things we really suck at are a) indexes for preventative care (we rank near dead last among industrialized countries for infant mortality for example) and b) covering the poor. Otherwise, we excell in almost all other aspects of health care; quality of care, technology and access. The solution is actually fairly simple. Actually cover preventative medicine for a change and encourage people to see their doctors for regular checkup or even penalize people that fail to do so. Medicare doesn't cover annual physical exams; they only cover acute care costs (so in other words, rather than pay the $200 for a doctors visit that could prevent your heart attack, they rather wait until you get a heart attack and pay thousands of dollars/day for your hospital stay. Makes no sense whatsoever). Likewise Medicare requires patients to stay in the hospital for 3 days minimum before they can be discharged to a rehab facility. I can't tell you how many times we've had patients well enough to go to rehab after a one to two day hospital stay yet they have to stay around in the hospital incurring additional costs, not to mention increasing their risk from getting a hospital related complication like a resistant infection. Do away with social security and instead put that money into medical savings accounts (after all, in your retirement, your main expenses are going to go to medical care anyway). Tort reform to curtail the ridiculous malpractice costs for insurance (a simple "loser pays system" by itself would dramitcally cut the number of frivolous lawsuits.

At the end of the day, the quality of health care in the U.S. is second to none. If you have alife-threatening illness, there is no other place in the world you would rather get your health care than in the U.S..

In my families case the rehab was was being cut short early due to insurance limitations, and that didn't seem like an odd experience when I actually read up on it.

But it's all in if you can get it. Many people with insurance cannot, or the insurance is not adequate. I don't see any improvement in your suggestion other than possibly among the elderly. I strongly support universal health care. But, for instance, if we were to provide anyone making under a certain salary with health care coverage (obviously beyond simply catastophic). Basically leaving out the rich. For instance, if anyone making under 80k recieved it (probably adjusted by region, that doesn't go as far here as it would in montana), while those making more had to pay for their own.

Doing away with social security and replace it with medical accounts simply improves one side of things while creating another, possibly worse, problem. And the stress, poverty etc. that would likely increase under such a plan would result in medical issues of there own, due to the various things stress and poverty bring with them.
 
Naturally the elderly are going to get the most benefit since generally they are the sickest (two-thirds of the cost of care go towards the last five years of your life on average). Thus if you can improve their health care, thiose dollars will then be able to be allocated elsewhere more effectively. Though if you look closely as my proposal, my number one priority would be to encourage people; especially young people, to see their doctor regularly when they are healthy in order to prevent medical problems from coming up (seriously, assuming the average age of a CAG is in their twenties to early thirties, how many of us really see their primary care doctor for an annual physical, I would say 10% at most). I can't tell you how many times as an intern in the ICU, I admitted people with devastating illness (primarily respiratory failure or cardiac arrest) where the family will stay "he was so healthy, he never saw a doctor in his life! How could this happen?". If he actually saw a doctor, got his high blood pressure treated with medication costing pennies a day or given assistance to quick smoking he wouldn't have been in that situation. It's easy to blame the "evil insurance companies" but in fact they serve a necessary function in order to provide some accountability to allocating health care dollars. There is a finite amount of ecomonic resources available and you can't just throw money indiscriminately to treat every single person. To think that that's actually possible is unrealistic. Spring for basic health insurance even if you are healthy. Don't be an idiot and smoke or do drugs. And the fact is, there is a "safety net". Walk into an ER and you will automatically get treated regardless of your ability to pay because of EMTALA regulations thanks to my and everyone elses tax dollars or worse yet the hospital eats the bill, limiting their ability to treat other patients in the future.

As to the no insurance thing; a big part is that people don't view health insurance as a high priority. Young people don't feel that it's worth it since they're "healthy" but when the s%&t hits the fan they complain that they can't get access to health care. After food and rent/housing, shouldn't your health be the next priority (and arguably that should be the first)? That perception has to change dramatically before there is any meaningful reform.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ace, again, all you have done is show what canadians by and large accept, that reforms are needed.[/quote]

That's what 75% of your post was, that American healthcare sucks because your dad won't work and you cant find a dermatalogist.

All I was trying to show with this thread was that it's ridiculous to pay into a system where you have to wait a year to have major surgery done. The average wait time, according to AP, was four and a half months in Canada, and that was despite how urgent you need medical work done. The letters that hospital's send to patients when they finally get an opening to see a doctor includes a post script of an optional apology for patients that have died while waiting for medical help. Maybe paying incomes taxes that account for half of your annual salary for medical help is a good idea to you, but that's a bridge that can be crossed when we get to it. The point of this thread is to show that these doctors that are stupid enough to stay in a system like this (2 in 1000) are complaining about how bad this system is, and how it's unconstitutional to not allow a private/public hybrid when patients are literally getting fatally sick.

To compensate for the liberal population, I think Harper should propose some sort of opt-out program where those who want the government to give them free help can do so, assuming they're willing to pay more taxes. Likewise, if the person decides not to pay those taxes, they also decide not to recieve the "benefits" of the government healthcare. If someone wanted to take the insurance route, I'm sure that could be arranged too.

That sounds fair, right?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']That's what 75% of your post was, that American healthcare sucks because your dad won't work and you cant find a dermatalogist. [/quote]

Umm..... that was only part of my post illustrating that wait times are not simply a universal health are phenomenon. Also I kept pointing out that they differ drastically between countries.

All I was trying to show with this thread was that it's ridiculous to pay into a system where you have to wait a year to have major surgery done. The average wait time, according to AP, was four and a half months in Canada, and that was despite how urgent you need medical work done. The letters that hospital's send to patients when they finally get an opening to see a doctor includes a post script of an optional apology for patients that have died while waiting for medical help. Maybe paying incomes taxes that account for half of your annual salary for medical help is a good idea to you, but that's a bridge that can be crossed when we get to it. The point of this thread is to show that these doctors that are stupid enough to stay in a system like this (2 in 1000) are complaining about how bad this system is, and how it's unconstitutional to not allow a private/public hybrid when patients are literally getting fatally sick.

To compensate for the liberal population, I think Harper should propose some sort of opt-out program where those who want the government to give them free help can do so, assuming they're willing to pay more taxes. Likewise, if the person decides not to pay those taxes, they also decide not to recieve the "benefits" of the government healthcare. If someone wanted to take the insurance route, I'm sure that could be arranged too.

