PMEL Forum

I've lived under at leat 4 different health care systems.
US
US Military
US Vet System
Canadian Single payer system.

For the best return on investment, I think the Canuckistan version is the best.

Discuss?

What was wrong with your US private health care insurance? Was it the premiums? Is that your responsibility or the tax payers as a whole? Do you believe in personal responsibility or does saving a buck seem to be more important to you? The health care in Canada is not better so I know that is not the reason for your "best return on investment" statement. It is clear that it is just about the money. As I posted in the previous thread, I think that my families care is my sole responsibility and not the rest of the tax payers.

It is not a commie plot, just a system for people who want a cheap ride and avoid their own responsibility. It is also socialist by definition, and we know where socialism leads.

Here is an article written by a guy who previously supported Canadian Health care until he examined it.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html)

And here is one from a liberal website and even they are saying it is failing! These are the guys that support universal health care.
http://www.progressiveu.org/071855-health-care-problems-in-canada (http://www.progressiveu.org/071855-health-care-problems-in-canada)

And here is a story from many I have found of a man dying waiting to be seen in the emergency room for 3 DAYS!!!
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/man-dies-winnipeg-emergency-room-after-waiting-34-hours (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/man-dies-winnipeg-emergency-room-after-waiting-34-hours)

Here is a nice article from the Canadian Medical Association. From the horses mouth.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/160/10/1469.pdf (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/160/10/1469.pdf)

Like I said universal healthcare isn't perfect....but it is considerably better than no care at all, or financially devastating care (particularly for those without resources - ie the tens of millions working at $10-15 an hour with little, or more likely, no insurance).  Sorry, I think society has an obligation to maintain the health of its citizens.  For those who can afford the luxury of private care I think they're perfectly entitled to it.  For the rest of us - I don't have a problem paying higher taxes to ensure we get good quality care when we need it.  It's only fair.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)

Quote from: clacoste on 04-07-2009 -- 06:41:02
Like I said universal healthcare isn't perfect....but it is considerably better than no care at all, or financially devastating care (particularly for those without resources - ie the tens of millions working at $10-15 an hour with little, or more likely, no insurance).  Sorry, I think society has an obligation to maintain the health of its citizens.  For those who can afford the luxury of private care I think they're perfectly entitled to it.  For the rest of us - I don't have a problem paying higher taxes to ensure we get good quality care when we need it.  It's only fair.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)

Fair? It is fair for someone who makes more money to take care of someone who doesn't? We already have free healthcare for the lazy in this country paid for by those who are "fortunate" . It's called medicade. So why again would we need Universal health care?

Coup,

I really can't say that I am an advocate for universal, government run health care, but I DO feel that everyone is entitled to affordable health care.

I think this discussion all started from the meager health and welfare benefits that were being paid for the Maxwell job that was listed here. In some cases that amount would be sufficient to obtain health insurance, if you are young, in good health, maybe single. But would it allow you to purchase individual health insurance if you had a pre-existing condition or were in some other high risk group?

Would your son be able to purchase health insurance with that much per month Coup since he is a diabetic? I doubt it. What about situations like that? How do you want your son to obtain health care when he is an adult?

The erosion of benefits that is being offered by companies, especially government contractors, is very disturbing. Do I have an answer? No. But I do have kids, and I do have grandkids. I sincerely hope that they have a better life than I did. And mine has really been pretty damn good overall.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 06:45:30

Fair? It is fair for someone who makes more money to take care of someone who doesn't? We already have free healthcare for the lazy in this country paid for by those who are "fortunate" . It's called medicade. So why again would we need Universal health care?

It's not only fair.....it's moral.  I hear it every Sunday morning....most people would.  Anyway, I'm not fully up to speed on Medicaid over there - only know half my relatives make enough not to qualify, and not enough to be able to get decent health insurance and eat as well.  Seems it varies from state to state - and the general rule is you get it if you're impoverished.  Otherwise, don't get sick.....

Quote from: clacoste on 04-07-2009 -- 07:04:07

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 06:45:30

Fair? It is fair for someone who makes more money to take care of someone who doesn't? We already have free healthcare for the lazy in this country paid for by those who are "fortunate" . It's called medicade. So why again would we need Universal health care?

It's not only fair.....it's moral.  I hear it every Sunday morning....most people would.  Anyway, I'm not fully up to speed on Medicaid over there - only know half my relatives make enough not to qualify, and not enough to be able to get decent health insurance and eat as well.  Seems it varies from state to state - and the general rule is you get it if you're impoverished.  Otherwise, don't get sick.....

I guess with that logic then we need to pay the utility bills for those who can't afford it too. We have a moral obligation not to let them freeze. We could go on and on. Why do I have a moral obligation to support those who refused to prepare themselves for life as an adult? It is not my responsibility to pay for those who failed to take life seriously. Hell, even Mcdonalds has health insurance benifits. They even get a low premium due to the size of the company. So how is it my responibility to pay for those that played instead of preparing for life as a teen and young adult? The fact is it is not. I have no moral obligation to pay for those who failed to ready themselves for life! Exactly what kind of lesson will the young of this nation out of this. Go ahead and play and party, you will be taken care of by the ones who prepared themselves.

With the economy shedding > 600,000 jobs a month, I think it may be somewhat disingenious to state that everyone who doesn't have health insurance didn't take life seriously and played rather than preparing themselves for the responsibilities of life.    Do you really think that everyone who is unemployed or working at a low wage or no-benefit job "refused to prepare themselves for life as an adult"? And further, let's consider:

QuoteI think that my families care is my sole responsibility and not the rest of the tax payers

So, what you're saying is that your health insurance is NOT subsidized by your employer and you're footing the whole bill yourself.    I'm glad you can afford that, 'cause I certainly can't afford the whole cost of insuring myself and my wife, being as we're both over 50 with no preexisting conditions.    My point is that you seem to be neglecting the fact that health insurance in this country is by and large subsidized to a certain extent already, and that it's employers that are doing the subsidizing.    This creates a system where healthcare is provided in a very inconsistent manner depending on whether you're employed and who your employer is, and puts American companies at a severe competitive disadvantage compared to European or Asian competitors.    Remember, we are the only developed nation that does not provide its citizens with guaranteed access to healthcare.    

A little something from Walter E. Williams:

Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right. The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.

If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

The real tragedy for our nation is that any politician who holds the values of liberty that our founders held would be soundly defeated in today's political arena.

Dr. William's brilliance on display. The logic is flawless.

QuoteIf this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone.  My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

Lemme see here, where to start? This is too easy.  OK, speech.  Freedom of speech, as defined by Article 1 of the Consistution, is confined to political speech.  The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are in fact a form of political speech.  So, the extent that you can exercise effective political speech is limited only by the amount of money you have to back that speech up.  The more money you have, the more your speech "counts".  And travel.  So where do you think the Interstate Highway system came from? An ancient relic of pre-history? The Interstate Highway System was built with tax dollars from people who may not have ever driven on an Interstate in their life.  It is generally accepted that there is a role for Government to provide infrastructure, and one could say that the healthcare system is a form of social infrastructure. 

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-06-2009 -- 20:42:15
What was wrong with your US private health care insurance? Was it the premiums? Is that your responsibility or the tax payers as a whole? Do you believe in personal responsibility or does saving a buck seem to be more important to you? The health care in Canada is not better so I know that is not the reason for your "best return on investment" statement. It is clear that it is just about the money. As I posted in the previous thread, I think that my families care is my sole responsibility and not the rest of the tax payers.

It is not a commie plot, just a system for people who want a cheap ride and avoid their own responsibility. It is also socialist by definition, and we know where socialism leads.

You already are paying for anyone who doesn't have health insurance. That's a fact.
As far as the health care in Canada, what you didn't say, was that it is worse. Because the fact is that is isn't, so good for you in recognizing that.
Why is it that you're ok with being overcharged by health insurance companies but get consumed with righteous indignation if the government is involved? The average American pays $9000 a year between employer & employee contributions. The next closest OECD country citizen to that pays only $5000.
Looks like a savings of over 40% and that's good for business...except insurance...

Oh, and please explain where socialism leads. Because at this time, there isn't a commie country that started out socialist. They pretty much started out as aristocracies or dictatorships that ignored the needs of the average person...so I guess we know where those lead...

Quote from: griff61 on 04-07-2009 -- 09:13:18

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-06-2009 -- 20:42:15
What was wrong with your US private health care insurance? Was it the premiums? Is that your responsibility or the tax payers as a whole? Do you believe in personal responsibility or does saving a buck seem to be more important to you? The health care in Canada is not better so I know that is not the reason for your "best return on investment" statement. It is clear that it is just about the money. As I posted in the previous thread, I think that my families care is my sole responsibility and not the rest of the tax payers.

It is not a commie plot, just a system for people who want a cheap ride and avoid their own responsibility. It is also socialist by definition, and we know where socialism leads.

You already are paying for anyone who doesn't have health insurance. That's a fact.
As far as the health care in Canada, what you didn't say, was that it is worse. Because the fact is that is isn't, so good for you in recognizing that.
Why is it that you're ok with being overcharged by health insurance companies but get consumed with righteous indignation if the government is involved? The average American pays $9000 a year between employer & employee contributions. The next closest OECD country citizen to that pays only $5000.
Looks like a savings of over 40% and that's good for business...except insurance...

Oh, and please explain where socialism leads. Because at this time, there isn't a commie country that started out socialist. They pretty much started out as aristocracies or dictatorships that ignored the needs of the average person...so I guess we know where those lead...

Yes I would rather pay more and get the healthcare when needed rather than taking a chance of dying in a Canadian Emergency room after waiting 34 hrs. 2+2 does = 4. Sounds logical to me.

As for where Socialism it leads to weak countries like France, Canada, Sweden etc...... These countries never lead they just follow or whine about the US. I don't want the US to become a nanny country. Socialism is for those who could never grow up and get off the tit. I am a man and a big boy, I don't need anyone to help me. I never mentioned communism so try not putting words into my mouth or assume you know my train of thought.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 10:13:01
Yes I would rather pay more and get the healthcare when needed rather than taking a chance of dying in a Canadian Emergency room after waiting 34 hrs. 2+2 does = 4. Sounds logical to me.

As for where Socialism it leads to weak countries like France, Canada, Sweden etc...... These countries never lead they just follow or whine about the US. I don't want the US to become a nanny country. Socialism is for those who could never grow up and get off the tit. I am a man and a big boy, I don't need anyone to help me. I never mentioned communism so try not putting words into my mouth or assume you know my train of thought.

In the Canadian system, you still have the option to purchase additional insurance above government coverage. So you are free to spend all day if you wish. You are aware that there is a big difference between the Canadian systems and the UK, French or Swedish programs, right?

Right now you are paying about $1000 per year in surcharges to pay for the uninsured/underinsured. Whether you like it or not, it just goes to a corporation.

My bad, the US spent $6713 per capita in 2006, Canada spent $3578, so it's only a $47% savings.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

Of course they covered EVERYONE and we only covered 70%, Not bad for 15% of our GDP...

I won't put words in your mouth. Please tell me where socialism leads.

Did you notice that in your citation, the same thing happened in Dallas? The original story is here http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080923/wpg_brian_sinclair_erdeath_092308/20080923/?hub=WinnipegHome
What that has to do with a single payer system is beyond me, many hospitals, doctor offices, etc are privately run in Canada.

And you have the time, please define 'weak'. Considering that the US and Canada are each others largest trading partners, and the canuck buck is almost on par with the dollar, AND that Canada is laying its troops on the line with us in Afghanistan...that's an interesting statement.

Umm, what claim?

NY - "Caught on tape: Hospital patient left to die
Emergency room staffers ignored 49-year-old woman who fell to the floor"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25475759/

CA - "Woman dies in ER lobby as 911 refuses to help"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/

Hope you can predict which emergency room is near by, here's two in the US you should avoid.

Quote from: Greenice on 04-07-2009 -- 10:46:36
NY - "Caught on tape: Hospital patient left to die
Emergency room staffers ignored 49-year-old woman who fell to the floor"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25475759/

CA - "Woman dies in ER lobby as 911 refuses to help"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/

Hope you can predict which emergency room is near by, here's two in the US you should avoid.

This is not an everyday common occurence in the US. Maybe you need the check out Canada's situation.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 10:51:08

Quote from: Greenice on 04-07-2009 -- 10:46:36
NY - "Caught on tape: Hospital patient left to die
Emergency room staffers ignored 49-year-old woman who fell to the floor"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25475759/

CA - "Woman dies in ER lobby as 911 refuses to help"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/

Hope you can predict which emergency room is near by, here's two in the US you should avoid.

This is not an everyday common occurence in the US. Maybe you need the check out Canada's situation.

Canada has a lower infant mortality rate than the US, so do most of the OECD countries (also known as members of the G20)
Canada spends less on drugs
Canada has a longer life expectancy
etc, etc
Perhaps you should become familiar with the Canadian system before you bash it.

Mr. Flew-de-coup, it's an everyday occurance in Canada?  Let's see some stats?

As a Canadian born naturalized US Citizen who spent 6 years in the US Army, I think I have more of an insight into the pluses and minus's on this subject than the talking points you constantly regurgitate. 

Quote from: griff61 on 04-07-2009 -- 10:57:40

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 10:51:08

Quote from: Greenice on 04-07-2009 -- 10:46:36
NY - "Caught on tape: Hospital patient left to die
Emergency room staffers ignored 49-year-old woman who fell to the floor"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25475759/

CA - "Woman dies in ER lobby as 911 refuses to help"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/

Hope you can predict which emergency room is near by, here's two in the US you should avoid.

This is not an everyday common occurence in the US. Maybe you need the check out Canada's situation.

Canada has a lower infant mortality rate than the US, so do most of the OECD countries (also known as members of the G20)
Canada spends less on drugs
Canada has a longer life expectancy
etc, etc
Perhaps you should become familiar with the Canadian system before you bash it.

Did you bother to read any of my links before you started typing? The Canadian Medical Association acknowledges the big problem with people getting care when needed, but you don't? Are you that brainwashed? I guess you know better than the doctors that work canadas health care day to day.

Perhaps you need to aquaint yourself with the CMA before you glorify it.

