Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Health Care Options · View
Guest
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:18:28 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,932
LadyX wrote:
I also see a stereotype being invoked that basically implies that the lower-income class- as a whole- sits around in luxury cars and houses collecting welfare checks and other government handouts.


i agree to keep sweeping generalizations to a minimum but i have been POOR and i have had countless experiences standing behind people in high end name brand clothes and gold chains paying for groceries with food stamps while i stood clutching my 20 bucks that had to feed us for 5 days. then i did follow them out to their nice cars while i got in my hooptie.

is everyone like that? no. but abuse is rampant. ill say it again. personal responsibility! sometimes its like we're rich kids living on trust funds. our forefathers worked their asses off and sooo many out there think it should all be free to them...the american dream.

swanny was not so off in his remark even if it was a bit sweeping. with so much free stuff out there and it being so easy to get its hard to want to get out there and work HARD for what you want.

just my 2 cents.
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:23:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
xCindyx3 wrote:
Pride. So it makes a differance whether they get their money in charity or whether they just get it for free at the expense of everyone else? This is a little contradicting. Pride! that means they would not take charity because they have pride! So they would die, or let their children die becasue they want to keep their pride? I really don't think that pride would matter at that point. The ones that deserve pride are the ones that can help themselves or the ones that can let someone help them, and then make themselves into somthing.


I never said free. Why do you assume that poor people don't pay taxes?
xCindyx3
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:23:11 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Quote:
I also see a stereotype being invoked that basically implies that the lower-income class- as a whole- sits around in luxury cars and houses collecting welfare checks and other government handouts.

Both tend toward being offensive and are discouraged here.


Yes you're right icon_smile from the thing I quoted above, I ment to agree with how people lose the incentive to work. Not agreeing with the bit about the cars.
And I really am sorry if I offend anyone.
Guest
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:31:52 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,932
Jebru wrote:
xCindyx3 wrote:
Pride. So it makes a differance whether they get their money in charity or whether they just get it for free at the expense of everyone else? This is a little contradicting. Pride! that means they would not take charity because they have pride! So they would die, or let their children die becasue they want to keep their pride? I really don't think that pride would matter at that point. The ones that deserve pride are the ones that can help themselves or the ones that can let someone help them, and then make themselves into somthing.


I never said free. Why do you assume that poor people don't pay taxes?


gotta say .. i have a friend that lives off the government with a full time job and one kid. she gets free food and free health care. my husband and i both work our asses off and pay for all our food and our insurance. we have 2 kids. she got more than double back than we did. she paid almost NO taxes while we paid thru the nose. just sayin.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:32:36 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Quote:
i have been POOR and i have had countless experiences standing behind people in high end name brand clothes and gold chains paying for groceries with food stamps while i stood clutching my 20 bucks that had to feed us for 5 days. then i did follow them out to their nice cars while i got in my hooptie.


Well, LMB, we have something in common, both coming from a background of having less. It's a minor point but it has to be made- which I'm sure you're aware of- but nobody's getting rich off welfare. There seems to be this belief that people are becoming well off by sitting around in FUBU gear and waiting on the riches from the US Treasury to roll in.

They either have a decent paying job and are defrauding the government about it, or they're criminals. Are they abusing food stamps if they don't need them, absolutely yes. Is it the majority of people? Of course it's not, to imply that it's even a big percentage is not fair to reality or to the debate. It's easy to stand behind the neighborhood gangsta and get pissed off about it, but just think of all the people you make go without necessities if you cut programs just because some shady characters abuse it.

Quote:

swanny was not so off in his remark even if it was a bit sweeping. with so much free stuff out there and it being so easy to get its hard to want to get out there and work HARD for what you want.

just my 2 cents.


So much free stuff? I guess I just don't know what you mean. I remember church soup kitchens, charity meals, clothing drives, and things like that in addition to standard government programs, but I totally missed the 'so much free stuff' available in low income areas. What are you referring to?

Don't get me wrong, nobody has to look very far in any neighborhood to see somebody getting over on the government, but I just have never been able to get on board with the opinion that "well, everyone's just going to have to sink or swim from this point". LMB, being poor, I'm sure you watched people sink, government programs or not. So have I. There is a good number of people that need help- and I know that runs counter to a lot of people's ideas about society, which I respect as simply different opinions from mine- but those people sinking is contribution lost in our country, or whatever country they might be in.
Swanny
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:35:47 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/22/2010
Posts: 12
Location: VA
Jebru wrote:
Swanny wrote:
Jebru wrote:
LittleMissBitch wrote:
Quote:
Society needs its members, even the lower class, to be functioning, and contributing. If they can't get the treatment they need, or they go bankrupt because of it, that ends up hurting society even more.



but when they do not comply with their doctors guidance towards better health when do we get to say enough! im not going to pay for your insulin your surgeries your transplants any more! you have exhausted your free ride?