That sounds fair, right?

Wait times differ depending on need, so it's not X amount of time regardless of the issue.

But if harper were to propose a program such a program he wouldn't get very far, and his opponents would have a field day. The most likely to back out would be the wealthy, the ones who pay the most in taxes. The poor generally can't provide enough taxes for programs directed at them.

If a person can decide whether to pay additional taxes for a certain program, it's no longer universal health care. The rich opting out takes large amounts of money out of it, and the poor opting out (the ones scraping for every penny they can get) then it will be a disaster, essentially creating a two tier system.

Naturally the elderly are going to get the most benefit since generally they are the sickest (two-thirds of the cost of care go towards the last five years of your life on average). Thus if you can improve their health care, thiose dollars will then be able to be allocated elsewhere more effectively.

But you give them more medical money, but take away money for the other aspects of their life. Your increase poverty, which brings with it medical issues. I don't see much benefit with this plan. Social security isn't useless money.

Though if you look closely as my proposal, my number one priority would be to encourage people; especially young people, to see their doctor regularly when they are healthy in order to prevent medical problems from coming up (seriously, assuming the average age of a CAG is in their twenties to early thirties, how many of us really see their primary care doctor for an annual physical, I would say 10% at most). I can't tell you how many times as an intern in the ICU, I admitted people with devastating illness (primarily respiratory failure or cardiac arrest) where the family will stay "he was so healthy, he never saw a doctor in his life! How could this happen?". If he actually saw a doctor, got his high blood pressure treated with medication costing pennies a day or given assistance to quick smoking he wouldn't have been in that situation. It's easy to blame the "evil insurance companies" but in fact they serve a necessary function in order to provide some accountability to allocating health care dollars. There is a finite amount of ecomonic resources available and you can't just throw money indiscriminately to treat every single person. To think that that's actually possible is unrealistic. Spring for basic health insurance even if you are healthy. Don't be an idiot and smoke or do drugs. And the fact is, there is a "safety net". Walk into an ER and you will automatically get treated regardless of your ability to pay because of EMTALA regulations thanks to my and everyone elses tax dollars or worse yet the hospital eats the bill, limiting their ability to treat other patients in the future.

As to the no insurance thing; a big part is that people don't view health insurance as a high priority. Young people don't feel that it's worth it since they're "healthy" but when the s%&t hits the fan they complain that they can't get access to health care. After food and rent/housing, shouldn't your health be the next priority (and arguably that should be the first)? That perception has to change dramatically before there is any meaningful reform.

There are many people who cannot afford health insurance, and poverty brings with it a decrease in mental and physical health. There are many people who struggle with food and housing. Honestly, in my opinion, your plan just changes the problems. Obviously encouraging people to see their doctor is a good thing, but we have to make sure people are able to do that.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Umm..... that was only part of my post illustrating that wait times are not simply a universal health are phenomenon. Also I kept pointing out that they differ drastically between countries.[/quote]

In anecdotal cases, sure, waiting lists for procedures are not only attributable to a universal healthcare system. But, they are much more prevalent in the universal system overall, for every type of procedure except critical lifesaving ones. That's why the two tiered system which you disparage later in your post is emerging in Canada for people who not only pay their required taxes for the system to operate, but choose to pay privately in and above the system for personal care.



Wait times differ depending on need, so it's not X amount of time regardless of the issue.

Who gets to determine need? A bureaucrat pennypincher or a triage nurse. The vast majority of medical procedures are not critical lifesaving ones, they are those that demand scrutiny by the acountants.


But you give them more medical money, but take away money for the other aspects of their life. Your increase poverty, which brings with it medical issues. I don't see much benefit with this plan. Social security isn't useless money.

Your entire philosophy relies on portioning out every aspect of human existence, doesn't it? Give people money for this, for that, for food, for healthcare, for toilet paper. As if these things appear out of ether for distribution to those in the most need.

Obviously this doesn't work. People not charged with creating and sustaining their own existence won't ever be able to self-regulate, self-propogate, or self-medicate. Perhaps we should revert back to the days when we made our own money to buy our own toilet paper instead of letting the governmnet wipe our asses for us. But I guess giving people back their dignity would be the inhumane thing to do.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']In anecdotal cases, sure, waiting lists for procedures are not only attributable to a universal healthcare system. But, they are much more prevalent in the universal system overall, for every type of procedure except critical lifesaving ones. That's why the two tiered system which you disparage later in your post is emerging in Canada for people who not only pay their required taxes for the system to operate, but choose to pay privately in and above the system for personal care. [/quote]

But there are countries with universal health care that have shorter waiting lists. Canada's version is the last country any informed person would want to replicate. I would prefer it to the u.s.'s current system, but it is by no means something I'd copy. It's a mistake when liberals hold up canada as an example, and it is a mistake when conservatives attack universal care by attacking canada. It's much easier to argue against a system practiced by an individual country, than it is to argue against the broader category of universal care.

But people can go to the hospital, have issues checked out and treated, and recieve quality care. That's really the issue. And when I refer to a two tiered health care system I'm referring to a system that interferes with that based on wealth. A system where that really is the determining factor. That is not what is being fought for by some canadians, and that is not what worldwide health care reforms are really moving toward.

I shouldn't have used the term "two tiered health care", since I was using a very specific application of it, while ignoring other meanings.

Who gets to determine need? A bureaucrat pennypincher or a triage nurse. The vast majority of medical procedures are not critical lifesaving ones, they are those that demand scrutiny by the acountants.

The hospital would decide. That's done in the u.s. too, people in urgent need of something get bumped ahead. You're paranoid about giving any organization responsibility, and that paranoia often results in the refusal to do anything, making the situation worse. Errors will be made, but more tragic events will occur if you avoid any such risks.

Your entire philosophy relies on portioning out every aspect of human existence, doesn't it? Give people money for this, for that, for food, for healthcare, for toilet paper. As if these things appear out of ether for distribution to those in the most need.

Obviously this doesn't work. People not charged with creating and sustaining their own existence won't ever be able to self-regulate, self-propogate, or self-medicate. Perhaps we should revert back to the days when we made our own money to buy our own toilet paper instead of letting the governmnet wipe our asses for us. But I guess giving people back their dignity would be the inhumane thing to do.