I am obviously wasting my time with you. You are blind and refuse to acknowledge fact put out by the CMA. I guess one can't argue with a robot that has been programmed. "Canada's health care is number one, BEEP".

Quote from: Greenice on 04-07-2009 -- 11:08:58
Mr. Flew-de-coup, it's an everyday occurance in Canada?  Let's see some stats?

As a Canadian born naturalized US Citizen who spent 6 years in the US Army, I think I have more of an insight into the pluses and minus's on this subject than the talking points you constantly regurgitate. 

Please read previous post link to the CMA ( Canadian Medical Assoc.)document.
Obvioulsy you are lacking in the subject and your talking points. I am just regurgitating the CMA

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 11:13:09

Perhaps you need to aquaint yourself with the CMA before you glorify it.

I am obviously wasting my time with you. You are blind and refuse to acknowledge fact put out by the CMA. I guess one can't argue with a robot that has been programmed. "Canada's health care is number one, BEEP".

I lived in Canada for 22 years, so I am WELL aquainted with the system as a consumer. You keep making pronouncements and never look at the facts. It would seem that you are the programmed response unit.

Your citation (editorial) is 10 years old, there have been a couple changes dealing with waiting lists since then.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1661

You still haven't defined 'weak' or defined where socialism leads.
And you have managed to completely ignore the empirical evidence I've given you.

Who's the robot again?

Quote from: griff61 on 04-07-2009 -- 11:29:15

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 11:13:09

Perhaps you need to aquaint yourself with the CMA before you glorify it.

I am obviously wasting my time with you. You are blind and refuse to acknowledge fact put out by the CMA. I guess one can't argue with a robot that has been programmed. "Canada's health care is number one, BEEP".

I lived in Canada for 22 years, so I am WELL aquainted with the system as a consumer. You keep making pronouncements and never look at the facts. It would seem that you are the programmed response unit.

Your citation (editorial) is 10 years old, there have been a couple changes dealing with waiting lists since then.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1661

You still haven't defined 'weak' or defined where socialism leads.
And you have managed to completely ignore the empirical evidence I've given you.

Who's the robot again?

I am sorry you don't understand what a weak country is. Maybe I will leave you with one example. A country full of people who cannot cope with life without having to rely on govenment handouts. A man can provide for his family without the governments help, anything else is less than a man. When I have more time I will try to compile the moutian of problems in the Canadian system and post them. For now I have to provide for my family.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 11:39:12I am sorry you don't understand what a weak country is. Maybe I will leave you with one example. A country full of people who cannot cope with life without having to rely on govenment handouts. A man can provide for his family without the governments help, anything else is less than a man. When I have more time I will try to compile the moutian of problems in the Canadian system and post them. For now I have to provide for my family.

You said you didn't want anyone to put words in your mouth, then you refuse to define what you mean. You also throw comments out like the 'mountains of problems in the Canadian system, but don't have anything that doesn't also occur in the US system.
There are bad experiences everywhere, we just pay double for ours.

Canadians aren't weak and don't depend on the government. I've served along side some very brave Canuckistanians in places like Somalia.
You seem to be sensible in many other ways, yet you tend to generalize about entire populations that you've never lived in.
Healthcare in Canada isn't a handout, it is paid for by taxation rather than inflated premiums paid to a corporation with a profit motive. Therefore it is very much cheaper in Canada.

I hate to 'put words in your mouth', but should we assume that you'll be passing up Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid when retirement comes?

Quote from: griff61 on 04-07-2009 -- 11:56:45

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 11:39:12I am sorry you don't understand what a weak country is. Maybe I will leave you with one example. A country full of people who cannot cope with life without having to rely on govenment handouts. A man can provide for his family without the governments help, anything else is less than a man. When I have more time I will try to compile the moutian of problems in the Canadian system and post them. For now I have to provide for my family.

You said you didn't want anyone to put words in your mouth, then you refuse to define what you mean. You also throw comments out like the 'mountains of problems in the Canadian system, but don't have anything that doesn't also occur in the US system.
There are bad experiences everywhere, we just pay double for ours.

Canadians aren't weak and don't depend on the government. I've served along side some very brave Canuckistanians in places like Somalia.
You seem to be sensible in many other ways, yet you tend to generalize about entire populations that you've never lived in.
Healthcare in Canada isn't a handout, it is paid for by taxation rather than inflated premiums paid to a corporation with a profit motive. Therefore it is very much cheaper in Canada.

I hate to 'put words in your mouth', but should we assume that you'll be passing up Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid when retirement comes?

Social security is a whole new can of worms. I love the fact that I only get ( if it is there when I retire ) a measly 2% return on the money forcefully taken from me. I would love to have my SS going into my 401k. But socialism is stealing the money from me for my own good. Gee, the government really knows how to run things. Taking my money and giving me > 2% return for retirement. Yes I also believe that Social Security is really a raw deal, even worse than Universal Health Care. 

As for weak, well step up and take care of your own family like a man and I wouldn't call them weak.

Just answer me this one question. If Canadian Health Care is so great then why are there private medical practices in Canada? Also, why are they so busy? One would logically think that if the Public Health Care System was so good that the private sector wouldn't exist or at least be empty. SO PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TOO ME.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-07-2009 -- 15:21:49Just answer me this one question. If Canadian Health Care is so great then why are there private medical practices in Canada? Also, why are they so busy? One would logically think that if the Public Health Care System was so good that the private sector wouldn't exist or at least be empty. SO PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TOO ME.

That would be because the Canadian system is a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM . This has nothing to do with whether or not there can be private practice in Canada. You are confusing the British systems with the Canadian system. The Canadian system basically replaces the health insurance companies, not private practice. Again, that's the UK system.

In Canada, everyone is guaranteed a minimum standard of care, you can but additional insurance to go above and beyond if you wish to. Did you even read a single citation I gave?

You really should look at the details before you condemn something.

That goes for your 'weak' generalization as well.

I saw an interesting documentary a couple months back on our ethnic station SBS.  Quite a long one...it compared the US system with European, Canadian, and Asian health systems (Australia or New Zealand wasn't surveyed by this program).  While all of them came out better than the US...by better I mean level of treatment for the average person at a cost effective basis....I was very surprised that Taiwan (with a very extensive universal health system) was the winner.  Absolutely superb. Japan was second.  That said...they were all miles ahead of the US in cost effectiveness and also preventive medicine.  And the documentary was an American production...

Maybe we can have a vote on this site?  Even better have a vote in the USA.....I'm sure all those millionaire doctors would never allow you to do it....and I'm bloody sure what the result of that vote would be if - only you could...

Quote from: clacoste on 04-07-2009 -- 23:15:15
Maybe we can have a vote on this site?  Even better have a vote in the USA.....I'm sure all those millionaire doctors would never allow you to do it....and I'm bloody sure what the result of that vote would be if - only you could...

The doctors aren't the millionaires, the insurance and pharmaceutical executives are.

Actually, unless they're stupid - and most wouldn't be....they are millionaires.  Average annual salary for a family medicine doctor is close to $200k.  Specialists make almost twice that on average.  Of course that doesn't include perks, bonuses, investment income, or tax minimalization techniques...

Quote from: clacoste on 04-07-2009 -- 23:37:59
Actually, unless they're stupid - and most wouldn't be....they are millionaires.  Average annual salary for a family medicine doctor is close to $200k.  Specialists make almost twice that on average.  Of course that doesn't include perks, bonuses, investment income, or tax minimalization techniques...

or overhead, or malpractice insurance etc, etc. Most doctors are more like a small business.
I wouldn't say that they're not comfortable, just not millionaires.
an example would be pediatricians http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_a_pediatrician_earn the actual annual salary is closer to $100k

The other point I would make is that the AMA is pretty much in favor of Universal Healthcare, so I don't think the doctors would mind a vote on the issue. Big pharma and insurance, on the other hand, would spend until the end of time to prevent it.

Let me see if I have this correct. You want the same type of government bureaucrats that brought you the I.R.S. (federal) and the D.M.V. (state) to provide your health care?

The Senate can't even run it's own cafeteria efficiently. I strongly urge you to read this link to see how truly inept these people are.

_{http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/senate-cafeteria-democrat-incompetence-in-microcosm/}

These are the people you entrust to formulate a well run health care system? Puleeze!

For those of you advocating socialized health care, how would you prevent the problem of the commons.   Specifically, how would you handle free riders?

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-08-2009 -- 08:42:10
Let me see if I have this correct. You want the same type of government bureaucrats that brought you the I.R.S. (federal) and the D.M.V. (state) to provide your health care?

The Senate can't even run it's own cafeteria efficiently. I strongly urge you to read this link to see how truly inept these people are.

_{http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/senate-cafeteria-democrat-incompetence-in-microcosm/}

These are the people you entrust to formulate a well run health care system? Puleeze!

says the guy who has professed to "eating at the Gov trough til death"

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 12:26:56
For those of you advocating socialized health care, how would you prevent the problem of the commons.   Specifically, how would you handle free riders?

I think you'll need to give a little more explanation of what you mean.
In the present system there are more people costing us poor slobs who pay premiums millions. In a single payer system those same people could go to a regular PCP type doctor and get preventative treatment or get their sniffles taken care of instead of clogging up emergency wards.

Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12743#msg12743 date=1239223904

Quote from: _Adam_ link=topic=1253. msg12741#msg12741 date=1239211616
For those of you advocating socialized health care, how would you prevent the problem of the commons.    Specifically, how would you handle free riders?

I think you'll need to give a little more explanation of what you mean. 
In the present system there are more people costing us poor slobs who pay premiums millions.  In a single payer system those same people could go to a regular PCP type doctor and get preventative treatment or get their sniffles taken care of instead of clogging up emergency wards.

the problem of the commons is a classic example when goods, services, or privileges are offered at zero price.   (remember that zero price is different that zero cost).   For instance, If a field held in common (government land available to the public) can support the grazing of 100 sheep.   Assume 10 farmers each have ten sheep and a properly grazed sheep can yield $100 at the market.   Each farmer is given free and unfettered access to the field so that they can graze the sheep at will.   If everyone behaves as they should, each farmer will have 10 well grazed sheep that fetch $100 each for a grand total of $1000 for each farmer.   This would be a perfect system, one that we would all want as it provides the best end for everyone.

Now imaging that one of the farmers of a less than ethical nature decides to graze eleven sheep instead of 10 but the field can only support 100, not 101 so the quality of each sheep is degraded due to less than optimal grazing to support that 101st sheep.  Since each sheep is now receiving 99% of what it should and as a result, the sheep only fetches $99.   Now the honest farmer receives $990 for his ten sheep while the less than ethical farmer receives $1089 for his eleven sheep.   He wins while the other nine honest folk lose.

We've seen this phenomenon throughout history and we witness it today in the form of welfare scams, social security scams, and any other construct that offers a good or service for zero price despite its large cost.   It happens most often when finite goods and services are offered at free or little price to almost an infinite consumer.

So my question remains, how do we keep people who intentionally want to cheat or abuse the system from degrading a socialized medical system?

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 17:28:57
So my question remains, how do we keep people who intentionally want to cheat or abuse the system from degrading a socialized medical system?

Again, what system are you talking about?
The Canadian single payer system replaces the insurance providers, not the service providers. In it's present form there is no reason to game the system any more than there is anywhere else. The cow example, while entertaining, is not appropriate when applied to medical care. Unless you're talking about physician or provider fraud, which occurs in all systems in virtually every business, service and country on the planet. Controls are fairly simple to implement and penalties are very severe for fraud.

Medical care isn't free under the single payer system any more than Medicare or Medicaid is free under ours. Just a lot cheaper to the consumer. The single payer system is funded by replacing the premium system with something more along the lines of tax. Until the recent recession, the Canadian system has not bankrupted the country, more often  there is a budget surplus.

That there might be scams  is simply not a valid reason to do nothing, otherwise we should simply stop everything, particularly the internet. It's like scam central.
It is simply an excuse to stand still.

Universal Goverment Health Care will be the end of liberty.
The payer will dictate the behaviour  of the subjects by threatening to withhold payment for people that don't tow the line living within the guidelines they prescribe.  Things that will cause problems, smoking, drinking, eating meat, owning guns. 
Other behaviour that is risky such as some activities associated with homosexuality on the other hand will be celebrated. 
Then the pendulem swings back and it reverses.
Living your life based on other people paying for it is a sure way to serfdom.

Quote from: Bryan on 04-08-2009 -- 18:07:20
Universal Goverment Health Care will be the end of liberty.
The payer will dictate the behaviour  of the subjects by threatening to withhold payment for people that don't tow the line living within the guidelines they prescribe.  Things that will cause problems, smoking, drinking, eating meat, owning guns. 
Other behaviour that is risky such as some activities associated with homosexuality on the other hand will be celebrated. 
Then the pendulem swings back and it reverses.
Living your life based on other people paying for it is a sure way to serfdom.

What do you base that on besides a hunch? Canada has had single payer for decades and no such thing has occurred.
It has happened in the United States on a fairly large scale though, try getting private insurance with a pre-existing condition. Or is that ok, because it's just business?

As far as gun ownership goes, there's that 2nd amendment Constitution thing, so I'm not too worried about that.

Absolute Monarchies/Oligarchies are the way to serfdom.

Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12746#msg12746 date=1239231150Again, what system are you talking about? 

I am talking about your proposed system of socialized health care.   How do you propose keeping free riders from using the system that they are not paying for?

Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12746#msg12746 date=1239231150
Again, what system are you talking about? The Canadian single payer system replaces the insurance providers, not the service providers.   

Which, on paper is FANTASTIC!  The problem remains that you have a horde of users obtaining a service that is very finite.  And the more people that use that system, the less of it remains for when you actually need it.   You can see evidence of this in the wait times that Canadians experience when awaiting hip replacements. 

Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12746#msg12746 date=1239231150
The cow example, while entertaining, is not appropriate when applied to medical care.   

The Sheep example is quite applicable.   According to wikipedia, a problem of the commons exists when free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation.

If free loaders are clogging and abusing the system (the farmer with 11 sheep), then less of that finite and expensive resource is available to the people who have actually paid for it.