There will be people who abuse the system. It's part of what raises insurance costs even in private insurance companies. But there is a huge difference between being too poor to pay for coverage, and abusing the system. If you are barely paying your bills, and then get sick, not only can you not work because of the sickness, but you can't afford the treatment so you can go back to work.

What it comes down to is which side you prefer to err on. If you have a universal system, then everyone who deserves treatment gets it, even if you end up paying a little extra to cover people who don't take care of themselves. If you make everyone pay their own way, it means you don't pay for the system abusers, but it also means that people die who can't afford treatment they deserved to get.

I'm willing to spend a couple hundred dollars a year extra to avoid the death of one innocent person.


And yet another entitlement program is born. People that have 5 kids and can't raise them....it's not their fault. They have a Cadi with rims, but they can't feed their kids, so I should give them MORE of my money. Can't educate their kids, here's some more. Can't get your kids their shots, here's some more....

Then I lose the incentive to work because I pay for all the people that don't. So you pay more, then you stop working.....

It's all OK though, everybody that doesn't do anything is taken care of. Not because they pulled themselves out of what they were born into, but because I did, you did....their neighbor did. We should all pay for the ones that didn't do anything but have a bunch of kids and sit on the couch.

It's not fair to them to NOT have what the rest of us that have worked for it DO HAVE. We'll all just pay a little bit more until everything we work for is gone!


I didn't realise that Canada, and other countries with universal, government sponsored healthcare programs just gave up and sat on our asses, because of some sense of entitlement.


Of course you didn't. Canada just has their Government officials coming to the US for heart surgery instead of the "wonderful" options in their own country that the government "gave" to them. There were only THOUSANDS of letters pouring into the US from Canadian citizens IMPLORING our Congress not to pass this bill, because then they'd have nowhere to go for QUALITY healthcare. That's not rolling over, that's just accepting that somebody else is supposed to take care of you, and ignoring that the people we elect to REPRESENT us bypass the very laws they pass using the paychecks that our tax dollars pay. That's not laying down and being lazy, that's being willfully ignorant.
xCindyx3
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:36:36 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Quote:
i agree to keep sweeping generalizations to a minimum but i have been POOR and i have had countless experiences standing behind people in high end name brand clothes and gold chains paying for groceries with food stamps while i stood clutching my 20 bucks that had to feed us for 5 days. then i did follow them out to their nice cars while i got in my hooptie.

is everyone like that? no. but abuse is rampant. ill say it again. personal responsibility! sometimes its like we're rich kids living on trust funds. our forefathers worked their asses off and sooo many out there think it should all be free to them...the american dream.

swanny was not so off in his remark even if it was a bit sweeping. with so much free stuff out there and it being so easy to get its hard to want to get out there and work HARD for what you want.


You are my idol icon_smile
I have a similar story because my mom was an immagrant who had nothing when I was born. But her and my dad pulled it together. Personal resposibility. Agreed!

Quote:
I never said free. Why do you assume that poor people don't pay taxes?


I don't assume that. Because if they didn't, that would be illegal making it stupid to assume such. They obviously do pay taxes. But not even close to the amount it takes to cover their share in Health Care. Common sence. The rich get taxed more. Meaning some contribute more then their share in health care. Making it not at all fair. Someone who pays less then their share is still getting the same treatment as someone who pays even more then their share.
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:44:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Swanny wrote:
Jebru wrote:
Swanny wrote:
Jebru wrote:
LittleMissBitch wrote:
Quote:
Society needs its members, even the lower class, to be functioning, and contributing. If they can't get the treatment they need, or they go bankrupt because of it, that ends up hurting society even more.



but when they do not comply with their doctors guidance towards better health when do we get to say enough! im not going to pay for your insulin your surgeries your transplants any more! you have exhausted your free ride?


There will be people who abuse the system. It's part of what raises insurance costs even in private insurance companies. But there is a huge difference between being too poor to pay for coverage, and abusing the system. If you are barely paying your bills, and then get sick, not only can you not work because of the sickness, but you can't afford the treatment so you can go back to work.