If you want to argue that americas poor are better off than the poor in similar developed nations, then go right ahead. If you want to explain how working and raising a family, and not being able to take care of that families medical care and other needs, if you want to explain how that is dignity then go right ahead.

Every time we get into these debates I advocate programs for the poor such as free education, free child care, free job training, free drug rehab, english language programs etc. programs that are designed to aid people in improving their life. Programs that are there when people want to get ahead. I also advocate programs, such as universal health care, welfare etc. so that people aren't held back by necessity. A single impoverished mother with minimal social support, who works and raises children, that's very common. It's already unlikely that people in those scenarios can balance work, children and school. But if free child care and free education aren't available, then it's not going to happen, and if it does you're likely to see it in the child. I don't advocate a "take your money and go away" approach. There's always potential for people to exploit certain programs, and the only way to eliminate that is to do away with the program and punish everyone.

Look at our poverty rates, look at our life expectancy rates and so on. Something is wrong. These things aren't indicative of the worlds wealthiest nation.
 
Alonzo, how would you pay for all these programs? It's very easy to say "give everyone free health care, free education and etc.", of course in an ideal world we all would love that. But the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals think with their hearts but not with their heads so they don't see the big picture on practicality. Instead of simply pointing out flaws, then why do you propose a solution? I only get a vague sense that you would want the government to cover and pay for everything which would require massive increase in taxes. What country then is the model for health care that we should use? Do you have direct experience with health care systems in other countries? I admit I don't; I just know what I've studied and from my own personal experience in interfacing directly with the U.S. health care system which is still the model system in terms of quality of care to the world. If you have any real insights with hard evidence, I honestly would love to hear it.
 
[quote name='dopa345']But the difference between liberals and conservatives fundamentally is that liberal think with there heart but not with their head.[/QUOTE]

You are going on my ignore list just for that little piece of idiocy.

But anyhoo, how is anything getting paid for now?

Reagan and W put this country into deficit and debt with military build up, do you only get upset if the money goes to sick people?
 
[quote name='dopa345']Alonzo, how would you pay for all these programs? It's very easy to say "give everyone free health care, free education and etc.", of course in an ideal world we all would love that.[/quote]

Well, with the exception of free health care (which even then could be designed that if you made a significant amount of money then you paid for your own), the rest are targeting the poor. Free education, free day care etc. would be available for poor people who need it. Not for everyone. You're from boston, so, for example, an education at salem state, or ulowell (both of which cost 4-5k a year) is what I'm talking about. These are targeted programs. But, many of these programs, such as free education, free day care etc. go towards increasing the productability of citizens. If, for example, the state pays 25k to educate someone, it's likely that they'll pay that back in taxes, due to the additional money they'll be able to earn. If children grow up in better environments, then they are more likely to be succesful adults.


But the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals think with their hearts but not with their heads so they don't see the big picture on practicality.

Yes, because "abortion is murder", "terrorists hate freedom", taxation is theft, denouncing any science that contradicts religious teachings without counter evidence etc. These are all practical ideas.

Instead of simply pointing out flaws, then why do you propose a solution? I only get a vague sense that you would want the government to cover and pay for everything which would require massive increase in taxes.

I'm not sure why suggested solutions aren't solutions. But, for example, every country on earth with universal health care, spends less on health care than the united states. Probably part of the reason is people can actually go before they're forced to.

In such a system not everything would be kept the same. Some programs funding would be cut, such as military spending. Taxes would be increased among the higher wage earners etc.

What country then is the model for health care that we should use? Do you have direct experience with health care systems in other countries? I admit I don't; I just know what I've studied and from my own personal experience in interfacing directly with the U.S. health care system which is still the model system in terms of quality of care to the world. If you have any real insights with hard evidence, I honestly would love to hear it.

The u.s. has the best quality, if you can get it. The accesability is the issue. Sweden is probably the country I'd look at as one of the best examples, but I would not take any one country and model it directly.

You seem to be asking if I have directed experience, then you ask for evidence. I've been to canadian hospitals before. But I'm not going to give evidence without knowing what specific issues you want evidence about.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Umm..... that was only part of my post illustrating that wait times are not simply a universal health are phenomenon. Also I kept pointing out that they differ drastically between countries.[/quote]
It's unfortunate you have problems with whatever insurance plan your family's medical coverage comes from, but in America you aren't forced to pay into one specific place to get your coverage. You have the option of switching to a different place to cover expenses, or even opting out all together.

Wait times differ depending on need, so it's not X amount of time regardless of the issue.
No, it's not. On average, however, it is four and a half months. That isn't a specific statistic, it is general.

But if harper were to propose a program such a program he wouldn't get very far, and his opponents would have a field day. The most likely to back out would be the wealthy, the ones who pay the most in taxes. The poor generally can't provide enough taxes for programs directed at them.

If a person can decide whether to pay additional taxes for a certain program, it's no longer universal health care. The rich opting out takes large amounts of money out of it, and the poor opting out (the ones scraping for every penny they can get) then it will be a disaster, essentially creating a two tier system.
I'm not saying gut all taxes, just the portion that goes directly to the public healthcare. Shouldn't those who pay for the program have the final say over where there money gets spent? What's wrong with deciding not to pay for something you don't want if you're willing to accept the consequence of not having it?

The system may still operate, that's fine and dandy. Canada is largely a liberal state, I'd expect not many people to opt out anyways lest that liberal guilt get the best of them. It's not fair to those who prefer to use private healthcare facilities to have to pay double what to would normally pay for the same treatment.

Wealth or no wealth, what's wrong with personal responsibility?
 
[quote name='Msut77']You are going on my ignore list just for that little piece of idiocy.

But anyhoo, how is anything getting paid for now?

Reagan and W put this country into deficit and debt with military build up, do you only get upset if the money goes to sick people?[/QUOTE]

You basically proved my point. You didn't like what I said so you respond by calling me an "idiot" and put me on your ignore list so you don't have to hear a dissenting point of view. You don't want to argue the issues rationally and instead bring up a totally different topic to cover it.