As reported in December 2003 by Kerri Houston in her story titled Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients into Victims, "...in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. "

According to the Fraser Institute, US patients have greater access to advanced medical technology than do canadians.   They site that per 1 million people: the US has 3. 7 open heart surgery centers while Canada as 1. 6.   The US has 6. 1 MRI units while Canada has 1. 8.   The US has 15. 3 CT scanning centers while Canada has 8.

This alone should be evidence that the free and unfettered access impacts everyone's ability to access the resource (health care).

Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12746#msg12746 date=1239231150
Controls are fairly simple to implement and penalties are very severe for fraud.   

If controls are fairly simple to implement and penalties are very severe for fraud, why is medicare defrauded of over 20 BILLION DOLLARS annually?

I offer this as proof that EFFECTIVE controls are not fairly simple to implement as you have suggested.   I do agree that the penalties for fraud are high.

Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12746#msg12746 date=1239231150
Medical care isn't free under the single payer system any more than Medicare or Medicaid is free under ours.  Just a lot cheaper to the consumer.  The single payer system is funded by replacing the premium system with something more along the lines of tax.  Until the recent recession, the Canadian system has not bankrupted the country, more often  there is a budget surplus. 

I am not using cost and price interchangeably and neither should you.   Cost refers to how much something cost to produce the service, while price is the fee charged to purchase a good or service.   Many people assume that cost and price are one and the same and when presented with something that is of zero price assume that it is of zero cost when nothing could be further from the truth.

If I have a headache, I go to the store and buy some ibuprofen - because I am normal like that.   There are those that choose to go to the emergency room to get ibuprofen and those are the people who will continue to abuse the system because the "price" is free.   Since they do not directly see the "cost" they think it is free.  The problem is that people think that having the government pay for it will make it cost nothing to the individual which is flat out wrong.   This is why insurance premiums continue to rise - people continue to use their coverage until it is no longer to provide that service and the insurance providers have to raise the premiums.

I have a deductable on my insurance and I avoid seeing the doctor until absolutely necessary because I don't want to pay the deductable.   Once that deductable is paid, I am going to see the doctor for everything that I feel I need to since the out of pocket per visit is negligible.   How do you think that is going to change once I no longer have to pay the deductable first?

Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12746#msg12746 date=1239231150
That there might be scams  is simply not a valid reason to do nothing, otherwise we should simply stop everything, particularly the internet.  It's like scam central.
It is simply an excuse to stand still.

Who said we were doing nothing.   Change is not necessarily a good thing.   I have fantastic medical coverage available to me, as does everyone else in the US, and some of our visitors from the south.  There are people that would argue that we have the best health care in the world.   Lets not confuse health care with health care insurance, they are NOT one and the same. . .


I have even included some sources just for your reading pleasure.

Houston, Kerri.  Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients into Victims.  Frontiers of Freedom Institute.  December, 2003. 
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271

Opensecrets. org.  Pharmaceuticals/Health Products:Long-Term Contribution Trends.  5 Dec 2006. 
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04

"Tragedy of the commons. " Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.  2 Dec 2006, 22:48 UTC.  Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.  5 Dec 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tragedy_of_the_commons&oldid=91671044

Williams, Walter.  Why Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance.  Capitalism Magazine.  June 20, 2005. 
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271

Dang Griff you beat me to it. 

"In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes.  Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias.  Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause.  The Court easily found the D. C. law to violate the 2nd Amendment's command, but refused to announce a standard of review to apply in future challenges to gun regulations.  The Court did say that its decision should not "cast doubt" on laws restricting gun ownership of felons or the mentally ill, and that bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld.  In the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates said that they approved of the Court's decision."

Is it an infringement to allow a felon to keep and bear arms?  Is it an infringement to allow the mentally ill to keep and bear arms?  Is an infringement to ban the ownership of grenade launchers to the civilian population? I would hope we all know the answer to that.  Since the Supreme Court has refused to announce a standard of review this for this particular amendment it will continue to come before the Supreme Court for clarification.  Meantime those states that allow concealed weapons will continue to do so.  So if you are in Texas and exhibit road rage beware of the person in the next car.  He/She just might pull their weapon in self defense!!!!!

As to health care.  Be glad that there are doctors out there that will treat people regardless of  situation.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 18:41:28
etc etc

There is not free or unfettered access to health care in Canada.

Health care and population are both limited quantities, no matter what system you use. I invite you to provide evidence of a fraud free, abuse free system in place anywhere in the United States as comparison.
Given that your examples are usually cases of patients being turned away, or on waiting lists or dying from waiting to long for a hip replacement, I don't see how that lines up with your argument that there would be overuse and abuse of the system.
Which is it? They would use up the health system for fun or they can't get service because it's to tightly controlled?

Canadians are free to purchase additional insurance above & beyond what the government system provides, the Canadian Supreme Courst said so. Just like Medicare users can, and do in the US.

What Medicare fraud has to do with the Canadian system I'm not sure, but I'll play
$3.5 billion costs to private US insurers for pharmacy fraud http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd040809.html
$3 million from a single doctor http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/235785

Could you find a couple like that in Canada for me?

As for confusing health care with health care insurance, I'm thinking you might be doing that. The fact is, if we eliminated the health insurance middle-men we could put a lot of money back into regular people's pockets and cover everyone for less than we do now.
The Canadian system isn't about nationalizing the providers. That's why your analogy doesn't work. Other than the fact that Canada has made it work for the majority for decades, there's the other thing that providers still control the distribution. The reason people go to the emergency room here is because they don't have insurance. So it is, in fact, free to them, the insurance companies simply pass the cost along to the rest of us.

I pretty much grew up in Montreal and I never had a problem getting care. Nor did my family or my thousands of loony french Canadian relatives. Do people fall though the cracks, certainly, just as they do here. It would be interesting if you could find a single bit of evidence of a failure that ACTUALLY occurs in the Canadian system that never happens in the present, commercial US insurance system .

Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12754#msg12754 date=1239242623

Canadians are free to purchase additional insurance above & beyond what the government system provides, the Canadian Supreme Courst said so.  Just like Medicare users can, and do in the US.

If the Canadian system was superior to the privatized approach here in the US as you are portraying it to be, why would any Canadian waste money purchasing additional service.   Why would additional insurance be needed in the first place?  And why would Canadians be flocking to the US to get medical services that they were deemed to old, too sick, or otherwise ineligible to receive in Canada?

In reality, the only difference between the US an Canada is that the US discriminates on price and Canada discriminates on a host of other factors.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 21:15:16

Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12754#msg12754 date=1239242623

Canadians are free to purchase additional insurance above & beyond what the government system provides, the Canadian Supreme Courst said so.  Just like Medicare users can, and do in the US.

If the Canadian system was superior to the privatized approach here in the US as you are portraying it to be, why would any Canadian waste money purchasing additional service.   Why would additional insurance be needed in the first place?  And why would Canadians be flocking to the US to get medical services that they were deemed to old, too sick, or otherwise ineligible to receive in Canada?

In reality, the only difference between the US an Canada is that the US discriminates on price and Canada discriminates on a host of other factors.

Again, you are confusing insurance with service. Many of the Canadians who come stateside are doing so on the Canadian system's dime and as a percentage of the total, they are a minute percentage. Unlike people who die in the US because they can't get treatment of any kind because there's no profit in it.
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10138898

Private insurance, in most cases, covers things like prescription drugs and/or dental.

Also, as I've repeated, over and over, Canada spends $3400 per capita to cover everyone with excellent health care while the US spends $6700 to cover 70% of the people.
You can get the greatest health care in the world in the US, but only if you have very, very deep pockets.
It's a lovely thing, on paper, to say we have 'the best' health care, until you see who can actually afford it.

Please define the factors that Canada discriminates on? Is price really the superior choice?

Well if Canadian citizens are coming to the US for medical treatment, why are US citizens going to Canada to fill drug prescriptions?  Seems to me no one is perfect.

Gun discussion split and move here:

2nd Amendment, what is infringement? (http://www.pmelforum.com/index.php?topic=1257.0)

Okay here are comments about Canada's healthcare system by the incoming president of the CMA. This was a year and a half ago.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1042227/cma_head_says_canadas_healthcare_system_in_crisis_needs_change/index.html (http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1042227/cma_head_says_canadas_healthcare_system_in_crisis_needs_change/index.html)

And yes, the Doctors in canada are Gov'ment paid and are Gov employees. I believe I saw someone here say that they were not.
Here is another paper dated 6 months ago noting the "waiting list for care". It's hard to argue with the CMA, but I am sure you will.
http://ecmaj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081324v1.pdf (http://ecmaj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081324v1.pdf)

As for specialist care in Canada, well it doesn't look so great. If you have a serious health issue then you will be in trouble in Canada. What a great health care system.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/08/20/cma-healthcare.html (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/08/20/cma-healthcare.html)

I guess good healthcare is waiting 18 weeks for surgery and 10 weeks just for an MRI. I had a MRI just one day after the doctor ordered one last month. I should have been in Canada so I could have waited 10 weeks and have a better MRI expirence.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html)

This is just the tip of the "MOUNTIAN OF EVIDENCE". I could keep this up all day.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-09-2009 -- 05:51:47
Okay here are comments about Canada's healthcare system by the incoming president of the CMA. This was a year and a half ago.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1042227/cma_head_says_canadas_healthcare_system_in_crisis_needs_change/index.html (http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1042227/cma_head_says_canadas_healthcare_system_in_crisis_needs_change/index.html)

And yes, the Doctors in canada are Gov'ment paid and are Gov employees. I believe I saw someone here say that they were not.
Here is another paper dated 6 months ago noting the "waiting list for care". It's hard to argue with the CMA, but I am sure you will.
http://ecmaj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081324v1.pdf (http://ecmaj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081324v1.pdf)

As for specialist care in Canada, well it doesn't look so great. If you have a serious health issue then you will be in trouble in Canada. What a great health care system.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/08/20/cma-healthcare.html (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/08/20/cma-healthcare.html)

I guess good healthcare is waiting 18 weeks for surgery and 10 weeks just for an MRI. I had a MRI just one day after the doctor ordered one last month. I should have been in Canada so I could have waited 10 weeks and have a better MRI expirence.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html)

This is just the tip of the "MOUNTIAN OF EVIDENCE". I could keep this up all day.

Doctors in private practice are not government employees anymore than doctors in the states who don't work in county hostpitals. Nor are doctors who work in private clinics. Are doctors who accept payment from Medicare or Medicaid government employees?

from your first article:
""No one I know wants to adopt a so-called American-style health system,"
and "while he advocated more choice in the private sector, Day said the ability to pay should never be a factor for any patient needing health care in Canada"

You might have wanted to read past the headline, he's advocating UK style health care.

Article #2
"Ouellet, a radiologist who owns and operates 5 medical imaging clinics"
"Ouellet also argued for creating a universal drug access program"
hint: he wants to add more benefits, not get rid of any

Article #3
"62 per cent of Canadians grade the overall quality of health-care services available to them and their families as an A (21 per cent) or B (41 per cent)"
That constitutes a majority of satisfied consumers. The main problem, as stated in the article, is that they need more family practice doctors in remote places, of which there are a bunch.


Article #4
"This was primarily due to an increase in the first waiting period, between seeing the general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist."
Again, a personnel problem. Sounds like an opportunity to start up a clinic.

In case you are unaware, this problem exists in the states as well, there is a massive shortage of nurses as well as private practice doctors. It will get steadily worse as the boomer generation drifts off into retirement. I had 2 months between a visit to my PCP and my Endocrinologist. It happens.

A mountain of evidence? Not so much.
They are more examples of problems that we also suffer here in the US.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 09:03:17

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-09-2009 -- 05:51:47
Okay here are comments about Canada's healthcare system by the incoming president of the CMA. This was a year and a half ago.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1042227/cma_head_says_canadas_healthcare_system_in_crisis_needs_change/index.html (http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1042227/cma_head_says_canadas_healthcare_system_in_crisis_needs_change/index.html)

And yes, the Doctors in canada are Gov'ment paid and are Gov employees. I believe I saw someone here say that they were not.
Here is another paper dated 6 months ago noting the "waiting list for care". It's hard to argue with the CMA, but I am sure you will.
http://ecmaj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081324v1.pdf (http://ecmaj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081324v1.pdf)

As for specialist care in Canada, well it doesn't look so great. If you have a serious health issue then you will be in trouble in Canada. What a great health care system.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/08/20/cma-healthcare.html (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/08/20/cma-healthcare.html)

I guess good healthcare is waiting 18 weeks for surgery and 10 weeks just for an MRI. I had a MRI just one day after the doctor ordered one last month. I should have been in Canada so I could have waited 10 weeks and have a better MRI expirence.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html)

This is just the tip of the "MOUNTIAN OF EVIDENCE". I could keep this up all day.

Doctors in private practice are not government employees anymore than doctors in the states who don't work in county hostpitals. Nor are doctors who work in private clinics. Are doctors who accept payment from Medicare or Medicaid government employees?

from your first article:
""No one I know wants to adopt a so-called American-style health system,"
and "while he advocated more choice in the private sector, Day said the ability to pay should never be a factor for any patient needing health care in Canada"

You might have wanted to read past the headline, he's advocating UK style health care.

Article #2
"Ouellet, a radiologist who owns and operates 5 medical imaging clinics"
"Ouellet also argued for creating a universal drug access program"
hint: he wants to add more benefits, not get rid of any

Article #3
"62 per cent of Canadians grade the overall quality of health-care services available to them and their families as an A (21 per cent) or B (41 per cent)"
That constitutes a majority of satisfied consumers. The main problem, as stated in the article, is that they need more family practice doctors in remote places, of which there are a bunch.


Article #4
"This was primarily due to an increase in the first waiting period, between seeing the general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist."
Again, a personnel problem. Sounds like an opportunity to start up a clinic.

In case you are unaware, this problem exists in the states as well, there is a massive shortage of nurses as well as private practice doctors. It will get steadily worse as the boomer generation drifts off into retirement. I had 2 months between a visit to my PCP and my Endocrinologist. It happens.

A mountain of evidence? Not so much.
They are more examples of problems that we also suffer here in the US.