What it comes down to is which side you prefer to err on. If you have a universal system, then everyone who deserves treatment gets it, even if you end up paying a little extra to cover people who don't take care of themselves. If you make everyone pay their own way, it means you don't pay for the system abusers, but it also means that people die who can't afford treatment they deserved to get.

I'm willing to spend a couple hundred dollars a year extra to avoid the death of one innocent person.


And yet another entitlement program is born. People that have 5 kids and can't raise them....it's not their fault. They have a Cadi with rims, but they can't feed their kids, so I should give them MORE of my money. Can't educate their kids, here's some more. Can't get your kids their shots, here's some more....

Then I lose the incentive to work because I pay for all the people that don't. So you pay more, then you stop working.....

It's all OK though, everybody that doesn't do anything is taken care of. Not because they pulled themselves out of what they were born into, but because I did, you did....their neighbor did. We should all pay for the ones that didn't do anything but have a bunch of kids and sit on the couch.

It's not fair to them to NOT have what the rest of us that have worked for it DO HAVE. We'll all just pay a little bit more until everything we work for is gone!


I didn't realise that Canada, and other countries with universal, government sponsored healthcare programs just gave up and sat on our asses, because of some sense of entitlement.


Of course you didn't. Canada just has their Government officials coming to the US for heart surgery instead of the "wonderful" options in their own country that the government "gave" to them. There were only THOUSANDS of letters pouring into the US from Canadian citizens IMPLORING our Congress not to pass this bill, because then they'd have nowhere to go for QUALITY healthcare. That's not rolling over, that's just accepting that somebody else is supposed to take care of you, and ignoring that the people we elect to REPRESENT us bypass the very laws they pass using the paychecks that our tax dollars pay. That's not laying down and being lazy, that's being willfully ignorant.


Thousands of people? Say, 10,000? So of a population of 34 million that would be about 3 one hundredths of a percent, or .03% of people in Canada saying that. But of course, that's just an estimate, since you didn't provide sourcing for your claims. And my cancer treatment was perfectly fine in Canada, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that we don't have quality healthcare here.
Swanny
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:54:51 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/22/2010
Posts: 12
Location: VA
Jebru wrote:
Swanny wrote:
Jebru wrote:
Swanny wrote:
Jebru wrote:
LittleMissBitch wrote:
Quote:
Society needs its members, even the lower class, to be functioning, and contributing. If they can't get the treatment they need, or they go bankrupt because of it, that ends up hurting society even more.



but when they do not comply with their doctors guidance towards better health when do we get to say enough! im not going to pay for your insulin your surgeries your transplants any more! you have exhausted your free ride?


There will be people who abuse the system. It's part of what raises insurance costs even in private insurance companies. But there is a huge difference between being too poor to pay for coverage, and abusing the system. If you are barely paying your bills, and then get sick, not only can you not work because of the sickness, but you can't afford the treatment so you can go back to work.

What it comes down to is which side you prefer to err on. If you have a universal system, then everyone who deserves treatment gets it, even if you end up paying a little extra to cover people who don't take care of themselves. If you make everyone pay their own way, it means you don't pay for the system abusers, but it also means that people die who can't afford treatment they deserved to get.

I'm willing to spend a couple hundred dollars a year extra to avoid the death of one innocent person.


And yet another entitlement program is born. People that have 5 kids and can't raise them....it's not their fault. They have a Cadi with rims, but they can't feed their kids, so I should give them MORE of my money. Can't educate their kids, here's some more. Can't get your kids their shots, here's some more....

Then I lose the incentive to work because I pay for all the people that don't. So you pay more, then you stop working.....

It's all OK though, everybody that doesn't do anything is taken care of. Not because they pulled themselves out of what they were born into, but because I did, you did....their neighbor did. We should all pay for the ones that didn't do anything but have a bunch of kids and sit on the couch.

It's not fair to them to NOT have what the rest of us that have worked for it DO HAVE. We'll all just pay a little bit more until everything we work for is gone!


I didn't realise that Canada, and other countries with universal, government sponsored healthcare programs just gave up and sat on our asses, because of some sense of entitlement.


Of course you didn't. Canada just has their Government officials coming to the US for heart surgery instead of the "wonderful" options in their own country that the government "gave" to them. There were only THOUSANDS of letters pouring into the US from Canadian citizens IMPLORING our Congress not to pass this bill, because then they'd have nowhere to go for QUALITY healthcare. That's not rolling over, that's just accepting that somebody else is supposed to take care of you, and ignoring that the people we elect to REPRESENT us bypass the very laws they pass using the paychecks that our tax dollars pay. That's not laying down and being lazy, that's being willfully ignorant.