Where in my argument did I say that I didn't want sick people to get money for health care? As I said, of course I wan everyone to have excellent healthcare, I went through four years of college, four years of medical school, and currently finishing up my fourth year of residency specifically so I can help deliver quality health care to people. I just see on a daily basis what's wrong with the health care system and I see the general public having a knee jerk reaction to advocate for an universal system without understanding the ramifications of it. I want to see health care dollars allocated more efficiently to preventative care in order to have people healthier so they don't get sick and require thousand dollars of day/ hospital stays when a visit to their doctor and spending a few pennies a day on medications would have prevented their illness to begin with. I don't want have to spend a third of my working life filling out paperwork and jumping through bureaucratic loopholes to give my patient their care they need which you have even more under a univesal health care system. I want to see tort reform so doctors don't have to worry about frivilous lawsuits. And nturally I don't want to have to pay unnecessary taxes in order to accomplish this.

If you want an even more inefficient system than we have now that granted will provide basic health care for everyone but provide lower quality of care, have worse access issues since the government has to tell you when and where you can go for your appointments and also spend 50% of your paycheck in order to do this then fair enough, just understand that's exactly what you would get.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not sure why suggested solutions aren't solutions. But, for example, every country on earth with universal health care, spends less on health care than the united states. Probably part of the reason is people can actually go before they're forced to.[/QUOTE]

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']It's unfortunate you have problems with whatever insurance plan your family's medical coverage comes from, but in America you aren't forced to pay into one specific place to get your coverage. You have the option of switching to a different place to cover expenses, or even opting out all together. [/quote]

You're kidding right? Opting out is absurd, as we will be screwed with any health care costs and won't be able to afford care. It's unlikely my father could get any other decent care, because of his chronic medical problems. And we can barely afford the mortgage anymore, let alone an extra 700 or so a month for care for the family.

The thing is, compared to what's available, we do have good care through my mothers work, and it covers the whole family.


I'm not saying gut all taxes, just the portion that goes directly to the public healthcare. Shouldn't those who pay for the program have the final say over where there money gets spent? What's wrong with deciding not to pay for something you don't want if you're willing to accept the consequence of not having it?

Because social programs are designed to help those most in need. If those who don't need them can choose not to pay, then the whole system falls apart. You can't decide not to pay for repairs to a road you don't use, you can't decide not to fund a public school you, or your kids, don't go to, and you can't decide not to fund the fire department just because you don't think you'll need it.


Wealth or no wealth, what's wrong with personal responsibility?

Personal responsibility is entirely subjective. It's the governments responsibility to ensure that the poor have the means to improve themselves, and to ensure that services are there to help those in need. It's the citizens responsibility to pay taxes.

Now if you want to say that everyone should get a list of everything their tax money will fund and be able to pick and choose what taxes to pay and what not to then at least you wouldn't be hypocritical. Personally, I'm still waiting for the day when I can decidie what military adventures to fund.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You're kidding right? Opting out is absurd, as we will be screwed with any health care costs and won't be able to afford care. It's unlikely my father could get any other decent care, because of his chronic medical problems. And we can barely afford the mortgage anymore, let alone an extra 700 or so a month for care for the family. [/QUOTE]

I sympathize with your situation. That's why the government should be taking less money out of your family's paychecks so you can afford the health care you need. That's also why I feel strongly that medical savings accounts is also a good idea; you dad knows best what his health issues are and what expenses he will need. Why not let him set aside money, tax free to meet those expenditures rather that implementing a system which would provide lower quality care, less efficiently?


[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Because social programs are designed to help those most in need. If those who don't need them can choose not to pay, then the whole system falls apart. You can't decide not to pay for repairs to a road you don't use, you can't decide not to fund a public school you, or your kids, don't go to, and you can't decide not to fund the fire department just because you don't think you'll need it.

Personal responsibility is entirely subjective. It's the governments responsibility to ensure that the poor have the means to improve themselves, and to ensure that services are there to help those in need. It's the citizens responsibility to pay taxes. [/QUOTE]

I agree that it would impractical for taxpayers to "itemize" what they want to fund or not since as you stated, the system would fall apart. However, just as it's the citizens' duty to pay taxes, the government's responsibility is not to solely take care of the poor; their duty is to protect the life and property of all of its citizens, not just the poor or just the wealthy. The top 50% of wager earners already provide 96% of the gross tax revenue for the government with the top 1% paying one-third of federal taxes. It's easy to say the rich should be "paying their share" but they already do. Throwing money around will only do so much.

I don't really understand what you mean that personal responsibility is subjective; it should be everyone's responsiblity to minimize your dependence on the government rather than rely on it. As JFK said, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
 
[quote name='dopa345']I sympathize with your situation. That's why the government should be taking less money out of your family's paychecks so you can afford the health care you need. That's also why I feel strongly that medical savings accounts is also a good idea; you dad knows best what his health issues are and what expenses he will need. Why not let him set aside money, tax free to meet those expenditures rather that implementing a system which would provide lower quality care, less efficiently?[/quote]

A medical savings account is good for some issues. Some medications will eat that away much quicker than others though. But you're taking that money away from other areas, and just shifting the problem. If you take away social security then you will increase poverty among the elderly, which tends to bring with it poorer health. And then we have people who's treatment is very expensive and would eat through the savings relatively quickly.

But, looking at some european countries, there's no reason to assume any significant drop in care or effiency, especially significant enough that it would offset the 45 million who have no health care at all. Even canada, for all the problems in that system, the statistics on quality of life, longevity etc. are better. If, as a whole, people live longer, are healthier etc. then that's more important than the individual cases.




I agree that it would impractical for taxpayers to "itemize" what they want to fund or not since as you stated, the system would fall apart. However, just as it's the citizens' duty to pay taxes, the government's responsibility is not to solely take care of the poor; their duty is to protect the life and property of all of its citizens, not just the poor or just the wealthy. The top 50% of wager earners already provide 96% of the gross tax revenue for the government with the top 1% paying one-third of federal taxes. It's easy to say the rich should be "paying their share" but they already do. Throwing money around will only do so much.

Throwing money around is usually assumed to mean "hey, you poor? Here's some cash.". But when we are dealing with programs such as day care, education etc. those have proven to be effective in producing better long term outcomes. You can debate whether this country can do it effectively, but it's not simply throwing money around.