I read past the headlines and read all the articles. You obviously didn't or coose to ignore the points of each
article that pointed out the problems. I am done. You can live in a fantasy world, I choose to live in the reality.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-09-2009 -- 11:04:45
I read past the headlines and read all the articles. You obviously didn't or coose to ignore the points of each
article that pointed out the problems. I am done. You can live in a fantasy world, I choose to live in the reality.

I prefer to discuss, using ,y own words, you seem to prefer to hit & run post and not respond to questions about your statements...please, tell me what I missed? You assert that the Canuck system has problems as if the US system is perfect. That simply isn't the case.

It's a shame you seem to think the US is incapable of providing for it's citizens as well or better than some 'weak' countries. I have more faith in my country. I think we could make a single payer system work much more efficiently and provide better care to all Americans than any other country on earth. Are we really ok with being out-done by Thailand?
The main reason we don't provide Universal Health care is because the insurance and pharmacy industries own our representatives.
What part of health care is truly capitalistic? Do you stop to shop around for the cheapest ER when an emergency arises? Is there somewhere else you can take your business? Do you really think medical care should only go to those who can pay the full cost of it? Because I can assure you, most people can't afford it. A recent, common operation my wife had ran up a bill of $78,000. Do you think your lifetime total of premium payments has reached that amount?

What is the advantage of paying up to 25% overhead to a middle man who actually provides no service at all?

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 11:31:39
What is the advantage of paying up to 25% overhead to a middle man who actually provides no service at all?

Actually, my middleman, BCBS has negotiated a significant discount for me.  For instance, if the Dr charges $10k for a procedure, my insurance company has already contracted with the Dr to reduce it to a negotiated price.  The last time, this discount was $7k off a $14k Orthopedic surgery.  I then only paid a $50 dollar co-pay and 20% of the $7K.  Yes, by Canadian standards, this was a lot of money out of pocket, but when you consider that I paid only my monthly premium $140 x 12 plus $1400 and $50 copay, I only paid $3130 for a 14k surgery.  But you can't really count all of the premiums against that one instance, so in reality, the direct out of pocket for that surgery was much less.

So in my case, that middleman provided a few services...  first, it provided a rather large discount off the total bill, second it provided a guarantee to the hospital that it would receive compensation for treating me, and third, it served as a watchdog to the hospital so I wasn't over charged or given services that were not reasonable.

Wow. To rely on  an insurance go between to negotiate a lower prices with doctors and hospitals while those that don't have as good insurance or no insurance at all pay full price.  Wouldn't it have been great if the price was set right to begin with?

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 12:54:38

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 11:31:39
What is the advantage of paying up to 25% overhead to a middle man who actually provides no service at all?

Actually, my middleman, BCBS has negotiated a significant discount for me.  For instance, if the Dr charges $10k for a procedure, my insurance company has already contracted with the Dr to reduce it to a negotiated price.  The last time, this discount was $7k off a $14k Orthopedic surgery.  I then only paid a $50 dollar co-pay and 20% of the $7K.  Yes, by Canadian standards, this was a lot of money out of pocket, but when you consider that I paid only my monthly premium $140 x 12 plus $1400 and $50 copay, I only paid $3130 for a 14k surgery.  But you can't really count all of the premiums against that one instance, so in reality, the direct out of pocket for that surgery was much less.

So in my case, that middleman provided a few services...  first, it provided a rather large discount off the total bill, second it provided a guarantee to the hospital that it would receive compensation for treating me, and third, it served as a watchdog to the hospital so I wasn't over charged or given services that were not reasonable.

If you have employer provided health insurance, like I do, the employer portion is normally 4 or 5 times what you're portion is. In my case,  I pay $100 per paycheck for me & my son and my employer pays the other $400 for HMO coverage. That comes to around $1080 a month for two people or $540 each.

When you break down the per capita cost of the Canadian system, your premium would be $240 with no other out of pocket costs. My son's and mine would be $480.

The other services are for the insurance company's benefit or the hospital's benefit. Not yours, even though you're the one paying the premiums.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:40:20

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 12:54:38

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 11:31:39
What is the advantage of paying up to 25% overhead to a middle man who actually provides no service at all?

Actually, my middleman, BCBS has negotiated a significant discount for me.  For instance, if the Dr charges $10k for a procedure, my insurance company has already contracted with the Dr to reduce it to a negotiated price.  The last time, this discount was $7k off a $14k Orthopedic surgery.  I then only paid a $50 dollar co-pay and 20% of the $7K.  Yes, by Canadian standards, this was a lot of money out of pocket, but when you consider that I paid only my monthly premium $140 x 12 plus $1400 and $50 copay, I only paid $3130 for a 14k surgery.  But you can't really count all of the premiums against that one instance, so in reality, the direct out of pocket for that surgery was much less.

So in my case, that middleman provided a few services...  first, it provided a rather large discount off the total bill, second it provided a guarantee to the hospital that it would receive compensation for treating me, and third, it served as a watchdog to the hospital so I wasn't over charged or given services that were not reasonable.

If you have employer provided health insurance, like I do, the employer portion is normally 4 or 5 times what you're portion is. In my case,  I pay $100 per paycheck for me & my son and my employer pays the other $400 for HMO coverage. That comes to around $1080 a month for two people or $540 each.

When you break down the per capita cost of the Canadian system, your premium would be $240 with no other out of pocket costs. My son's and mine would be $480.

The other services are for the insurance company's benefit or the hospital's benefit. Not yours, even though you're the one paying the premiums.

We all now there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Can you tell me what is sacrificed to keep the Canadian price so low?

Quote from: Winterfire2008 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:02:26
Wow. To rely on  an insurance go between to negotiate a lower prices with doctors and hospitals while those that don't have as good insurance or no insurance at all pay full price.  Wouldn't it have been great if the price was set right to begin with?

In effect, that is what the Canadian government does.  They are a a middleman between the citizens and the providers.

I would like prices to be set, and, through my middleman, my prices are set.  Who is to determine what price is right?

Do you honestly think that our government is best able to decide what health care goods and services are to be provided, or do you think that decision is best left to the doctor that you have established a long standing relationship with.  My children's pediatrician has known them from birth and has provided a level of care FAR above what I ever could have expected compared to what I receive under military and VA health care systems.

Our government is rapidly falling apart due to the crushing weight of all of the debt it is incurring.  I honestly think that social security will not exist by the time I am ready to retire.  Do you really think the gov't is the best institution to provide for our needs...  I think not.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 14:57:49

Quote from: Winterfire2008 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:02:26
Wow. To rely on  an insurance go between to negotiate a lower prices with doctors and hospitals while those that don't have as good insurance or no insurance at all pay full price.  Wouldn't it have been great if the price was set right to begin with?

In effect, that is what the Canadian government does.  They are a a middleman between the citizens and the providers.

I would like prices to be set, and, through my middleman, my prices are set.  Who is to determine what price is right?

Do you honestly think that our government is best able to decide what health care goods and services are to be provided, or do you think that decision is best left to the doctor that you have established a long standing relationship with.  My children's pediatrician has known them from birth and has provided a level of care FAR above what I ever could have expected compared to what I receive under military and VA health care systems.

Our government is rapidly falling apart due to the crushing weight of all of the debt it is incurring.  I honestly think that social security will not exist by the time I am ready to retire.  Do you really think the gov't is the best institution to provide for our needs...  I think not.

I'm not discussing the VA or military health care, but the Canadian single payer insurance system. Although I would definitely rate the VA way above military.
Do you think that if the entity paying the bills changed your pediatrician would suddenly become inadequate?
I'm assuming that you aren't arrogant enough to assume that simply because a doctor practices in a different country they are somehow inferior. So I'm not following your trail between who pays the bills and who provides the service. In fact, in a single payer system, even the dirt-poorest of families would have access to the that same, great pediatrician.

What part of the government is falling apart? Seems a bit of an alarmist thing to say. Perhaps if we hadn't been sold down the river to corporations for 20 or so years we might be in a better position now. As far as debt goes, eliminating insurance companies from health care would put something on the order of $1 trillion back into the economy to do other things.

Ahh the assumption has been made that most have been able to establish long standing relationships with doctors and hospitals.  Well what about those that don't?  Is it unreasonable to expect the same quality of care from a doctor whether you are a long time patient or a new one?

I know that our government isn't all it should be.  Yet those of us who work in Metrology in the United States rely on the US government every time a traceable calibration is completed.   Do we not trust the US Government to take care of National Standards?  If you don't, why work in Metrology?

Quote from: Winterfire2008 on 04-09-2009 -- 15:43:11
Ahh the assumption has been made that most have been able to establish long standing relationships with doctors and hospitals.  Well what about those that don't?  Is it unreasonable to expect the same quality of care from a doctor whether you are a long time patient or a new one?

I make no assumptions of what relationships are with other people and their doctors.  I know what I have been able to establish and I merely compare that to the care I received in the AF and now through the VA.  I pay directly for my privatized care at a much higher rate than I do for my socialized care.  Maybe it is just a coincidence that my private care is drastically better than my public care.  I think there are a few vets in the south that received colonoscopies with dirty equipment that will probably agree with me.

My private orthopedic doctor lives within two minutes of me and I have his home phone number.  He came in to the hospital to perform a surgery for my daughter on father's day even though he was not on call.  My kid's pediatrician also gave us his home number and has repeatedly gone above and beyond the call of duty to make sure that my children are well cared for to include seeing both of my children for the same illness while only charging us a co-pay for one of them.

I do make the assumption that any managed care scheme is going to short change the quality of health care I receive.  I gladly pay more for a PPO than paying less for the HMO that I am also offered.

Quote from: Winterfire2008 on 04-09-2009 -- 15:43:11
I know that our government isn't all it should be.  Yet those of us who work in Metrology in the United States rely on the US government every time a traceable calibration is completed.   Do we not trust the US Government to take care of National Standards?  If you don't, why work in Metrology?

Relying upon a scientist to maintain a national level standard is a completely different ball of yarn than relying upon the congress and the executive branch to serve the best interest of their constituents.

I am a proud veteran from a long line of veterans, so I am first in line to wave Old Glory.  The problem lies in our elected officials not serving the best interest of their constituents.  There is no money in dorking up a national standard, but there is money and power associated with controlling tax revenue earmarked for health care.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 15:26:41
I'm not discussing the VA or military health care, but the Canadian single payer insurance system. Although I would definitely rate the VA way above military.

I would rate both as pretty poor compared to what I receive now.  And with my knee experience in all three systems, I can say without a doubt I'd rather pay more for a private system.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 15:26:41
Do you think that if the entity paying the bills changed your pediatrician would suddenly become inadequate?

I am not talking about an adequate level of care.  I receive care that is well above adequate.  If you are happy with an adequate health care system I can see why you are advocating for Canada's system.  Although there are people who will argue that the Canadian system is not adequate, I'll give you that much.

I don't think my doctor's ability would become less adequate given a change in nationality.  What I am arguing is that with a single payer system, the price becomes fixed and as a result, there is no motivation to go above and beyond what is mandated by your government.  The only things I want dictating my level of care is my doctor and my willingness to pay for his/her service.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 15:26:41
I'm assuming that you aren't arrogant enough to assume that simply because a doctor practices in a different country they are somehow inferior. So I'm not following your trail between who pays the bills and who provides the service. In fact, in a single payer system, even the dirt-poorest of families would have access to the that same, great pediatrician.

The dirt-poorest of families have access to him now.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 15:26:41
What part of the government is falling apart? Seems a bit of an alarmist thing to say. Perhaps if we hadn't been sold down the river to corporations for 20 or so years we might be in a better position now. As far as debt goes, eliminating insurance companies from health care would put something on the order of $1 trillion back into the economy to do other things.

Telling me that we have been sold down the river to corporations blows your whole argument out of the water.  Who do you think sold us down that river?  Could it possibly be the same politicians that you want to entrust with deciding which services to pay for?  You can't blast the politicians in one sentence and then claim them superior in the next.  You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Where to begin. You really need to stay on target and not contruct arguments no one is making just so you can respond the way you like.
#1
Quote from: griff61 on Today at 13:26:41
I'm not discussing the VA or military health care, but the Canadian single payer insurance system. Although I would definitely rate the VA way above military.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 17:57:40I would rate both as pretty poor compared to what I receive now.  And with my knee experience in all three systems, I can say without a doubt I'd rather pay more for a private system.

Moot point, I pointed out I'm not discussing the VA or military care.

#2
Do you think that if the entity paying the bills changed your pediatrician would suddenly become inadequate?

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 17:57:40I am not talking about an adequate level of care.  I receive care that is well above adequate.

Again, not what I asked or what I implied.

#3

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 17:57:40What I am arguing is that with a single payer system, the price becomes fixed and as a result, there is no motivation to go above and beyond what is mandated by your government.

Citation?
I have been treated, in the Canadian system, by doctors ranging from family care to neurosurgeons, they were all well above adequate. The care in Canada is excellent actually. You just finished arguing that your insurance provider fixed prices for your surgery, now you're saying that fixed prices lead to poor service?

#4
...in a single payer system, even the dirt-poorest of families would have access to the that same, great pediatrician.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 17:57:40The dirt-poorest of families have access to him now.

So tell me, does he work for free or are you just trying to be clever?

#5
What part of the government is falling apart? Seems a bit of an alarmist thing to say. Perhaps if we hadn't been sold down the river to corporations for 20 or so years we might be in a better position now. As far as debt goes, eliminating insurance companies from health care would put something on the order of $1 trillion back into the economy to do other things.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 17:57:40Telling me that we have been sold down the river to corporations blows your whole argument out of the water...etc etc

Which part of that response pertained to anything I asked? Again with the straw man argument, please point out where I praised politicians. Do you know how the Canadian system works? What are you basing your pronouncements on, because it is obviously not personal experience with single payer. The Canadian system simply eliminates the profit motive. It doesn't magically turn doctors into malingering scam artists any more than your insurance does it to your own dear doctors.

I would invite you to look though the Interim Report on the state of health care system in Canada http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/pdf-e/interim-soci-e.pdf

page 98
Myth: The Canada Health Act prohibits the private sector from playing a role in the provision
of health care services.

Reality: The public administration criterion of the Canada Health Act relates to the
administration of provincial insurance plans for medically necessary services, not to the
delivery of insured health services.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 19:41:23
Where to begin. You really need to stay on target and not contruct arguments no one is making just so you can respond the way you like.