Thousands of people? Say, 10,000? So of a population of 34 million that would be about 3 one hundredths of a percent, or .03% of people in Canada saying that. But of course, that's just an estimate, since you didn't provide sourcing for your claims. And my cancer treatment was perfectly fine in Canada, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that we don't have quality healthcare here.


And now you want to go statistics on me. Should I pull out more specific numbers than "thousands" maybe I can pull out tax percentages for Canada, who is on government healthcare and who isn't. How many of the people that are on government healthcare work for the government. What the tax brackets are.... Lets do percentages and stop being brief about it. I can throw out numbers with the best of them, don't use percentages to try to prove me wrong, use facts.
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:57:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
xCindyx3 wrote:
Pride. So it makes a differance whether they get their money in charity or whether they just get it for free at the expense of everyone else?



xCindyx3 wrote:
I don't assume that. Because if they didn't, that would be illegal making it stupid to assume such. They obviously do pay taxes. But not even close to the amount it takes to cover their share in Health Care. Common sence. The rich get taxed more. Meaning some contribute more then their share in health care. Making it not at all fair. Someone who pays less then their share is still getting the same treatment as someone who pays even more then their share.


Which is it? Free, or that they pay something? And I think you will find that all insurance funds work by everyone contributing less money than they will end up having to withdraw should something unfortunate happens. The people who don't have to use the funds consider themselves fortunate for not having suffered. If the insurance companies required you to pay as much money as you were going to withdraw from the fund, people would just do without insurance.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:57:39 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Swanny wrote:
I can throw out numbers with the best of them, don't use percentages to try to prove me wrong, use facts.


By definition, facts are percentages and vice versa, as long as the stats aren't made up. Feel free to post whatever backup you wish- just remember to keep Nationalism and country-bashing to a minimum. It's about ideas, not which country is superior.
xCindyx3
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:59:46 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Well, I don't know how to quote a whole bunch of things. So quoting all from above post

When he says thousands, he means the rich ones that can afford to pay for the better qualitly health care in the states. And thousands is saying a lot. Who knew that many Canadians cared enough to write a letter? I never did. Shit!
And I care a lot about it too.
Canada Health Care does work. And there are some positive results. But the US is still better. Like swanny said, the government officials do go to the states to get sugery. I heard about that. Rich people do too. Or they just move there. If I was rich, I would too. Better then getting my money sucked away in taxes here.
DamonX
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:06:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
I'm just going to clarify something....

Let's not debate whether the US or Canada has better health care. Its well known that the US does...for those that can get it. The problem is the millions of people that have no health care. Or the millions who receive less than adequate care because their insurance doesn't cover everything.

I work in the Canadian medical system and I get irritated constantly by the flaws....but could never even imagine having to sell my car or take out a loan in order to pay my medical bills. Here, everyone gets the best service possible regardless of their job, income or status. A homeless person will get the exact same treatment as a millionaire if they both are being treated for the same disease. If you need expensive cancer treatments, open heart surgery, or an extended stay in ICU...you get it. Now if you want an MRI because your "elbow kind of hurts"...well then you might have a bit of a wait. That's the difference. In a US-like system, they will gladly send you for an MRI (if you're covered) as well as numerous other diagnostic tests in order to leech as much money out of your insurance plan as possible. The difference in "quality" that many people seem to be referring to, is more an issue of shorter wait times for non-essential surgeries and diagnostic imaging.

I think healthcare should be a service and not a business.

Swanny
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:06:38 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/22/2010
Posts: 12
Location: VA
LadyX wrote:
Swanny wrote:
I can throw out numbers with the best of them, don't use percentages to try to prove me wrong, use facts.


By definition, facts are percentages and vice versa, as long as the stats aren't made up. Feel free to post whatever backup you wish- just remember to keep Nationalism and country-bashing to a minimum. It's about ideas, not which country is superior.


Dear, numbers are numbers. If we're only talking numbers nobody disagreeing here would be wrong. You can make numbers equal whatever you want them to, it just depends on which numbers you use.