But, as far as the rich, I never use the term "paying their share". They pay more, as they should. I just think they should pay more than they already do, simply because they are most capable of doing so with minimal harm to themselves. Taking extra money out of the middle and lower classes will have a much more dramatic effect.

I don't really understand what you mean that personal responsibility is subjective; it should be everyone's responsiblity to minimize your dependence on the government rather than rely on it. As JFK said, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I basically meant what you consider to be an inidividuals responsibility is subjective. Mulligan thinks it's the individual's responsibility to take care of every need themselves, excluding those relating to the population as a whole (ie. roads, military etc.). I obviously disagree with that.

But I've never expressed admiration for JFK (I can't think of many people I've ever expressed admiration for). I don't agree with that comment. The government should be there to improve the lives of the people. That's why we give up certain freedoms to maintain that government.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']A medical savings account is good for some issues. Some medications will eat that away much quicker than others though. But you're taking that money away from other areas, and just shifting the problem. If you take away social security then you will increase poverty among the elderly, which tends to bring with it poorer health. And then we have people who's treatment is very expensive and would eat through the savings relatively quickly. [/QUOTE]

The whole point is by setting aside protected money to pay for health care you free up your other finances to fund other things. The elderly already spend the bulk of their social security money on health care so by having medical savings accounts you actually reduce their financial burden since it frees up their other retirement savings for use into other expenses. Of course this also shifts responsibility to the individual to understand their own needs and be able to plan accordingly.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
But, looking at some european countries, there's no reason to assume any significant drop in care or effiency, especially significant enough that it would offset the 45 million who have no health care at all. Even canada, for all the problems in that system, the statistics on quality of life, longevity etc. are better. If, as a whole, people live longer, are healthier etc. then that's more important than the individual cases. [/quote]

You keep saying that yet you still haven't provided any direct evidence to back that up. Which countries have the better system and why and how is there health care better? Why do people from all over the world then come into the U.S. for their health care if our care is inferior? There is every reason to expect that efficency and quality of care would take a hit; it is widely acknowledged that that is the price you pay for universal coverage; give me an example of a country with universal health care that has more efficient access to the U.S.. And anyway, can you really name a government program that is truly well run? If they can't even manage Medicare properly that essentially is a universal system for the elderly, do seriously want to entrust politicians to manage health care for the entire country?


[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Throwing money around is usually assumed to mean "hey, you poor? Here's some cash.". But when we are dealing with programs such as day care, education etc. those have proven to be effective in producing better long term outcomes. You can debate whether this country can do it effectively, but it's not simply throwing money around. [/quote]

Those programs aren't free though and bigger government means more inefficency. Again, you make some general statements but where's the hard evidence for your claims and what do you mean by long-term outcomes? If you can sjow me those, I'd be in total agreement. [/quote]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
But, as far as the rich, I never use the term "paying their share". They pay more, as they should. I just think they should pay more than they already do, simply because they are most capable of doing so with minimal harm to themselves. Taking extra money out of the middle and lower classes will have a much more dramatic effect. [/quote]

The "wealthy" already pay 96% of the taxes already! How much more do you want them to pay? They already pay clearly far more than their share.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
I basically meant what you consider to be an inidividuals responsibility is subjective. Mulligan thinks it's the individual's responsibility to take care of every need themselves, excluding those relating to the population as a whole (ie. roads, military etc.). I obviously disagree with that. [/quote]

I have to say I perfectly agree with bmulligan on this point. People need to take of themselves and it's actually condescending in a way to assume that just because you're poor, you don't have the capacity to do so. The government's role should be only to ensure that everyone has equal protection under the law and the opportunity to succeed. The founding fathers clearly stated their goal was to ensure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That's what freedom is, to allow people to determine their own destiny and make the most of their opportunities as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Extorting more money from taxes from its citizens is clearly the antithesis of this.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
But I've never expressed admiration for JFK (I can't think of many people I've ever expressed admiration for). I don't agree with that comment. The government should be there to improve the lives of the people. That's why we give up certain freedoms to maintain that government.[/QUOTE]

So what you're telling me is that you'd rather have the government run your life rather than have the freedom to determine your own destiny? Then what's the difference between the government taking your money to impose a social agenda on you and wanting to wiretap its citzens for "national secruity"? Both of those concepts are equally abhorrent.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The elderly already spend the bulk of their social security money on health care[/QUOTE]

Any chance you know what the breakdown is on what portion of that is for pharmaceuticals alone?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You're kidding right? Opting out is absurd, as we will be screwed with any health care costs and won't be able to afford care. It's unlikely my father could get any other decent care, because of his chronic medical problems. And we can barely afford the mortgage anymore, let alone an extra 700 or so a month for care for the family.

The thing is, compared to what's available, we do have good care through my mothers work, and it covers the whole family.[/quote]

Apparently not good enough since you have so many problems with it. The point I'm making is you have options, but you decided upon a coverage that you or your family deemed best for everyone. It's different from Canada where there isn't any options. Whether you go to a private clinic or not you're still fucked over by paying for useless public care that could take a year to get around to helping you.

Because social programs are designed to help those most in need. If those who don't need them can choose not to pay, then the whole system falls apart. You can't decide not to pay for repairs to a road you don't use, you can't decide not to fund a public school you, or your kids, don't go to, and you can't decide not to fund the fire department just because you don't think you'll need it.

Well you should, it's your money. When you go to a resturant for food do you decide what you want to order or do they just give you whatever is easiest for them to make? Same concept. It's unfortunate that there are those who can't pull their weight and have to ask the government to steal from those who can because they couldn't live without leeching. Some of the same things you listed happen in America, hopefully we can get to the point where we can change all of that. While I'm not a libertarian, there are some essential things that the government must pay for, healthcare is certainly not one of them. Schools really isn't either, but that's a different debate altogether.

Personal responsibility is entirely subjective. It's the governments responsibility to ensure that the poor have the means to improve themselves, and to ensure that services are there to help those in need. It's the citizens responsibility to pay taxes.

Now if you want to say that everyone should get a list of everything their tax money will fund and be able to pick and choose what taxes to pay and what not to then at least you wouldn't be hypocritical. Personally, I'm still waiting for the day when I can decidie what military adventures to fund.