I used systems such as the VA and the military as examples of a US based single payer system that has, by and large, failed to be adequate for me and my experiences.  I am sorry if my experiences are inconvenient to your argument.

You have admitted that Canadians have and continue to purchase additional coverage and also use US facilities.  Those two facts alone demonstrate flaws in the single payer system.  If the single payer (which is a misnomer by the way since the tax payers a lumped together to form a single payer) system is adequate, why do Canadians flock to the US to receive services that should be provided by Canadian doctors - on their own dime I might add?  Why would any Canadian waste money buying supplemental health insurance if the services provided in a single payer system were adequate in the first place?

When you say that only 70% of the US populace is covered you are ignoring programs like medi-cal and the Oregon Health Plan and other state sponsored health care programs.

I wasn't trying to be snide by saying the dirt-poorest of families has access to my doctor.  They do have adequate access to an adequate doctor.  But all of that is subjective which is why we have such a spirited debate here.  My doctor just happens to provide a quality of care commensurate to the fees he charges.

My insurance also does not fix a price, they just negotiate a discount.

You have yet to answer my question about free riders.  What do you propose we do to prevent those who choose to purposely avoid paying health care tax.  Or those who have 12 kids just because they can, and heck, it doesn't cost them anything so why not?

I have never said our (US) system was perfect.  I am just giving you reasons why I like it.  I think I am done.  You asked for an opinion and then berate me for providing it.  You have failed to even consider any argument that others, and myself, have posted here.  Thank you for the spirited debate, however, my head is sore from beating it against the wall.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:21:50
I used systems such as the VA and the military as examples of a US based single payer system that has, by and large, failed to be adequate for me and my experiences.

Both those systems are not single payer systems, because they also PROVIDE the service. You continue to argue against socialized health care, which is lovely, but not relevant. I'm talking about THE CANADIAN SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:21:50
You have admitted that Canadians have and continue to purchase additional coverage and also use US facilities.  Those two facts alone demonstrate flaws in the single payer system.  If the single payer (which is a misnomer by the way since the tax payers a lumped together to form a single payer) system is adequate, why do Canadians flock to the US to receive services that should be provided by Canadian doctors - on their own dime I might add?  Why would any Canadian waste money buying supplemental health insurance if the services provided in a single payer system were adequate in the first place?

Again, the THE CANADIAN SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM is insurance, not care.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:21:50
When you say that only 70% of the US populace is covered you are ignoring programs like medi-cal and the Oregon Health Plan and other state sponsored health care programs.

The 45 million plus uninsured are people not covered by and insurance, that would inclube Medicare and Medicaid. The reason they aren't covered is because they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, which is what funds state plans, or they are unemployed, like some of the 645,000 who became so this past week.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:21:50
I wasn't trying to be snide by saying the dirt-poorest of families has access to my doctor.  They do have adequate access to an adequate doctor.  But all of that is subjective which is why we have such a spirited debate here.  My doctor just happens to provide a quality of care commensurate to the fees he charges.

Or rather, the fees your insurance will allow him to charge.
In a single payer system, thay'd have the ability to use yours too. Just because they earn less than you, doesn't mean they should be treated by anyone less expert than you. Unlees, of course, you like the idea of oligarchies, in which case there's not much point in the conversation at all.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:21:50
My insurance also does not fix a price, they just negotiate a discount.

You're intentionally misleading, insurance companies publish rates usually every year, there's no individual negotiating of prices. Individual providers either accept the new rates or stop accepting that insurance. Happens all the time, my endocrinologist has a list of at least a dozen.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:21:50
You have yet to answer my question about free riders.  What do you propose we do to prevent those who choose to purposely avoid paying health care tax.  Or those who have 12 kids just because they can, and heck, it doesn't cost them anything so why not?

They would be dealt with like all tax evaders, which, by the way, is illegal even in Canada. The key term, from the Canadian Sente report below as well as the Canada Health Act is "medically necessary services"
Hows the US system dealing with octo-mom?

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:21:50
You have failed to even consider any argument that others, and myself, have posted here. 

Please, feel free to repeat something specifically concerning THE CANADIAN SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM that I have failed to consider.
It seems there is a rather large amount of confusion stemming from the fact that some folks think that a single payer system is the same as socialized medicine. It's not. Rather than spending your time banging your head against a wall, perhaps you should actually read up on what the CHA actually does? I've provided several citations.
I would have thought that the quote from "The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology" would have helped clear that up for you, I'll repeat it in case you overlooked it:
"The public administration criterion of the Canada Health Act relates to the administration of provincial insurance plans for medically necessary services, not to the delivery of insured health services."

If you'd like to take issue with how the provinces run their delivery programs, that's fine too, and we can do that in yet another thread, but I'm actually trying to discuss THE CANADIAN SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM or if you prefer, the CHA

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 21:57:38

Why would Canadians purchase supplemental insurance if the state provided insurance was adequate?

Why would Canadians come to the US and see US doctors using their own supplemental insurance and paying out of their own pocket if the Canadian Heath Insurance provided for coverage of all of their needs back in Canada?

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 22:12:37

Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 21:57:38

Why would Canadians purchase supplemental insurance if the state provided insurance was adequate?

Why would Canadians come to the US and see US doctors using their own supplemental insurance and paying out of their own pocket if the Canadian Heath Insurance and advanced health care services were available and adequate?

Did you read anything I posted?

Read through the last citation, it's a 130 page report that answers every one of your questions. It will also explain what the CHA does, and doesn't do. Jump straight to page 93 where the myth vs fact section starts if you like.

Why do Americans buy their precriptions in Mexico and Canada and go on 'medical vacations' to Thailand (and Canada) if the care here so so great and wonderful? Why do Americans along northern border states try to get provincial health insurance cards?
Because they can?

Why do keep going on and on about SERVICE providers when the discussion is about INSURANCE providers?

I get it!!!!!  Seems the current thing is to diss the Canadian health system.  Well I read the stats and dang if Griff aint right.  People live longer in Canada than in the US.  The infant mortality is lower than the US. Overall health costs are lower than the US... seems to me Canada is doing something right.  I also know that US citizen flock to Canada to get prescriptions filled way cheaper than the US.

I read story after story of health care denied by US insurance companies because they don't want to pay for new drugs for cancer or for having an organ transplants because it is considered experimental. That's assuming of course you can stay healthy enough to stay on the transplant lists.

Where do US citizens go when they want the best and cheapest care.  Thailand!!!!!! Surgical procedures cost one tenth of what they do in the US. Other countries are cashing in on this too.   hmmmm a whole new industry called medical tourism.

Adam,

Griff is from Canada, and judging from his posts, he obviously doesn't value our Founding Fathers' guiding principles of individual liberty and limited government as much as you or I. He trumpets his belief in Big Government and espouses principles that have made Canada the mediocre country that it is.

I think you are wasting your time in trying to persuade him of the moral superiority of liberty.

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-09-2009 -- 23:53:14
Adam,

Griff is from Canada, and judging from his posts, he obviously doesn't value our founders' guiding principles of individual liberty and limited government as much as you or I. He trumpets his belief in Big Government and espouses principles that have made Canada the mediocre country that it is.

I think you are wasting your time in trying to persuade him of the moral superiority of liberty.

You're still as funny as ever, and just as irrelevant, vapid and derogatory.

Perhaps you should get out of the govenment trough every once in a while and visit a foreign country. In any case, it's not good form to bite the hand that feeds you. It's actually sad that while you earn your living off the government, you like to pretend to have thais pathological aversion to anything concerning it. Is the cognitive dissonance deafening in there?

A little something from the founders.

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

or

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride legitimately, by the grace of God."

Thomas Jefferson, June 24, 1826

and

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams, December 4, 1770

Griff,

You seem to think that there is an inherent contradiction with my core beliefs and my working at an Air Force lab. To the contrary, I am actually involved in the support of a legitimate function of government. Namely, national defense.

Nice quotes, but don't you think Marx would be a little more in tune with your beliefs? Like this one, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

That's a neat trick, disguising yourself as an advocate of liberty by cloaking yourself with the words of our Founders. I'm not fooled.

 I do agree that the US health care system needs some repairs and has it's problems. I believe the problem here in the US is the cost of health insurance. The cost has sky rocketed since the mid 90's. I think one area that would help lower the cost is deporting all the illegal immigrants. Illegal's have managed to shut down 5 California hospitals by using them and not paying their bill. The ER's cannot turn them away for care. The hospitals in turn have to try to recoup the loss through raising prices. In turn insurance cost went up. Canada does not have to deal with the level of illegal's that the US has too so they are not effected by the huge rise in cost. I believe that we need to maintain the private care industry and not go the way of socialist health care. 

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-10-2009 -- 00:51:37
I'm not fooled.

Personal attack removed
-Hoopty

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-10-2009 -- 05:16:47
I do agree that the US health care system needs some repairs and has it's problems. I believe the problem here in the US is the cost of health insurance. The cost has sky rocketed since the mid 90's. I think one area that would help lower the cost is deporting all the illegal immigrants. Illegal's have managed to shut down 5 California hospitals by using them and not paying their bill. The ER's cannot turn them away for care. The hospitals in turn have to try to recoup the loss through raising prices. In turn insurance cost went up. Canada does not have to deal with the level of illegal's that the US has too so they are not effected by the huge rise in cost. I believe that we need to maintain the private care industry and not go the way of socialist health care. 

You're right, one of the big problems here is that illgals do use the system to their advantage. Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone, up to a point, regardless of whether they can pay or not. Along with those 10 million or so illegals all over the country, there are 4 times as many Americans.

The problem with healsth insurancve, though, is that is isn't dependant on Hopital costs, it's based on profit margins that go to a middle man that provides no added value. Think of it like going out to buy a car and thwing in a 50% surcharge for the teller at your bank to transfer your money to the dealer. The Canadian single payer system doesn't replace  private providers, it removes insurance companies. It simply performs the payment operation without a profit motive.

Griff,

You treat profit as if it's a dirty word. Free market capitalism, with all it's flaws, is still far superior to any other system in dealing with the allocation of goods and services. It has allowed America to prosper into the greatest country the world has ever known. And that includes Canada. That is why you and millions of others stream across our borders every year.

Griff61,

I've removed your previous post as it was a personal attack on another member.  This will be how I handle any further violations.

Hoopty,

That's a common tactic used by liberals. When confronted with irrefutable logic and an indefensible position they resort to ad-hominem personal attacks. Notice that he didn't address the content of the post.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 07:54:24

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-10-2009 -- 05:16:47
I think one area that would help lower the cost is deporting all the illegal immigrants. Illegal's have managed to shut down 5 California hospitals by using them and not paying their bill.

You're right, one of the big problems here is that illgals do use the system to their advantage. Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone, up to a point, regardless of whether they can pay or not. Along with those 10 million or so illegals all over the country, there are 4 times as many Americans.

wow this has become an episode of the lou dobbs show.  problem is emergency care costs 3-4 times more the regular dr visits( even the former president joked that everyone has access to healthcare "its called emergency rooms". ) also, like it or not, the children of these "illegals" are US citizens according to the constitution.
http://www.fixourhealthcare.ca.gov/index.php/facts/more/6771/
californias answer to healthcare.

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-10-2009 -- 08:34:16
Griff,

You treat profit as if it's a dirty word. Free market capitalism, with all it's flaws, is still far superior to any other system in dealing with the allocation of goods and services. It has allowed America to prosper into the greatest country the world has ever known. And that includes Canada. That is why you and millions of others stream across our borders every year.

No one streamed across the border from my family. I was born here.
China owns the US due to unfettered the capitalism of the past 30 years. In the arena of health insurance, there is no such thing as a true capitalist market. It is a captive market where the consumer MUST pay whatever price the insurance company demands, or they simply go without. There is no secondary market to a hospital, not is there time to 'shop around' for a cheaper ER after an accident.
Explain the function of the insurance industry as it pertains to pure capitalism, if you can. You can ponder this quote from another socialist stooge while you're doing it.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln

Quote from: Hoopty on 04-10-2009 -- 08:43:01
Griff61,

I've removed your previous post as it was a personal attack on another member.  This will be how I handle any further violations.

.
My apologies Hoopty, I should wait to post until I've had my coffee.

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-10-2009 -- 08:57:23
Hoopty,

That's a common tactic used by liberals. When confronted with irrefutable logic and an indefensible position they resort to ad-hominem personal attacks. Notice that he didn't address the content of the post.

There was no content to address.

Griff,

I think out of control government spending has more to do with your China point.

As to your insurance point, noone is FORCED to pay what any one insurance company DEMANDS. There is no monopoly in the insurance industry. Last time I checked, there was an insurance market that provides many different products from many different companies. If you don't like your current provider, seek out another one. That's the beauty of America. Choices. You propose a government solution, a true monoply, in every sense of the word.

There is so much more to say, but unlike some others, I have to go to work. My health depends on it.

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-10-2009 -- 09:43:28
Griff,

I think out of control government spending has more to do with your China point.

As to your insurance point, noone is FORCED to pay what any one insurance company DEMANDS. There is no monopoly in the insurance industry. Last time I checked, there was an insurance market that provides many different products from many different companies. If you don't like your current provider, seek out another one. That's the beauty of America. Choices. You propose a government solution, a true monoply, in every sense of the word.

There is so much more to say, but unlike some others, I have to go to work. My health depends on it.

To boil your response down, you're saying you have no idea what true capitalism or a free market are. Thanks for clearing that up.

Griff, et al,

Here is some information about universal health care that I have pulled from a peer-reviewed source that should lend credence to the arguments I have tried to articulate before.  While a single payer system may have its advantages, I have yet to see substantial evidence to suggest the benefits will substantiate the costs of adopting it.  If you cannot consider and acknowledge that these are legitimate problems, I will have to respectfully bow out.

My words are in blue, while the peer-reviewed report is in black.

The Frasure Institute writes that:

"Using general taxation to finance the health care system can reduce the administrative costs of collection and
payment, as providers and consumers both must deal with only one insurer.
The disadvantages to funding health care from general taxation include a lack
of transparency, as there is no easily established link between the payment
into, and the benefits received from, health care. This means that an increase
in tax rates claimed to be for health services can be far larger in revenue terms
than any increase in funding to health care." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.