Jebru might be a success story, but as a whole socialized medicine is a failure, and is unsustainable. Make no mistake, I'm not "Country bashing". This is a forum about healthcare yes? That would be a "policy" as discussed here, not a country.
Guest
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:09:20 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,932

Quote:

swanny was not so off in his remark even if it was a bit sweeping. with so much free stuff out there and it being so easy to get its hard to want to get out there and work HARD for what you want.

just my 2 cents.


So much free stuff? I guess I just don't know what you mean. I remember church soup kitchens, charity meals, clothing drives, and things like that in addition to standard government programs, but I totally missed the 'so much free stuff' available in low income areas. What are you referring to?

Don't get me wrong, nobody has to look very far in any neighborhood to see somebody getting over on the government, but I just have never been able to get on board with the opinion that "well, everyone's just going to have to sink or swim from this point". LMB, being poor, I'm sure you watched people sink, government programs or not. So have I. There is a good number of people that need help- and I know that runs counter to a lot of people's ideas about society, which I respect as simply different opinions from mine- but those people sinking is contribution lost in our country, or whatever country they might be in.[/quote]

and if my blonde ass could figure out how to work these quote properly that would be great too! grrrrr!
ladyx let me say..there are really honest people out there that need a little help to get back up and im all for that...my mom was one. but she got off assistance as soon as she could. but i also know those that make a career from living off the government. you cant deny that work ethic and personal responsibility ( yes im a broken record) have gone downhill. we hand out and hand out to people who do whatever the hell they want. now, do the people who really deserve it suffer because of that. yes they do. maybe harder regs for people on assistance.

fuck i gave my last 3 bucks to a woman begging in the parking lot today cuz she was using an 8 year old kid as her lure. screw that! im sorry but it pisses me off to no end. not to mention she was drunk and yes i think the money i gave her aint goin to that kid but to her addiction. when can we say ENOUGH pay for your damn self or suffer the consequences?
LadyX
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:10:27 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Swanny wrote:
LadyX wrote:
Swanny wrote:
I can throw out numbers with the best of them, don't use percentages to try to prove me wrong, use facts.


By definition, facts are percentages and vice versa, as long as the stats aren't made up. Feel free to post whatever backup you wish- just remember to keep Nationalism and country-bashing to a minimum. It's about ideas, not which country is superior.


Dear, numbers are numbers. If we're only talking numbers nobody disagreeing here would be wrong. You can make numbers equal whatever you want them to, it just depends on which numbers you use.

Jebru might be a success story, but as a whole socialized medicine is a failure, and is unsustainable. Make no mistake, I'm not "Country bashing". This is a forum about healthcare yes? That would be a "policy" as discussed here, not a country.


Fair enough, dear, and I'm aware that numbers can be doctored to use, thanks for the reminder. I do respect that this is about policy first and foremost, but this discussion could also easily veer into Canada vs. US which has unfortunately caused many unexpected flare-ups on this site.

You've got good stuff, as does everyone, let's just keep it cool and post whatever backup you have instead of deriding others. So you'll forgive us for our cautiousness, even in an interesting discussion. Cool?
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:12:34 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Swanny wrote:
And now you want to go statistics on me. Should I pull out more specific numbers than "thousands" maybe I can pull out tax percentages for Canada, who is on government healthcare and who isn't. How many of the people that are on government healthcare work for the government. What the tax brackets are.... Lets do percentages and stop being brief about it. I can throw out numbers with the best of them, don't use percentages to try to prove me wrong, use facts.


Well, I'm not sure that I went statistics on you when you were the one who brought up these "thousands" of Canadians who seek US health care. Generally in these debates, when you bring up a number like that, you provide documentation of where you got it, so we can all see it, and not have to take your word for it.

As for how many people in Canada are on government health care, that would be 34 million, as that is how universal health care works. Everyone gets it. The federal government gives money to each of the provinces and territories, and they take care of the specific details on how it works. And yes, that 34 million includes the people who opt to go to the US for treatment. They still pay in to the Canadian system, and are entitled to use it when they need it.
xCindyx3
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:17:01 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Quote:
Which is it? Free, or that they pay something?

LOL Shit! you got me there. Guess I watch the next time I say free. They do pay somthing. But some not nearly as much as it would cost.

Quote:
And I think you will find that all insurance funds work by everyone contributing less money than they will end up having to withdraw should something unfortunate happens. The people who don't have to use the funds consider themselves fortunate for not having suffered. If the insurance companies required you to pay as much money as you were going to withdraw from the fund, people would just do without insurance.