Maybe in Canada it is, but Canada has a fucked up mentality over what the role of the government really is.

As to your second point, yes, that's my entire point. Although I would disagree that defense should be an optional tax. Defending the public is different than babying the public.
 
+Dopa, I haven't had time to do anything besides post quick responses lately, but I'll get to your past later.

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Apparently not good enough since you have so many problems with it. The point I'm making is you have options, but you decided upon a coverage that you or your family deemed best for everyone. It's different from Canada where there isn't any options. Whether you go to a private clinic or not you're still fucked over by paying for useless public care that could take a year to get around to helping you. [/quote]

Ya, I'm sure the 45 million uninsured really believe it's useless. I also like how the wait time keeps growing by the day.

But what options? What the job offered is what we have. Even if finding quality insurance for a chronicly ill person was likely, you need money than many (including my family) doesn't have. But it's union and provides very good insurance relative to what else is out there. How insurance is run is the problem.

Well you should, it's your money. When you go to a resturant for food do you decide what you want to order or do they just give you whatever is easiest for them to make? Same concept. It's unfortunate that there are those who can't pull their weight and have to ask the government to steal from those who can because they couldn't live without leeching. Some of the same things you listed happen in America, hopefully we can get to the point where we can change all of that. While I'm not a libertarian, there are some essential things that the government must pay for, healthcare is certainly not one of them. Schools really isn't either, but that's a different debate altogether.

Ah yes, because little kids should be out there working to ensure that they provide a better life for themselves so they can pay for elementary school when the time comes. :roll:

Kids have no control over the situation, and the idea that people rise and fall simply upon personal will is a myth that isn't backed up by research.

Maybe in Canada it is, but Canada has a fucked up mentality over what the role of the government really is.

As to your second point, yes, that's my entire point. Although I would disagree that defense should be an optional tax. Defending the public is different than babying the public.

Your system of government has little support in any country. But how is protecting the public health, protecting the public from crime through preventive measures (with increased poverty usually comes crime), protecting children etc. not defending the public?

Though, ace, tell me what is beneficial about your society? Find me a modern society that is/was succesful on anything resembling your model. Freedom for a child to grow up uneducated and malnourished isn't freedom at all. Too much freedom eventually turns in on itself.

There is barely a redeeming quality that I can find in your model. An abstract concept of freedom, but almost absolute in its scope.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ya, I'm sure the 45 million uninsured really believe it's useless. I also like how the wait time keeps growing by the day.

But what options? What the job offered is what we have. Even if finding quality insurance for a chronicly ill person was likely, you need money than many (including my family) doesn't have. But it's union and provides very good insurance relative to what else is out there. How insurance is run is the problem.[/quote]
Then DON'T USE IT. It's such a simple solution that's lost on you. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use insurance, but I don't want to be portrayed like I defend insurance companies. I'm not a fan of how the system is run either, insurance is what makes medical costs so damn high. If it were up to me I'd dedicate all responsibility to the individual to be in charge of his own medical welfare. We don't live in a perfect world though, and we have idiots who would probably spend all their money on a HDTV instead of saving for a medical emergency.

Ah yes, because little kids should be out there working to ensure that they provide a better life for themselves so they can pay for elementary school when the time comes. :roll:

Kids have no control over the situation, and the idea that people rise and fall simply upon personal will is a myth that isn't backed up by research.
Ah yes, because parents aren't responsible for the education of their children at all and just sit back while they do everything for themselves :roll:

Oh, and a short version of what you said afterwards would be, "Please don't make me responsible over myself! If momma government doesn't take care of me I'll fuck my life up and blame it on everyone else! Wahhhh!!!"

Your system of government has little support in any country. But how is protecting the public health, protecting the public from crime through preventive measures (with increased poverty usually comes crime), protecting children etc. not defending the public?

Though, ace, tell me what is beneficial about your society? Find me a modern society that is/was succesful on anything resembling your model. Freedom for a child to grow up uneducated and malnourished isn't freedom at all. Too much freedom eventually turns in on itself.

There is barely a redeeming quality that I can find in your model. An abstract concept of freedom, but almost absolute in its scope.
When you broaden the definition like that, using tax money to have a government official come and wipe your ass everytime you get off the can sounds like defending the public too. Defending the public from uncleanliness and therefore keeping them healthy citizens! Let's just forward our entire paycheck into the U.S. Treasury since people can't be held responsible for earning a living and we must take care of them lest they all turn into criminals.

I'll tell you what's beneficial about my society. Personal responsibility, Self-reliance, freedom from government stealing most of the money you earn... Citizens who aren't reliant on the government to make sure they're healthy and fed. I'll find you a modern model that's absolutely opposite of everything I stand for: The Soviet Union. Tell me how many redeeming qualities you can find in that model and then get back to me and tell me we should entrust the government with all of our responsibilities.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Then DON'T USE IT. It's such a simple solution that's lost on you. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use insurance, but I don't want to be portrayed like I defend insurance companies. I'm not a fan of how the system is run either, insurance is what makes medical costs so damn high. If it were up to me I'd dedicate all responsibility to the individual to be in charge of his own medical welfare. We don't live in a perfect world though, and we have idiots who would probably spend all their money on a HDTV instead of saving for a medical emergency. [/quote]

Get a clue. Many conditions are going to easily exhaust any money that has been saved. And no insurance is no option.


Ah yes, because parents aren't responsible for the education of their children at all and just sit back while they do everything for themselves :roll:

Oh, and a short version of what you said afterwards would be, "Please don't make me responsible over myself! If momma government doesn't take care of me I'll fuck my life up and blame it on everyone else! Wahhhh!!!"

Yes, because there was never any poverty in the world until the 20th century.


When you broaden the definition like that, using tax money to have a government official come and wipe your ass everytime you get off the can sounds like defending the public too. Defending the public from uncleanliness and therefore keeping them healthy citizens! Let's just forward our entire paycheck into the U.S. Treasury since people can't be held responsible for earning a living and we must take care of them lest they all turn into criminals.

I'll tell you what's beneficial about my society. Personal responsibility, Self-reliance, freedom from government stealing most of the money you earn... Citizens who aren't reliant on the government to make sure they're healthy and fed. I'll find you a modern model that's absolutely opposite of everything I stand for: The Soviet Union. Tell me how many redeeming qualities you can find in that model and then get back to me and tell me we should entrust the government with all of our responsibilities.