So here, power hungry politicians can increase taxation in the name of health care yet not pass that on to the actual health care program.  You don't know any power hungry politicians do you?  You can't possibly imagine that there are politicians in this would who would use public interest for personal gain can you?

Here is the issue of the problem of the commons...

"Also, a system with general tax
financing and no cost sharing—i.e., care that appears "free" to the consumer,
such as in Canada where health care is entirely financed through general
taxation [2]—can lead to what Pauly (1968) described as an "inconsistency,"
where individuals demand health care as though it were free and yet consider
the positive costs of that care when voting over changes in tax rates. In
other words, general tax financing can potentially lead to chronic shortages
in health care financing." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.

This is the problem of the commons that Hardin writes about in his essay "The Tragedy of the Commons".  You quickly dismissed my assertion that Canada is suffering from the problem of the commons, but here is evedence from a peer-reviewed source that suggests they are indeed suffering from it.  At this point, if you deny that this problem exists, you will have proven to me that you are unable to have an enlightened discussion.


"Health care spending in Canada for 2008 was forecast to be $171.9
billion or $5,170 per person (CIHI, 2008). This total spending for 2008 is
approximately 10.7% of that year's GDP (CIHI, 2008)." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.

The report does not give US spending for 2008 so I cannot give you a comparison.  I merely included this data to show that the numbers you have claimed are outdated at best.

Here, the Frasure Institute addresses access to advanced technology...

"For availability of MRI machines, Canada ranks a depressing fourteenth
in a comparison of 25 OECD countries. For availability of computed
tomography scanners, Canada ranks a miserable nineteenth out of 26 OECD
countries. Worse still, for availability of lithotriptors, Canada ranks a dismal
third last (tied with New Zealand) out of 21 OECD countries. Finally, Canada
ranked an uninspiring eighth out of 21 countries for mammograph availability.
It is clear that the Canadian health care system does not provide a level of
health technology commensurate with its relatively high spending. It is also
interesting to note that the diffusion of MRI machines over time (the rate at
which they are acquired) has been much less rapid in Canada than in other
OECD countries (Harriman et al., 1999), implying that Canada also has older
and less effective MRI machines and lacks widespread access to open magnet
and more sophisticated, special purpose, scanners.
Given these levels of access to high-tech health care, it is not surprising
that a wait of more than two months exists for an MRI scan in Canada,
or a waiting time of more than one month for a CT scan (Esmail and Hazel
with Walker, 2008)." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.
This is intereting isn't it...  The Candians spent 10.7% of their GDP on health care yet their access to equipment that is rapidly becoming obsolete is poor.


Here is an excerpt from Table 14 in Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.
Time waited to be treated in ER
            CDN   US
<30 mins:         25%   33%
30 mins to 1 Hr:      14%   19%
2 Hours or more:      46%   31%

Ability to get an appointment to see a Dr when sick or needed care:
            CDN   US
Same Day:         22%   30%
Next Day:         14%   19%
2-5 days:         26%   25%
6 days or more:      30%   20%

Wait for elective surgery in past 2 years:
            CDN   US
< 1 month:         32%   62%
> 6 months:      14%   4%

Overall system view:
            CDN   US
Minor changes needed:   26%   16%
Fundamental changes:   60%   48%
Rebuild completely:   12%   34%

So from the chart, 46% of ER patients have to wait 2 hours or more compared to 31% in the US.  Only 39% in Canada waited 1 hour or less for services while 52% waited one hour or less in US emergency rooms.  I can think of no better time to need quick access to a Doctor then when I am sitting in an emergency room.

Almost 50% of sick folks can see their Doctor the same or next day in US, while in Canada, only 36% enjoy the same access.

Almost twice as many reported that they were able to receive elective surgery within one month in the US versus Canada.

60%, the majority of Canadians think that the Canadian Health System needs fundamental change.  I'll allow that the US isn't much better, but for something you profess to be far superior, one would speculate that this number would be much lower.


"In 2005, Canada ranked twenty-third (tied with Korea, Poland, and
the UK) out of 28 OECD countries in a comparison of age-adjusted doctor-
to-population ratios [table 10]. That year, Canada had 69,108 doctors
(OECD, 2008). In order to rank with equally developed countries, Canada
would have needed a significantly larger number of doctors. For example,
in order for Canada's 2005 ranking to equal that of first-ranked Iceland, the
number of doctors would have had to be higher by approximately 65,817—a
95% increase.
Although the number of doctors per capita has increased over time, it
is important to consider the rate of growth of doctors (age-adjusted) in other
countries. In 1970, Canada had an age-adjusted ratio of 1.8 doctors per 1,000
people, the second-highest ratio among 20 OECD countries for which data
were then available (OECD, 2008; calculations by the authors). Since 1970,
however, all but one of these countries have bettered Canada's growth in doctors
per capita. While the age-adjusted proportion of doctors in Canada grew
by 31% over the period, the average increase in the proportion of doctors in
the other 19 countries was 152%.
In the 35 years between 1970 and 2005, Canada's doctors-per-capita
rank fell from second of 20 countries to twenty-third of 28 countries. This
is particularly remarkable given that in 2005, Canada's age-adjusted health
spending as a percent of GDP was higher than all other developed nations
with universal access health care programs save Iceland and Switzerland.
Comparatively, the health care sector should have enough resources to
provide for many more doctors than we now have. The long and growing
waiting lists suggest that we could certainly employ more physicians to our
advantage."

Here is more evidence that Canada's health system isn't as peachy as you try to portray.  They don't have enough doctors, and the number of doctors continues to fall behind other developed nations at the expense of waiting lists to see the doctors.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 09:04:16

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-10-2009 -- 08:34:16
Griff,

You treat profit as if it's a dirty word. Free market capitalism, with all it's flaws, is still far superior to any other system in dealing with the allocation of goods and services. It has allowed America to prosper into the greatest country the world has ever known. And that includes Canada. That is why you and millions of others stream across our borders every year.

No one streamed across the border from my family. I was born here.
China owns the US due to unfettered the capitalism of the past 30 years. In the arena of health insurance, there is no such thing as a true capitalist market. It is a captive market where the consumer MUST pay whatever price the insurance company demands, or they simply go without. There is no secondary market to a hospital, not is there time to 'shop around' for a cheaper ER after an accident.
Explain the function of the insurance industry as it pertains to pure capitalism, if you can. You can ponder this quote from another socialist stooge while you're doing it.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln

Our republic is being destroyed by the actions of our government.  The massive increases in government spending, the bailouts of private corporations with the use of taxpayer funds is destroying our republic.  The great depression was caused by the central bank, and there is evidence to suggest that the current recession has been caused by artificially low interest rates as a result of actions by the federal reserve.  The push to get credit to unworthy individuals who otherwise could not get home financing is what put the housing market where it is today.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:19:00

The Frasure Institute writes that:

First, it's the FRASER institute. The report is here: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/HowGoodisCanadianHealthCare2008.pdf

I didn't say that care in Canada was peachy, it isn't here either.There is no valid comparison in the report between the CHA and the US funding of their respective systems.

from the executive summary:
In this study, we primarily compare Canada to other countries that also have universal access, publicly funded, health care systems. Since the United States and Mexico do not, we often ignore these countries in the comparisons made.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:19:00
So here, power hungry politicians can increase taxation in the name of health care yet not pass that on to the actual health care program.  You don't know any power hungry politicians do you?  You can't possibly imagine that there are politicians in this would who would use public interest for personal gain can you?

Your quote is describing among the 3 methods of paying, not a description of the CHA system or funding. In fact, the executive summary states:
Regrettably, international comparison does not enable us to choose between
the greater transparency and potentially shorter waiting times of a segregated
social insurance program or general taxation funding since 11 OECD countries
use general taxation, 12 use segregated taxation or a social-insurance
program, and five have mixed financing systems.

As far as the US is concerned, we can either throw our hands in the air and do nothing, or we can try to do something different and also pass laws that ensure transparency.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:19:00
Here is the issue of the problem of the commons...

This is the problem of the commons that Hardin writes about in his essay "The Tragedy of the Commons".  You quickly dismissed my assertion that Canada is suffering from the problem of the commons, but here is evedence from a peer-reviewed source that suggests they are indeed suffering from it.  At this point, if you deny that this problem exists, you will have proven to me that you are unable to have an enlightened discussion.[/color]

There isn't a single example of it actually happening in the Fraser report. In fact your citation is from a statement about hypothetical problems in one of three seperate funding methods. Please feel free to point out the specific case the report refers to, in Canada.

You may want to be careful throwing around the 'peer reviewed' claim, as the Fraser institute is not the same as the NE Journal of Medicine. Rather it is a private organization that publishes opinion papers. I am sort of intrigued that most times you make a claim out you feel the need to add that if I disagree with you that I am instanlty incapable of something or other.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:19:00

"Health care spending in Canada for 2008 was forecast to be $171.9
billion or $5,170 per person (CIHI, 2008). This total spending for 2008 is
approximately 10.7% of that year's GDP (CIHI, 2008)." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.

The report does not give US spending for 2008 so I cannot give you a comparison.  I merely included this data to show that the numbers you have claimed are outdated at best.

If you looked at my citations, which apparently you haven't, they were the actual numbers from 2006, not estimates, you might want to take note that the total spent on health care includes both the CHA portion (71%) and the private portion (29%). This would make the Fraser estimate of the CHA contribution about $3700. which would constitute an increase of 8% over a 2 year period.
Compared to 11.1% for US employer-subsidized plans.

And again, in Canada the private portion goes for things like dental, prescriptions, private rooms, etc.
[/quote]

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:19:00This is intereting isn't it...  The Candians spent 10.7% of their GDP on health care yet their access to equipment that is rapidly becoming obsolete is poor.

The US spends 15.3% of its GDP on healthcare in 2006 still 1/3 more than the 2008 estimate for Canada, and still over 40 million people still uninsured, never mind about access to MRI's.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:19:00
60%, the majority of Canadians think that the Canadian Health System needs fundamental change.  I'll allow that the US isn't much better, but for something you profess to be far superior, one would speculate that this number would be much lower.

The funding method is far superior, the actual delivery is as adequate as it is here, perhaps more so because it is available to everyone, not simply those who can afford it.

Why would you think that the numbers would be lower? We have, supposedly, the greatest system on earth here and yet:

"Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American" http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html

And that's just Republicans.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:19:00Here is more evidence that Canada's health system isn't as peachy as you try to portray.  They don't have enough doctors, and the number of doctors continues to fall behind other developed nations at the expense of waiting lists to see the doctors.

You do understand that the comparisons are being made to smaller countries with REAL socialized medicine, don't you? Look at the charts.

also, from the OECD citation (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf)
Despite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the United States, there are fewer physicians per capita than in most other OECD countrie. In 2006, the United States had 2.4 practising physicians per 1,000 population, below the OECD average of 3.1.

and

The number of acute care hospital beds in the United States in 2006 was 2.7 per 1 000 population, also lower than the OECD average of 3.9 beds.

It seems like lack of doctors and beds might be a universal problem.

Why can I not let this go....????

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
First, it's the FRASER institute. The report is here: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/HowGoodisCanadianHealthCare2008.pdf

Sorry to offend your sensibilities.  I was busy trying to give you accurate information while preparing breakfast for my 4 yr old.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
You may want to be careful throwing around the 'peer reviewed' claim, as the Fraser institute is not the same as the NE Journal of Medicine. Rather it is a private organization that publishes opinion papers.

I pulled the report from the Branford Millar Library at Portland State University which made the claim that the report is reputable and reviewed.  Again, my apolopies, I was merely trying to utilize a neutral 3rd party based in Canada as a reputable source.  I have specifically chosen not to include information from government sources as asking the government how the citizens are is akin to asking the cat how the mice are.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
I am sort of intrigued that most times you make a claim out you feel the need to add that if I disagree with you that I am instanlty incapable of something or other.

I just appears that way to me.  You instantly dismiss the issue of the problem of the commons as if you are unable to comprehend and apply it.  It isn't a difficult constuct to follow, and all the while you seem to magically be able to sew arguments together that suit your purpose.  In short, you appear to be disengenuous.  Please don't take that as a personal attack, as it was meant to give you an understanding on why I may or may not think your are incapable of recognizing a logical opposing argument.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
I didn't say that care in Canada was peachy, it isn't here either.There is no valid comparison in the report between the CHA and the US funding of their respective systems.

There is some valid information to compare that I have pointed out.  I was merely responding to what I thought was wrong with the Canadian system.  I used subjective data from the report to suggest that there are perceived quality issues as reported by actual citizens.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
Your quote is describing among the 3 methods of paying, not a description of the CHA system or funding.

My quote was describing implications of using a general taxation scheme to fund healh care insurance or health care services.  Canada happens to use the general taxation method, so your dismissal of this criticizm is disengenuous at best.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
As far as the US is concerned, we can either throw our hands in the air and do nothing, or we can try to do something different and also pass laws that ensure transparency.

If you think that a free market system is doing nothing then I can see why you are so frustrated.  I happen to agree that we need laws that ensure transparency.  Didn't our new president promise more transparancy on the campain trail and has yet to offer the 5 day viewing period promised to the public?

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
There isn't a single example of it actually happening in the Fraser report. In fact your citation is from a statement about hypothetical problems in one of three seperate funding methods. Please feel free to point out the specific case the report refers to, in Canada.

I don't think I need to give specific examples in Canada.  The problem of the commons is universal.  It happens everywhere when free access and infinite demand upon a finite resource exists.  Canada is not exempt from this.  Nor is the US for that matter, but I am only offering criticizms of Canada's system since I am HAPPY with mine here in the US.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
And again, in Canada the private portion goes for things like dental, prescriptions, private rooms, etc.

My insurance covers prescriptions.  I don't need supplemental insurance to cover them.  My dental insurance is so cheap it is almost negligible. Here you have indirectly responded to my question about the need to purchase additional (supplemental insurance/services) in Canada.  I suspose a health insurance program is less than complete if it doesn't cover prescription drugs.  Do you see where I am hinting at disenginuity?