Umm, I don't get how that fits in but thats what they did in the States. They had insurance. We don't do that with health care here in Canada. But yeah! I like the way that works. But then if we had that in Canada, you would be complaining that the poorer people couldn't afford to get the insurance that covers everything. They may be able to afford the minimum, but their insurance will not cover everything. So there will still be sad stories. Yeah, this quote doesn't make any sence. Insurance companies make their money on the people that don't end up needing Health Care. But where is the relevince? Of course, it would make absolutly no sence for them to put in the same amount they withdraw. No one would do that.


Swanny
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:20:45 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/22/2010
Posts: 12
Location: VA
DamonX wrote:
I'm just going to clarify something....

Let's not debate whether the US or Canada has better health care. Its well known that the US does...for those that can get it. The problem is the millions of people that have no health care. Or the millions who receive less than adequate care because their insurance doesn't cover everything.

I work in the Canadian medical system and I get irritated constantly by the flaws....but could never even imagine having to sell my car or take out a loan in order to pay my medical bills. Here, everyone gets the best service possible regardless of their job, income or status. A homeless person will get the exact same treatment as a millionaire if they both are being treated for the same disease. If you need expensive cancer treatments, open heart surgery, or an extended stay in ICU...you get it. Now if you want an MRI because your "elbow kind of hurts"...well then you might have a bit of a wait. That's the difference. In a US-like system, they will gladly send you for an MRI (if you're covered) as well as numerous other diagnostic tests in order to leech as much money out of your insurance plan as possible. The difference in "quality" that many people seem to be referring to, is more an issue of shorter wait times for non-essential surgeries and diagnostic imaging.

I think healthcare should be a service and not a business.



The problem is the GOVERNMENT regulation that makes it so expensive. Capitalism by definition is the consumer driving the business. Lasik surgery is a perfect example. Most insurance companies won't cover it, the consumer pays the business for it. In the last 10 years the price has dropped exponentially and the procedure has gotten better. Government regulates drugs, hospitals, procedures and insurance in the US, and it's not Government that is the problem? I should pay more for everyone to have something that would be affordable to everyone if it weren't for all the regulations? Can you say with a straight face that if the people that MAKE money had more to spend, the economy wouldn't be better?
LadyX
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:21:24 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
LittleMissBitch wrote:

and if my blonde ass could figure out how to work these quote properly that would be great too! grrrrr!


No worries, LMB- it took me a while too!

I think we agree in spirit, and I offer cheers for those like you, your mother, and me, that unshackled ourselves from the handout and used it as a hand up instead.3601

As a song near and dear to my heart repeats: "I don't care what I have to defend, I will never go hungry again"
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:21:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
xCindyx3 wrote:
Quote:
Which is it? Free, or that they pay something?

LOL Shit! you got me there. Guess I watch the next time I say free. They do pay somthing. But some not nearly as much as it would cost.

Quote:
And I think you will find that all insurance funds work by everyone contributing less money than they will end up having to withdraw should something unfortunate happens. The people who don't have to use the funds consider themselves fortunate for not having suffered. If the insurance companies required you to pay as much money as you were going to withdraw from the fund, people would just do without insurance.


Umm, I don't get how that fits in but thats what they did in the States. They had insurance. We don't do that with health care here in Canada. But yeah! I like the way that works. But then if we had that in Canada, you would be complaining that the poorer people couldn't afford to get the insurance that covers everything. They may be able to afford the minimum, but their insurance will not cover everything. So there will still be sad stories. Yeah, this quote doesn't make any sence. Insurance companies make their money on the people that don't end up needing Health Care. But where is the relevince? Of course, it would make absolutly no sence for them to put in the same amount they withdraw. No one would do that.




That fits in with the argument you made that the poor people don't cover the amount of money they take from the system. Whether it's government run, or private insurance, no one individual will pay more into the system than they would take from the system if something tragic happened.
DamonX
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:22:40 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Jebru wrote:
Swanny wrote:
And now you want to go statistics on me. Should I pull out more specific numbers than "thousands" maybe I can pull out tax percentages for Canada, who is on government healthcare and who isn't. How many of the people that are on government healthcare work for the government. What the tax brackets are.... Lets do percentages and stop being brief about it. I can throw out numbers with the best of them, don't use percentages to try to prove me wrong, use facts.


Well, I'm not sure that I went statistics on you when you were the one who brought up these "thousands" of Canadians who seek US health care. Generally in these debates, when you bring up a number like that, you provide documentation of where you got it, so we can all see it, and not have to take your word for it.