Paranoia is what defines you view of government.

Nowhere in your view do you consider quality of life, health etc. Only abstracts idea of freedom to the extreme.

Your inability to comprehend the argument of an opponent is painfully obvious by the mentioning of the ussr. You find me where I advocated soviet communism and I'll be more than happy to defend it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Get a clue. Many conditions are going to easily exhaust any money that has been saved. And no insurance is no option.[/quote]

Here's my clue, bud. In our insurance based system it's going to be near impossible for a middle class salary to pay for an expensive surgery, I already told you that. For you to say that you're stuck with one insurance that is horrible for your situation is ignorant and wrong.

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Welcome.ds?mcei.app.terminalID=__tid__1_

Just going here and putting in a zip code and a birthdate I got 91 different plans from a large amount of providers.

Yes, because there was never any poverty in the world until the 20th century.

I like how your points are growing ever smaller and completely off-base with what I said. You backed out of supporting government healthcare here to bring up how awesome government schools are, then you back out of that to make some obvious statement about poverty.

Yeah, there always was and always will be poverty because people aren't perfect. Doesn't mean the government has to steal from others because some people can't provide anything to society.

Paranoia is what defines you view of government.

Nowhere in your view do you consider quality of life, health etc. Only abstracts idea of freedom to the extreme.

Your inability to comprehend the argument of an opponent is painfully obvious by the mentioning of the ussr. You find me where I advocated soviet communism and I'll be more than happy to defend it.

Oh there you go, the last stand of a liberal argument, "You're just paranoid and you like freedom too much how can i argue this?!?!!"

You asked me to give you a modern model, I gave you the antithesis of my modern model because a state that I think does everything right doesn't exist. You didn't advocate communism specifically, but you asked me to bring it up.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Here's my clue, bud. In our insurance based system it's going to be near impossible for a middle class salary to pay for an expensive surgery, I already told you that. For you to say that you're stuck with one insurance that is horrible for your situation is ignorant and wrong.

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Welcome.ds?mcei.app.terminalID=__tid__1_

Just going here and putting in a zip code and a birthdate I got 91 different plans from a large amount of providers.[/quote]

Yes, because so many middle class families can easily afford 900.

I don't know how you were raised, but if you think an extra 900 a month for a family of 3 isn't a significant amount of money, money that many cannot afford, then you're delusional. If you want to explain how families that barely get by from paycheck to paycheck can afford that, or how people with medical issues can afford to be without health care, then go right ahead.


I like how your points are growing ever smaller and completely off-base with what I said. You backed out of supporting government healthcare here to bring up how awesome government schools are, then you back out of that to make some obvious statement about poverty.

Yeah, there always was and always will be poverty because people aren't perfect. Doesn't mean the government has to steal from others because some people can't provide anything to society.

I haven't backed off of anything, my points are based on the way you have directed the argument. But, if your point was true, then poverty rates would be relatively consistent among developed nations.

You brought up schools. But what is there to say to someone who can't even grasp their opponents argument?

Oh there you go, the last stand of a liberal argument, "You're just paranoid and you like freedom too much how can i argue this?!?!!"

You asked me to give you a modern model, I gave you the antithesis of my modern model because a state that I think does everything right doesn't exist. You didn't advocate communism specifically, but you asked me to bring it up.

A last stand would suggest you previously actually made some valid points, or gave a good reason as to why I'm wrong.

Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with my point. It's just one big slippery slope "oh, we pay for health care and then next thing ya know we're commies".

And, just like you said, I asked you to give a model of your system working and you gave me something that was the complete opposite of your system. How is a system I didn't advocate, and a system unrelated to the one you advocate, supposed to have anything to do with your argument? It's like someone saying "being fat is unhealthy" and then responding "oh ya, well the people over there died of starvation!". So?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Yes, because so many middle class families can easily afford 900.

I don't know how you were raised, but if you think an extra 900 a month for a family of 3 isn't a significant amount of money, money that many cannot afford, then you're delusional. If you want to explain how families that barely get by from paycheck to paycheck can afford that, or how people with medical issues can afford to be without health care, then go right ahead.[/quote]

I guess you're just blind then...?

[quote name='Me']In our insurance based system it's going to be near impossible for a middle class salary to pay for an expensive surgery, I already told you that. For you to say that you're stuck with one insurance that is horrible for your situation is ignorant and wrong.[/quote]

[quote name='Me']In our insurance based system it's going to be near impossible for a middle class salary to pay for an expensive surgery, I already told you that. For you to say that you're stuck with one insurance that is horrible for your situation is ignorant and wrong.[/quote]

[quote name='Me']In our insurance based system it's going to be near impossible for a middle class salary to pay for an expensive surgery, I already told you that. For you to say that you're stuck with one insurance that is horrible for your situation is ignorant and wrong.[/quote]

If 900 is too much then you find another company, as I said, there are OPTIONS. There isn't just one insurance carrier in all of America. I saw several quotes for family insurance under 200 bucks alone.

I haven't backed off of anything, my points are based on the way you have directed the argument. But, if your point was true, then poverty rates would be relatively consistent among developed nations.

You brought up schools. But what is there to say to someone who can't even grasp their opponents argument?

So you agree that those in poverty are burdens to society that are inhibited from being productive members of society by the very government that they depend on?

Yeah, I brought it up with the pretense that it was another argument altogether. I didn't even come close to stating that 7 or 8 year olds should have to pay for their own education, it shows that you have very little knowledge of how a sort of voucher system would work out.

A last stand would suggest you previously actually made some valid points, or gave a good reason as to why I'm wrong.

Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with my point. It's just one big slippery slope "oh, we pay for health care and then next thing ya know we're commies".

And, just like you said, I asked you to give a model of your system working and you gave me something that was the complete opposite of your system. How is a system I didn't advocate, and a system unrelated to the one you advocate, supposed to have anything to do with your argument? It's like someone saying "being fat is unhealthy" and then responding "oh ya, well the people over there died of starvation!". So?

You really hit the nail on the head. If I have to pay to keep you healthy instead of making sure that myself and my family is, that is as clear cut definition of socialism as you can get. We all have to pitch in to take care of each other through the government because we're too stupid to take care of ourselves.

