About Swanny
Biography

Name:
Micah Swanson
Sex:
Male 
Age:
36
Sign:
Libra
Relationship Status:
Single
Location:
Statistics
Date Joined:
22 Jul 2010
Last Visit:
17 Jun 2011 (1477 days ago)
Page Viewed:
397 times
Friends:
Followers:
Days in Chat:
0
Days on Site:
0
Forum Posts:
12
Stories:
Badges:
Swanny's Friends

Not added any friends yet.

Favourite Stories

No favourite stories listed.

Not following any authors

Latest Forum Posts
Topic: Health Care
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 01:25

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.




=d>

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?




I do not disagree, at all. But then how do you pay doctors? How do you pay nurses? Where do the hospitals come from? New drugs, new treatments? Research and development funds? Now I am only speaking for American government, but government is government in my experience, and if any state takes federal funding for a road project the cost AUTOMATICALLY goes up no less than 25%.

I haven't done much research on other systems- but there is at least one country that has private insurers, and those insurers are non-profit. This country somehow manages to pay doctors, nurses, and run hospitals as well. I'm aware that we need money to make the world go 'round- but the pursuit of money doesn't have to be the dominating factor in order to provide quality health care. I'm learning here reading what all of you have to say, but I still believe that to put profits first puts people way down in distant second, and that seems very wrong at the most basic level.

Just because you're not aiming for quarterly earnings for shareholders doesn't mean there is no revenue and no salaries. It's about the desired end.



And how do non-profit's get a lot of their money?

ah, venturing into territory I'm short specifics on- but this is education for all of us, so I'll take a shot.

I'd say here in the US, most non-profits get funding from government and private donations. In the case of Switzerland, non-profit insurance providers receive their funds from a combination of subscribers and government subsidies- from what I can gather. If US Insurance providers were non-profit, they would get money the same way they do now, only their end-goal would not simply be quarterly earnings.

For yours, and others', point of "well, how do you pay for all other costs associated with health care?": Are you suggesting that private insurance companies are the cash cow that funds all of it? Surely not, and if so, I tip my cap and consider myself educated by this discussion. But if that's not the case, then other parts of this puzzle don't fundamentally change, no?

Not for profits in the states get HUGE tax cuts. Most of their funding comes from donations. I'm not discounting this as an option however, because I have faith in the good will of human beings to freely give their money to causes that protect the health and well being of their fellow man.

Topic: Health Care
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 01:19

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.




=d>

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?




I do not disagree, at all. But then how do you pay doctors? How do you pay nurses? Where do the hospitals come from? New drugs, new treatments? Research and development funds? Now I am only speaking for American government, but government is government in my experience, and if any state takes federal funding for a road project the cost AUTOMATICALLY goes up no less than 25%.

Yes, you keep mentioning that government makes things more expensive, but you don't respond to my question of why the countries with more government involvement in their healthcare systems compared to the US, have lower healthcare costs for similar service. Obviously there is something else at play too.

Who would pay the doctors? If it was government run, the government would. Last time I checked, the starting wage for an Ontario doctor straight out of med school was in the neaighbourhood of $100,000. They do still get paid without the government trying to make money on health care. If it was covered by non-profit insurance companies, then it would be the same thing. A rate is determined, and people are paid. Without someone looking to get rich off the profit margins.

And for the comment that innovation would not happen without capitalism, I don't think capitalism has anything to do with the millions of dollars the Terry Fox foundation pours in to cancer research every year, or anything to do with the research, and lobbying efforts that Micheal J Fox makes in an effort to find a cure for parkinsons.

Quite right, something else is at play. YOU pay the doctors. YOU build the hospitals and YOU pay for the R&D of new drugs and treatments, and YOU pay FAR higher taxes than I do. Until Socialized medicine takes full effect here in the states. I stand to go from losing 38% of my my earned income to losing over 50% of my earned income. Regardless of what you are led to believe, there is ALMOST half of the US that actually PAYS taxes. Again, numbers are numbers, you can move them around and make them add up to whatever you want, but in the end when you give government control of something, they will pay for it with YOUR money. Government will never do with less, they will demand that YOU do with less.

Topic: Health Care
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 01:08

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.




=d>

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?




I do not disagree, at all. But then how do you pay doctors? How do you pay nurses? Where do the hospitals come from? New drugs, new treatments? Research and development funds? Now I am only speaking for American government, but government is government in my experience, and if any state takes federal funding for a road project the cost AUTOMATICALLY goes up no less than 25%.

I haven't done much research on other systems- but there is at least one country that has private insurers, and those insurers are non-profit. This country somehow manages to pay doctors, nurses, and run hospitals as well. I'm aware that we need money to make the world go 'round- but the pursuit of money doesn't have to be the dominating factor in order to provide quality health care. I'm learning here reading what all of you have to say, but I still believe that to put profits first puts people way down in distant second, and that seems very wrong at the most basic level.

Just because you're not aiming for quarterly earnings for shareholders doesn't mean there is no revenue and no salaries. It's about the desired end.



And how do non-profit's get a lot of their money?

Topic: Health Care
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 00:57

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.




=d>

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?




I do not disagree, at all. But then how do you pay doctors? How do you pay nurses? Where do the hospitals come from? New drugs, new treatments? Research and development funds? Now I am only speaking for American government, but government is government in my experience, and if any state takes federal funding for a road project the cost AUTOMATICALLY goes up no less than 25%.

Topic: Health Care
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 00:47

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.

Because treatment is rationed with socialized medicine. If you make money that means you pay taxes, that means you perpetuate the idea that everyone is equal and therefore you help keep the governments boot on your (and everyone else's) neck. Therefore your "worth" is more than someone that pays no taxes. They need their random success story to keep the lie alive, but treatment is faster in the states because the system is...if you can pay the money, you get it faster. That's why people leave the US to have major surgeries, not because it's safer or better, but because their money goes farther. In the words of a 1980's Russian defector "Unless The United States wakes up, the time bomb is ticking, unlike myself you will have nowhere to defect to. This is the last country of freedom and possibility."

Topic: Health Care
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 00:24

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.

Topic: Health Care
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 00:20

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?

Topic: Health Care
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 00:06

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.

Topic: Health Care
Posted: 22 Jul 2010 23:54

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.

Topic: Health Care
Posted: 22 Jul 2010 23:35

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.

back to top
Friends Comments
Friends Comments
Lush
Posted: 05 Oct 2014 00:20
Happy Birthday from the Lush team.
Lush
Posted: 05 Oct 2013 00:20
Happy Birthday from the Lush team.
Lush
Posted: 05 Oct 2012 03:09
Happy Birthday from the Lush team.
back to top
 


Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.

Tell us why

Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.

Reason

Moderate

What would you like to do?

Reason

Activity