As for how many people in Canada are on government health care, that would be 34 million, as that is how universal health care works. Everyone gets it. The federal government gives money to each of the provinces and territories, and they take care of the specific details on how it works. And yes, that 34 million includes the people who opt to go to the US for treatment. They still pay in to the Canadian system, and are entitled to use it when they need it.


Yes, anyone going to the US for treatment is doing so in order to get faster treatment, not better. Many of my own patients go to the US for MRIs or CTs because the wait here can be up to months. But if anyone thinks that they will be getting "better" surgery by going south...they are kidding themselves. They are paying for convenience, not better quality.
Jillicious
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:24:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
The biggest problem with the health care bill recently passed in the United States is that it was not given a proper democratic process. It was bulldozed through congress while nearly half of US citizens disagreed with it. It was never properly discussed and the scrutiny was minimal. Every time someone made a valid point about one of the provisions they were immediately called unamerican or unpatriotic. I've heard similar name calling before on other issues and it is just plain silly.

One major problem with the US health care bill is section 5210. Establishing A Ready Reserve Corps.
Who was the last leader who had his own ready reserve? I didn't make the connection, you did. I only asked the question. I'm not implying but I'm saying its really damn similar.

So you can talk numbers, statistics, or even anecdotal evidence all day long. But when it comes to the US reform bill there are too many things brought into question. The 10th amendment, the bypass of the political process, the epic length of the bill, the questionable provisions of the bill, the shear numbers of US citizens who are against it, and the huge amount of bureaucracies being created just for health care. It will be a financial heart attack to the US.




Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.
--Harry S. Truman

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
Swanny
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:24:53 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/22/2010
Posts: 12
Location: VA
Jebru wrote:
Swanny wrote:
And now you want to go statistics on me. Should I pull out more specific numbers than "thousands" maybe I can pull out tax percentages for Canada, who is on government healthcare and who isn't. How many of the people that are on government healthcare work for the government. What the tax brackets are.... Lets do percentages and stop being brief about it. I can throw out numbers with the best of them, don't use percentages to try to prove me wrong, use facts.


Well, I'm not sure that I went statistics on you when you were the one who brought up these "thousands" of Canadians who seek US health care. Generally in these debates, when you bring up a number like that, you provide documentation of where you got it, so we can all see it, and not have to take your word for it.

As for how many people in Canada are on government health care, that would be 34 million, as that is how universal health care works. Everyone gets it. The federal government gives money to each of the provinces and territories, and they take care of the specific details on how it works. And yes, that 34 million includes the people who opt to go to the US for treatment. They still pay in to the Canadian system, and are entitled to use it when they need it.


Fabulous, but thousands isn't exactly a number. That's what most reasonable people would call a generalization. My point is the people that CAN afford it still get BETTER CARE. They just still pay for people that do nothing, which stifles innovation and motivation. Probably why Canada is so big and has so few people living there.
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:33:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Swanny wrote:
The problem is the GOVERNMENT regulation that makes it so expensive. Capitalism by definition is the consumer driving the business. Lasik surgery is a perfect example. Most insurance companies won't cover it, the consumer pays the business for it. In the last 10 years the price has dropped exponentially and the procedure has gotten better. Government regulates drugs, hospitals, procedures and insurance in the US, and it's not Government that is the problem? I should pay more for everyone to have something that would be affordable to everyone if it weren't for all the regulations? Can you say with a straight face that if the people that MAKE money had more to spend, the economy wouldn't be better?


That still comes back to my question about why the US has higher health care costs than any other country in the world, including those with stricter government regulations, or even government controlled health care. If regulation was the problem, those countries should have higher costs than the US.

As for Lasik surgery, I would compare say it's more of an economies of scale issue. As the procedure became more popular, more equipment could be made for the procedure, driving down the cost of the procedure. And also more doctors learned how to do the procedure as the demand for it increased. Any new technology follows that progression. Take DVD players. At first they were expensive, but as people decided they were good, the price started to drop, and the technology improved. Lasik would drop whether or not the government regulated it, as more people got comfortable with the fact it wasn't going to blind them.
xCindyx3
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:40:50 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Quote:
That fits in with the argument you made that the poor people don't cover the amount of money they take from the system. Whether it's government run, or private insurance, no one individual will pay more into the system than they would take from the system if something tragic happened.