And what do you want me to say? There has been no real conservative model for me to point to. It's never been tried. The closest thing I could think of is the Anti-USSR.
 
Nothing is "free".

Terms such as free health care, education, housing, and any other "program" to help a targetted section of the populace--- cost MONEY.

That money does not grow on trees. It is forcibly taken from other members of the populace. If you think this is an extreme way to put it-- don't pay your taxes and see what will happen to you.

This is a very key point to understand when formulating one's opinions about government and it's role in the life of it's citizens.

It has been a while since I have reread The Constitution, but I am quite sure I never saw any part in there about "ensuring anyone who "needs" something is given it at the expense of their fellow citizen."

I do remember the idea that men are created equal and with inalienable rights given to them by their Creator. Those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Frankly, forcibly taking my money through taxes in order to fund welfare programs (and that's what they are) infringes on my rights to liberty and my pursuit of happiness.


This comprehension is really the difference between people that think a communistic government is desired as opposed to people that believe in a free republic as the preferable model.

I'm going to go with the free republic because it's track record proves it to be vastly superior. The U.S.A. is the most prosperous and powerful nation to ever be. That wasn't an accident. It's also the only nation to ever be founded on the principles that a man's rights descend not from other men (gov't) but rather from their creator.

I genuinely feel for the less fortunate of our society. I too know how much of a burden health costs can cause a person/family. But at the same time, I do not believe it is my RIGHT to have health care, housing, food, clothes, or anything else and I certainly don't believe it is the responsibility of my fellow citizens to provide it to me.



*note that the U.S.A. of today has been tainted (and probably irreparably) by socialism and no longer is truly a free republic as it was created. Making my views only ideals that no longer exist fully realized in this country. Though even the shell of a country that the U.S. is today is still better than every single other nation in the world as witnessed by the fact that people flock to come here every year because it's simply better than where they came from without a doubt.*
 
Yay, fresh blood! Or is it fresh meat to 90% of the socialists around here...

Howdy, chum ! Don't let people like alonzo fool you. They don't really want health insurance for everyone. That 40 million uninsured is just a catch phrase to eventually argue that no one should even have to pay any insurance premium, unless you can afford it. Free healthcare for all is the goal. Free immunizations, general checkups, hangnail surgeries, heart transplants, extreme lifesaving measures for the elderly and vegetative state citizens. Oh yeah, and free, endless supplies of cutting edge surgery techniques and drugs no matter what the cost or status in society. Lets bankrupt the system as soon as humanly possible so that everyone can suffer equally.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Nothing is "free".

Terms such as free health care, education, housing, and any other "program" to help a targetted section of the populace--- cost MONEY.

That money does not grow on trees. It is forcibly taken from other members of the populace. If you think this is an extreme way to put it-- don't pay your taxes and see what will happen to you.

This is a very key point to understand when formulating one's opinions about government and it's role in the life of it's citizens.

It has been a while since I have reread The Constitution, but I am quite sure I never saw any part in there about "ensuring anyone who "needs" something is given it at the expense of their fellow citizen."

I do remember the idea that men are created equal and with inalienable rights given to them by their Creator. Those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Frankly, forcibly taking my money through taxes in order to fund welfare programs (and that's what they are) infringes on my rights to liberty and my pursuit of happiness.


This comprehension is really the difference between people that think a communistic government is desired as opposed to people that believe in a free republic as the preferable model.

I'm going to go with the free republic because it's track record proves it to be vastly superior. The U.S.A. is the most prosperous and powerful nation to ever be. That wasn't an accident. It's also the only nation to ever be founded on the principles that a man's rights descend not from other men (gov't) but rather from their creator.

I genuinely feel for the less fortunate of our society. I too know how much of a burden health costs can cause a person/family. But at the same time, I do not believe it is my RIGHT to have health care, housing, food, clothes, or anything else and I certainly don't believe it is the responsibility of my fellow citizens to provide it to me.



*note that the U.S.A. of today has been tainted (and probably irreparably) by socialism and no longer is truly a free republic as it was created. Making my views only ideals that no longer exist fully realized in this country. Though even the shell of a country that the U.S. is today is still better than every single other nation in the world as witnessed by the fact that people flock to come here every year because it's simply better than where they came from without a doubt.*[/QUOTE]

Milton Friedman would be proud.
 
My thoughts in general. First that waiting list wouldn't be NEARLY as bad if it wasn't for the latest person wanting their Gastric Bypass who's too lazy to get off their fucking ass and excersize or try any # of practical solutions to lose weight. This being said I realize there are people that genuinely have a problem and feel for them and have no problem seeing them get a surgery. It's the one's who don't and just need to stick to a lifetime diet and excersize I feel no sympathy for.
Also I'm entirely opposed to a Corporate Heathcare system, however if it's a for profit hospital that puts it's proceeds directly back into the hospital there's a difference. As long as this is the case and patient's care doesn't suffer I see no problem.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Hey Zhuge, you some kind of millionaire?

Ever seen a child chained to a loom?[/QUOTE]

No, sir. I am not.

No I haven't ever seen childrens chained to a loom and I'm not sure exactly what it means. That they are poor?

I grew up in a single mom household. My father died from complications suffered from his service in Vietnam when I was still a toddler. I grew up poor. I have seen poverty, I've seen people suffer. My heart goes out to them. It's only human to feel pity for someone in unfortunate circumstances.

Is it supposed to make me feel that it's acceptable for one citizen to forcibly take money from another citizen via government force?

"Free" healthcare is just that. There is no inherent right to free healthcare.


Nothing is free in this world. Even freedom is not free. It's costs are the uncertainties that come along with it because with freedom there are no guarantees.

No guarantees that you will always have the best of health. And no guarantees that you will be able to afford to get the medical services you want or need.

But you know what? Being an American myself- I will say that there's a pretty good chance that you can find help in your most dire time of need... from many individuals, churches, and private organizations in this country that are helping genuinely poor people each and every single day. It's due to the wealth of this country.

I have been on both ends of truly blessed gifts, compassion, and kindness between fellow Americans. And that is what I put my faith in, not free healthcare from gov't house.
 
bread's done
Back
Top