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:19:00This is intereting isn't it...  The Candians spent 10.7% of their GDP on health care yet their access to equipment that is rapidly becoming obsolete is poor.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
The US spends 15.3% of its GDP on healthcare in 2006 still 1/3 more than the 2008 estimate for Canada, and still over 40 million people still uninsured, never mind about access to MRI's.

You deflected instead of responding to the criticism.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:19:00
60%, the majority of Canadians think that the Canadian Health System needs fundamental change.  I'll allow that the US isn't much better, but for something you profess to be far superior, one would speculate that this number would be much lower.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
The funding method is far superior, the actual delivery is as adequate as it is here, perhaps more so because it is available to everyone, not simply those who can afford it. Why would you think that the numbers would be lower?

I was suggesting that the Canadian number of 60% should be lower.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
...perhaps more so because it is available to everyone, not simply those who can afford it.

Oh, but wait, the Fraser report indicates there are issues among the lower socio-economic classes...
"The problems with access to care are also not uniform among the
socioeconomic groups in Canada. Though the health system in Canada is
often defended as one that treats all equally, a notable difference in the ratings
of care among economic groups has been found in Canada. According to a
study by the Commonwealth Fund, Canadians with below-average incomes
were 9% less likely than those with above-average incomes to rate care as
excellent or very good, and 6% more likely to rate care as fair or poor in a
survey of citizens in five countries (Blendon et al., 2002). Canadians with
below-average incomes were also more likely not to visit a doctor as a result of
cost concerns, and were more likely to have difficulty seeing a specialist relative
to those with above-average incomes (Blendon et al., 2002). Government
provision of care in Canada has clearly not meant equal care for all."

In your perfect system, why would "Canadians with
below-average incomes were also more likely not to visit a doctor as a result of
cost concerns, and were more likely to have difficulty seeing a specialist relative
to those with above-average incomes (Blendon et al., 2002).

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
Why would you think that the numbers would be lower? We have, supposedly, the greatest system on earth here and yet:

"Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American" http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html

And that's just Republicans.

Ever hear of the concept of pandering?  You are pointing to a campain poll in an election year when being a "repugnican" was by and large a horrible place to be.  I would imagine that a desperate "repugnican" would advocate anything during 2008 to get re-elected. This is another example of your disengenuity.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 14:04:49
It seems like lack of doctors and beds might be a universal problem.

I agree.  I think we need more Doctors, since it can't hurt to have one on every corner.  And again, I was leveling criticism at Canada compared to other nations with a socialized scheme. Not the US where people seem to have quick and ready access to doctors.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 15:36:52Sorry to offend your sensibilities.

You didn't offend me, you just miss-referenced your source 6 or seven times. I'm assuming other people are reading this and might like to be able to find the source themselves.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 15:36:52
I was leveling criticism at Canada compared to other nations with a socialized scheme.

So you're advocating nationalizing healthcare? Many of the countries that performed better than Canada as far as service delivery is concerned, have nationalized healthcare. It's like comapring apples and oranges. It's one of the reasons that the report itself says that it is an unfair comparison.

My intended purpose is to explore whether we can do a single payer insurance system here, in the US, without resorting to nationalizing healthcare. Perhaps you'd prefer the German system?
I'm not interested in nationalizing health care, just making basic health care available to everyone.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 15:36:52I don't think I need to give specific examples in Canada

Seeing as I have asked repeatedly and you haven't, or can't provide an example of an actual occurence that displays the characteristic of the commons in the Canadian system should give you some idea of why I dismiss your claim. Theory is nice, but facts are better.
You make claims, I ask for a citation or proof or even an example, and you make accusations of disingenuity and turn around require it from me.
If the commons applied, certainly it would show up as out of control costs in the Canadian system. It is actually more rampant in the current US system, where there is TRULY no cost to the uninsured/illegal alien end user at the local ER.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 15:36:52You deflected instead of responding to the criticism.

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 15:36:52In your perfect system, why would...

Not sure why I have to remind you over & over, but I never said the Canadian system was perfect. It provides coverage to everyone, that makes it better than one that costs nearly double and covers 70%.

How about this then;
You think the Canadian single payer system will never work and the current US system is broken.
What is your plan to cover the over 45 million uninsured and control health care costs? Perhaps you'd prefer the German system? What solution do you propose?

Adopting the social insurance model in Canada would offer greater transparency and provide the opportunity for competition in insurance supply, while potentially reducing waiting times and maintaining the same protections for the unfortunate as presently exist. (from the Fraser report)

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 15:36:52

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

It matters if you are suspect to cancer or any other fast moving problems like spine inflammation.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-10-2009 -- 16:38:52

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 15:36:52

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

It matters if you are suspect to cancer or any other fast moving problems like spine inflammation.

If you can't afford to actually see a doctor, you aren't ever going to have the luxury of worrying about whether you get an MRI or not.

Griff,

The problem of the commons manifests itself in longer wait times.  I don't need a peer-reviewed report to see it.  The fact that you are willing to look past the long wait times and the need for supplemental insurance are evidence of the problem that you have failed to seriously consider.

I have been promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Not socialized health care.  I appreciate that I can, as a result of my own effort, get better than adequate health care.  I don't think that it is a citizen's responsibility to provide health insurance for their neighbors.  Just like I think it is an unfair burden on tax payers when a couple squeezes out a dozen kids and then burdens the public schools with them.  You referenced octomom a while ago, and yes, that is a burden on the California economy, and guess what, that state is going broke!

I also think illegals are a burden on the health care system in our border states, and I do not think it is my responsibility to care for them either.

Ethically, you are correct,we probably should provide for the less fortunate, and we do through social programs and state funded programs that are going bankrupt left and right.

If a single payer system provided for and guaranteed the level of care and access to doctors and advanced medical equipment and the discounted rate you speak of, I would probably be all for it except that I know there is a trade off somewhere.

I have also read in this thread that Canadians enjoy cheaper drug prices which is true.  The US allows the drug companies to charge more (via patents) to recover R & D costs for the first three years.  When you consider that Canada and other countries do not pay towards R & D costs one could make the argument that Canada is a "free-rider" on the US.

And last but not least, you made no response to the Fraser report where it discussed disparities on access to health care by lower-income families in Canada.  Nor have your really responded to fair and accurate criticism of the problem of the commons as evidenced by longer wait times and aging equipment.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 16:59:40

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-10-2009 -- 16:38:52

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 15:36:52

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

It matters if you are suspect to cancer or any other fast moving problems like spine inflammation.

If you can't afford to actually see a doctor, you aren't ever going to have the luxury of worrying about whether you get an MRI or not.

If you need to see a doctor and seriously can't afford it, we have programs that will cover you.  My little brother had a $300k back surgery compliments of the citizens of the State of California.  Our system seems to work, that is unless you view a lack of health insurance as a lack of medical care.

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-10-2009 -- 08:57:23
Hoopty,

That's a common tactic used by liberals. When confronted with irrefutable logic and an indefensible position they resort to ad-hominem personal attacks. Notice that he didn't address the content of the post.

Duck,

You crack me up... I guess that if you address the content of the post while attacking the person, then that's ok?

I've only had to ever ban one member and that was for continuous use of 'ad-hominem' arguments.  And as far as I can tell, that member isn't a "liberal". 

Well gee if the US has programs that will cover medical procedures a person can't afford, the US is half way to Universal health care.  Why not go all the way so everyone is covered.  Not just the poor,  the veteran, or the aged.  That's medicaid, VA, and medicare.  All of these are government funded programs.  Would it be so difficult to to extend the coverage?  Other countries have been doing this for decades.  Why is the US the only major country not to do so?

Is it because some of us are afraid we might have to wait a little longer to see a doctor?  Well lets lower the cost of training doctors and nurses, open more medical schools, get rid of health insurance companies, fund research for drugs, (instead of leaving it to the drug companies that only want to sell you drugs that make money). WOW with just the money that's been going to insurance companies you might find a cure for the common cold!!!!!!  Oh yeah now one doesn't have to  buyi insurance for the poor neighbor!!!!

I see a lot of comments about responsibility.  Basically it reads like the only thing some want to be responsible  for is themselves and no one else.  Does this mean training doctors only for them?  Training police and firemen only to protect them and their property?  

Make the illegals legal, they are here to work, so let them work.  What a concept!  Then they to can be contributing instead of being a so called burden.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 19:26:57
Griff,

The problem of the commons manifests itself in longer wait times.  I don't need a peer-reviewed report to see it.  The fact that you are willing to look past the long wait times and the need for supplemental insurance are evidence of the problem that you have failed to seriously consider.

I have been promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Not socialized health care.  I appreciate that I can, as a result of my own effort, get better than adequate health care.  I don't think that it is a citizen's responsibility to provide health insurance for their neighbors.  Just like I think it is an unfair burden on tax payers when a couple squeezes out a dozen kids and then burdens the public schools with them.  You referenced octomom a while ago, and yes, that is a burden on the California economy, and guess what, that state is going broke!

I also think illegals are a burden on the health care system in our border states, and I do not think it is my responsibility to care for them either.

Ethically, you are correct,we probably should provide for the less fortunate, and we do through social programs and state funded programs that are going bankrupt left and right.

If a single payer system provided for and guaranteed the level of care and access to doctors and advanced medical equipment and the discounted rate you speak of, I would probably be all for it except that I know there is a trade off somewhere.

I have also read in this thread that Canadians enjoy cheaper drug prices which is true.  The US allows the drug companies to charge more (via patents) to recover R & D costs for the first three years.  When you consider that Canada and other countries do not pay towards R & D costs one could make the argument that Canada is a "free-rider" on the US.

And last but not least, you made no response to the Fraser report where it discussed disparities on access to health care by lower-income families in Canada.  Nor have your really responded to fair and accurate criticism of the problem of the commons as evidenced by longer wait times and aging equipment.

I asked you for your preferred method of fixing the problen of the over 45 million uninsured in the US, regardless of my preferred payment plan.
They aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or any insurance at all AND they are American citizens. Medicaid, in case you are unfamiliar witrh it IS state funded healthcare provided to the poor. The 45 million are NOT covered by it, because they fall between the cracks. Nor does that number include the more than 10 million illgals who balso burden the hospital system.

I asked you for your preferred method of fixing the problem of the over 45 million uninsured in the US, regardless of my preferred payment plan.
They aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or any insurance at all AND they are American citizens. Medicaid, in case you are unfamiliar with it IS state funded healthcare provided to the poor. The 45 million are NOT covered by it, because they fall between the cracks. Nor does that number include the more than 10 million illegals who also burden the hospital system.

You keep running back to your commons obsession rather than answer a straight-forward question and then you take a tangent of into the distance over drug patents and the poor abused pharma's R & D costs.
As I pointed out the commons problem is a rampant flaw in the US SYSTEM, because illegals and the uninsured use services they never have to pay for, in any form. This, even though it is 4 to 6 times more expensive to use an ER than a regular, primary care doctor. In Canada, ssoner or later the person will pay taxes somewhere, or get caught evading them.
I wasn't even the one who posted the response that contained that information on the commons problem as it pertains to US hospitals, jimmyc did. please feel free to read it.

It's simple to simply keep sharp shooting every suggestion I put forward. A bit harder to come up with an answer to the problem.

I'll ask once more, regardless of whatever method I put forward, what is your solution to provide the 45 million uninsured in this country access to good healthcare and stop the abuse of the hospital system by your favorite pet peeve, the commons?

Quote from: Winterfire2008 on 04-10-2009 -- 21:23:29
Well gee if the US has programs that will cover medical procedures a person can't afford, the US is half way to Universal health care.  Why not go all the way so everyone is covered.  Not just the poor,  the veteran, or the aged.  That's medicaid, VA, and medicare.  All of these are government funded programs.  Would it be so difficult to to extend the coverage?  Other countries have been doing this for decades.  Why is the US the only major country not to do so?

Is it because some of us are afraid we might have to wait a little longer to see a doctor?  Well lets lower the cost of training doctors and nurses, open more medical schools, get rid of health insurance companies, fund research for drugs, (instead of leaving it to the drug companies that only want to sell you drugs that make money). WOW with just the money that's been going to insurance companies you might find a cure for the common cold!!!!!!  Oh yeah now one doesn't have to  buyi insurance for the poor neighbor!!!!

I see a lot of comments about responsibility.  Basically it reads like the only thing some want to be responsible  for is themselves and no one else.  Does this mean training doctors only for them?  Training police and firemen only to protect them and their property?  

Make the illegals legal, they are here to work, so let them work.  What a concept!  Then they to can be contributing instead of being a so called burden.

The US is the only super power too. So what if others do it? As for personal responsibility well, why should I be responsible for some welfare queen squirting out babies and smoking crack? PLEASE tell me how her life is my responsibility? Do you have a clue to what personal responsibility means? Let me help you a bit. My families welfare is my SOLE responsibility. Some guy named Jim Bob in Kentucky is not responsible to pay for my family's health, utilities or any other bill. It is my job to do that. Too bad some people don't understand that. I guess their parents were sloths living off others and that is the only way of life they know. Not me! I am an adult and a responsible parent/husband.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 19:32:56

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 16:59:40

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-10-2009 -- 16:38:52

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 15:36:52

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

It matters if you are suspect to cancer or any other fast moving problems like spine inflammation.

If you can't afford to actually see a doctor, you aren't ever going to have the luxury of worrying about whether you get an MRI or not.

If you need to see a doctor and seriously can't afford it, we have programs that will cover you.  My little brother had a $300k back surgery compliments of the citizens of the State of California.  Our system seems to work, that is unless you view a lack of health insurance as a lack of medical care.

What magical programs would those be? Did your brother benefitted from government provided healthcare because he couldn't afford to pay? What a concept! Were his doctors of the inferior type that is so common in socialized systems? I'm betting he's not part of the commons problem either. I'm pleased to read your grateful words in praise of publicly provided healthcare.

In Nevada, as I cited before, they've closed the Oncology department at UMC, those folks aren't so lucky as your brother.

You know what I find so funny..."the crack smoking welfare queen squirting out babies"  a crass way to put it ..... is already yours  and my responsibility.  