Yes but you seem to forget that the other people who got the insurance WILLINGLY bought into it. Not forced in taxes! Thats the main, or only point I care about! People being able to make their own decisions when it come to their money. Less government control! Insurance is a whole differant thing. They do not force ANYONE to buy into it. And there are individuals who pay more into the system then they take. Unlike what you said. If not all the insurance companies would be broke. In this system there is a balance. People putting in more then they take and people putting in less then they take. Its not fair for those who put in more then they take but at least in this system they WILLINGLY bought into it.
DamonX
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:42:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Quote:

The problem is the GOVERNMENT regulation that makes it so expensive. Capitalism by definition is the consumer driving the business. Lasik surgery is a perfect example. Most insurance companies won't cover it, the consumer pays the business for it. In the last 10 years the price has dropped exponentially and the procedure has gotten better. Government regulates drugs, hospitals, procedures and insurance in the US, and it's not Government that is the problem? I should pay more for everyone to have something that would be affordable to everyone if it weren't for all the regulations? [b]Can you say with a straight face that if the people that MAKE money had more to spend, the economy wouldn't be better?



That's my point. Health care shouldn't be an issue of making money. It should be a service designed to maintain the health of the populace. Let's keep the capitalistic talk to a minimum, and keep this focused on health care.

Lasik is elective surgery. Of course if it is not covered the price will drop. Because when procedures are covered by insurance, the practitioners will charge as much as possible. This is the kind of thing going on in the medical system every day and a great argument for why we should remove all apsects of "money making" from the health care industry.

DamonX
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:43:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Swanny wrote:
Jebru wrote:
Swanny wrote:
And now you want to go statistics on me. Should I pull out more specific numbers than "thousands" maybe I can pull out tax percentages for Canada, who is on government healthcare and who isn't. How many of the people that are on government healthcare work for the government. What the tax brackets are.... Lets do percentages and stop being brief about it. I can throw out numbers with the best of them, don't use percentages to try to prove me wrong, use facts.


Well, I'm not sure that I went statistics on you when you were the one who brought up these "thousands" of Canadians who seek US health care. Generally in these debates, when you bring up a number like that, you provide documentation of where you got it, so we can all see it, and not have to take your word for it.

As for how many people in Canada are on government health care, that would be 34 million, as that is how universal health care works. Everyone gets it. The federal government gives money to each of the provinces and territories, and they take care of the specific details on how it works. And yes, that 34 million includes the people who opt to go to the US for treatment. They still pay in to the Canadian system, and are entitled to use it when they need it.


Fabulous, but thousands isn't exactly a number. That's what most reasonable people would call a generalization. My point is the people that CAN afford it still get BETTER CARE. They just still pay for people that do nothing, which stifles innovation and motivation. Probably why Canada is so big and has so few people living there.


Refer back to my post differentiating "better" and " more convenient"
Jillicious
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:44:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
Jebru wrote:
That still comes back to my question about why the US has higher health care costs than any other country in the world, including those with stricter government regulations, or even government controlled health care. If regulation was the problem, those countries should have higher costs than the US.

You will pay for it one way or another. Tax me more or pay out of my pocket. I guess whichever gives you warm fuzzies.
The US health care system as it stands now follows neither capitalism or socialism. It is a horrible disfigured mix between the two. Our health care is subsidized by our employers, or even the government. But we still pay a large amount for it. Our health insurance covers everything! Every damn thing you can think of. I sure as hell wish I had grocery insurance like that. I would love to go to the store and pick up any food without thought of cost to me. After all, why would I take ground beef when I can eat steak every night? This is how our health care system currently works. We pay exorbitant amounts of money for health care, blame the rich, and still expect it to be a buffet.

Jebru wrote:
As for Lasik surgery, I would compare say it's more of an economies of scale issue. As the procedure became more popular, more equipment could be made for the procedure, driving down the cost of the procedure. And also more doctors learned how to do the procedure as the demand for it increased. Any new technology follows that progression. Take DVD players. At first they were expensive, but as people decided they were good, the price started to drop, and the technology improved. Lasik would drop whether or not the government regulated it, as more people got comfortable with the fact it wasn't going to blind them.


Thats a nice capitalist example you gave there. So capitalism does work? Supply and Demand? Adam Smith would be proud! Just sayin.

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:45:15 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
DamonX wrote:
Health care shouldn't be an issue of making money. It should be a service designed to maintain the health of the populace.

we should remove all apsects of "money making" from the health care industry.




Applause

Now, I'm curious- whether you support or oppose the idea of government-administered health care, is there anyone that disagrees with the above feeling?


Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.