I guess the policeman that patrols your neighborhood is not responsible in any shape, way, or form for keeping speeders off the street in front of your house,  the thief from breaking and entering or any of the other unspeakable things that happen when criminals run amok.  I guess the fireman doesn't need to respond to your house when it catches on fire. I bet the city engineer  is no longer responsible for keeping the city streets paved and free of potholes that you drive on.  It is your sole responsibility to catch the speeders and the criminals. It's your sole responsibility to get to your house and put out the fire.  You will be the one out there with the paving machine and the shovel to fix the streets, why because it's your sole responsiblity.  Are you the judge, jury and executioner too?  Lots of responsibilities there.  My my how do you find the time to earn a living, protect, and defend all in one day?

Now I don't believe for a minute that anyone does all these things, but maybe you do.

I pay my taxes and fees so I and others can have public services in the community in which we live.  I pay property taxes so not only my children can be educated, but others as well.  It is my responsibility and duty as a US citizen to pay my income taxes so my country can keep armed forces to defend and protect against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I find it interesting Coup that you feel the need to inform me what personal responsibility is.  

I alone am responsible for the choices I make. I don't blame others for the misfortunes that have occurred in my life nor do I make excuses when things don't go well.  I accept accountability for things I do.

Griff,

You are right about one thing, health care is not a purely free market system. Government intrusion distorts market forces and is the primary reason our health care costs have risen at the rate they have. Since Medicare was enacted in 1965, government spending has increased from 24% to 45% of health care expenditures in this country. And as you may or may not be aware, the government dictates what a doctor may charge for any given procedure. In many cases, the reimbursement rates do not cover the cost of providing the service. This drives up the cost for everyone else as doctors must recoup these losses by charging others more. That is why many doctors refuse to accept new Medicare patients. They can't afford to. A single payer system would only exacerbate this problem and inevitably lead to a shortage of doctors. It would create a disincentive for our most talented people to pursue this most noble profession due to the prospect of diminished earning potential. They would simply enter more lucrative (read less regulated) professions.

I would also like to add that the move toward employer provided health insurance was also caused by government intrusion into the marketplace. It was a direct response to the wage controls imposed during World War II and employers found a way around it by offering health insurance in lieu of higher wages. While market-based, this third party payment system is far from ideal and provides its own set of problems, not the least of which is the problem of the Commons that Adam so deftly spelled out. I am more apt to use my health insurance if I believe that someone else is paying for it and there is minimal out-of pocket cost to me. I have no incentive to temper my use of the resource.  I would like to see a move to a more free market-based approach. You made a comment in an earlier post and I let it slide. Now it seems appropriate to bring it up. You mentioned that employers are already subsidizing a portion of our health insurance. This is an outright fallacy. I got news for you, I'm paying the whole freight. Every dollar "contributed" on my behalf is one less dollar that my employer can afford to pay me in monetary compensation. I would much rather have this dollar in my paycheck and shop around for my own health insurance. I can guarantee you that I would shop around for the plan that best suited my needs and gave me the most value for my money rather than being shoe-horned into a plan that provides me with more coverage than I need or want. If everyone in an employer sponsored plan was given this option, health insurance premiums would surely decrease. No doubt about it. Insurance companies would offer many more options in order to serve this new market.

The answer is less government, not more.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-10-2009 -- 21:53:17
Do you have a clue to what personal responsibility means? Let me help you a bit. My families welfare is my SOLE responsibility.

Is your health insurance employer provided group insurance, individual group insurance or do you pay for all your family's medical needs out of pocket at the full price?

If you buy private insurance or pay taxes, you are paying for welfare queen's medical care. It is a simple fact that you can't escape, whether you believe it to be wrong or not. Every time an uninsured person uses a hospital, they pass the cost along to you. The same way Wal Mart passes the cost of 'shrinkage', or shoplifting, on to paying customenrs. It's a cost of doing business. It isn't going to change either.
The way to keep you, the responsible one, from paying for the irresponsible one, is to make a primary doctor available to them so they don't suck 5 times the expense out of our collective pockets. This would also allow us to do things like allow ERs to refuse service for anything minor and refer people at admission back to their own PCP.
That could make it possible to identify non-citizens trying to milk the system and go a long way to eliminate the present abuse of the taxpayer and hospitals

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-10-2009 -- 23:24:44
Griff,

You are right about one thing, health care is not a purely free market system. Government intrusion distorts market forces and is the primary reason our health care costs have risen at the rate they have. Since Medicare was enacted in 1965, government spending has increased from 24% to 45% of health care expenditures in this country. And as you may or may not be aware, the government dictates what a doctor may charge for any given procedure. In many cases, the reimbursement rates do not cover the cost of providing the service. This drives up the cost for everyone else as doctors must recoup these losses by charging others more. That is why many doctors refuse to accept new Medicare patients. They can't afford to. A single payer system would only exacerbate this problem and inevitably lead to a shortage of doctors. It would create a disincentive for our most talented people to pursue this most noble profession due to the prospect of diminished earning potential. They would simply enter more lucrative (read less regulated) professions.

The explosion in health insurance costs actually occurred in the pas 15 years, if the various government programs didn't exist, the million of Medicare and Medicaid recipients would be out of luck as well and put the unisured well over the 100 million mark. Private insurance premiums increase at a rate 2 or 3 times the rate of inflation, so it has no real relation to actual cost.
Insurance companies set their own fees, not the government. Hospitals and providers are free to refuse to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients, and some do.

Government intervention has actually resulted in the insurance companies being able to refuse coverage to anyone except the healthiest and leave the rest, who need the help the most to the taxpayer to shoulder. The profit takers take no risk at all, if you look like you're going to actually need that insurance, they can cancel you any time they please and pass the burden to the taxpayer.

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-10-2009 -- 23:24:44I would also like to add that the move toward employer provided health insurance was also caused by government intrusion into the marketplace. It was a direct response to the wage controls imposed during World War II and employers found a way around it by offering health insurance in lieu of higher wages. While market-based, this third party payment system is far from ideal and provides its own set of problems, not the least of which is the problem of the Commons that Adam so deftly spelled out. I am more apt to use my health insurance if I believe that someone else is paying for it and there is minimal out-of pocket cost to me. I have no incentive to temper my use of the resource.  I would like to see a move to a more free market-based approach. You made a comment in an earlier post and I let it slide. Now it seems appropriate to bring it up. You mentioned that employers are already subsidizing a portion of our health insurance. This is an outright fallacy. I got news for you, I'm paying the whole freight. Every dollar "contributed" on my behalf is one less dollar that my employer can afford to pay me in monetary compensation. I would much rather have this dollar in my paycheck and shop around for my own health insurance. I can guarantee you that I would shop around for the plan that best suited my needs and gave me the most value for my money rather than being shoe-horned into a plan that provides me with more coverage than I need or want. If everyone in an employer sponsored plan was given this option, health insurance premiums would surely decrease. No doubt about it. Insurance companies would offer many more options in order to serve this new market.

The problem of the commons is rampant in the present system. As for your premiums, you pay no taxes on the employer portion, nor does it show up anywhere as income. Perhaps you might want to check out how that works. Why don't you go to your employer, tell them you want to cancel your insurance coverage and have them pay you their portion instead? Let me know how that works out for you.

What options do the health insurance companies offer to the unemployed? Those with 'pre-existing conditions'?
Oh, that's right, they don't offer any at all, just line up for the government plan.
The health insurance industry is a non-value-added expense.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Adam:

What is your solution to provide the 45 million uninsured in this country access to good healthcare and stop the abuse of the hospital system?

Griff,

Like I said before, debating with you is like clapping with one hand. You never think beyond stage one. I'm well aware of the tax-free nature of health insurance benefits. That doesn't change the fact that it's income. It's just not in the form that I would prefer, namely monetary compensation. Say my employer allocates $50 in TOTAL LABOR COSTS per hour, not just my hourly rate, for my position. Let's say that it costs him the equivalent of $4/hour to provide me with a health benefits package that I don't want but take it because I basically have no choice. It's use or lose. That leaves him $46/hour that he can pay me hourly. Let's not forget the "employer's contribution" to social security. The "employer's contribution" is approximately 6.2%. Now where do you think the employer gets his portion of the contribution? If you answered, "From the money that he allocated for this position," go to the head of the class. Essentially I'm paying that too. This is what is known as a hidden cost. This hidden cost amounts to approximately $3/hour. Now we're down to $43/hour and I haven't even worked a minute yet. There are other costs but these will suffice for this discussion.

So I'm feeling pretty good about my $43/hour. After I work my first hour, your benevolent government thinks that it's appropriate to take an additional 20% in income taxes. I'm feeling pretty good about that but as I'm examining my paycheck, I notice that my state feels that it's appropriate to hit me up for another 8%. That's roughly $12/hour right off the top in state and federal taxes. That leaves me with $31/hour take home. Not too bad. I'm still feeling pretty good about that and decide that I'm gonna celebrate by going out and buying myself a modest $500 color T.V. Something nice, but nothing too extravagant. Imagine my amazement when the sales clerk rings me up and the total comes to $530. Incredulous, I insist that there must be some mistake, the price tag said $500. She informs me that the state determined that I still hadn't contributed my fair share and that I will be taxed an additional 6% on anything else I purchase. I'm not even going to get into real estate taxes, gasoline taxes, phone bill taxes, highway tolls, motor vehicle registrations, and any number of other fees and surcharges (read taxes).

I don't know about you, but I believe that the amount of money that I am currently paying in taxes is entirely too much. When you add it all up, it's gotta be damn near 50%, if not more, of every dollar I earn. I can't afford any additional burden, I'm tapped out. The current rate of growth in government spending is unsustainable, yet you propose more. Government has some legitimate functions and I have no problem paying a portion of my income in support of those. Every dollar above and beyond that is assault on my freedom and I find that reprehensible. And unlike you, I value liberty. Our government has far exceeded the powers that were enumerated to it in the Constitution. Their powers are few and specifically defined, though one would never know it by the way they carry on. They see the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" that can be twisted to suit their ideology and never ending quest for more power and further intrusion into our lives. Our Founders wouldn't even recognize this monstrosity and would be appalled at what they see. You should be too, but the priciples that made this country great are foreign to you. You're an unabashed Marxist, there's no other way to say it. Why did you even serve in the military and take an oath to defend ideals and values that you yourself don't hold? Was it the "free" health care they offered?

As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Duck nailed it in his last post here.

I've read through the pages of posts here, and since I have not the spare time to type out a response, I'll hit some high points:

If Juan Pablo came over the border illegally, my tax dollars should not be used to pay for his medical care, nor the abortion for his 16-year-old daughter who got pregnant by a Latino gang member in south L.A.;

Health care costs in this country started to skyrocket when the gov't. got involved.  OK, I'll pay my taxes for the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, but that's really all I want to fund for medical care.

I have experienced health care in countries with socialized medicine, Italy, for example.  There, the private care you get if you can afford it is top-notch, not as good as U.S. but not bad at all.  The public hospitals and doctors are not very good at all, long waits, poor quality, filthy hospitals, etc., etc...

A solution?  Not from me, but I will point out some contributing factors that create more problems than they solve, like the gov't regulating the health care industry to death (pardon the pun).  When I worked pharmaceuticals there was a room with all the books that held the regulations that we had to follow to make a pill.  50% of those reg's were good to have and follow; the rest just added cost.  The drug companies are all working on the cure for cancer, ALS, AIDS, even the common cold.  They might, maybe make a profit if they can recoup the R&D costs...

Most of the costs of medical care are hidden to the average person.  I had knee surgery a few years ago, with no idea of what it cost prior to the procedure.  I didn't care - my insurance was paying for it.  My insurance company negotiated a set fee for that kind of operation with the surgeon long before I showed up.  The dr. bills 2X that rate, insurance pays the contracted rate, and the dr. writes off the "loss" from his taxes.  The dr. also has to pay his huge staff of clerical types to document everything to do with the procedure in order to comply with a room full of books full of HIPAA regulations (thank Mr. & Mrs. Clinton for those).  So my $500 operation cost $5,000.  Call it overhead, imposed by the gov't.

Solutions?  There are quite a few ideas out there, and I think a combination of them may go a long way to making it better.

I agree with Coup, though, that it's not my responsibility to pay for healthcare for everybody, condoms for school kids, or a fancy plane for Nancy Pelosi.  I have no issue paying taxes for VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, DOD programs, CDC, National Parks, NASA, interstate maintenance, etc.

We live in a pluralist society, and the majority of people just want to take care of their own stuff and have the gov't stay out of their lives as much as possible.  That gives us the freedom to achieve whatever our American dream happens to be.  That means that your lot in life is dependent on how hard you study and how hard you work.  That will determine if you drive a Cadillac or a Chevy, live in a house or a trailer, pay for health insurance or go to the free clinic, send your kids to college or not...  We're getting a little heavy on the entitlement mentality that's showing itself here in the USA.  I am happy to help out a poor person get health care, but I'm not paying for it forever.  When you get healthy you have to go to work, poor person, and further your education so you can get a better job, maybe one with health insurance.  I want to give them a hand up, not a hand out...

So to boil down docbyers and ducks posts,

You've got no solutions
Government bad, Corporations good
People without healthcare are deadbeats
Corporations would shower us with unicorns and rinbows if it wasn't for that pesky regulation.

Thanks for your input.

Now perhaps I can get on with discussing it with someone who would like to address the problem wih something other than pithy slogans and trite generalizations.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 23:46:44
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Adam:

What is your solution to provide the 45 million uninsured in this country access to good healthcare and stop the abuse of the hospital system?

First, the 45 million uninsured do have access to good health care.  A lack of insurance is NOT a lack of access to health care.

Second, I have said, repeatedly, that abuses will occur in either system, you are the one who specifically said controls are easy to implement so the onus is on YOU to prove that abuses can be stopped with controls.

Third, what is to stop those without insurance from purchasing individual plans for coverage?

For instance I went to Kaiser Permanente's web site and inquired about coverage for me, a 34 yr old male...  The Gold $500 with Rx Deductible Plan offers predictable costs for office visits, hospitalization, and other services with a moderate deductible. Prescription coverage is included.  The monthly premium is $218 a month.

That wasn't even their cheapest plan - in fact, it was one of the more expensive plans.  The cheapest was $107 per month.

This is a PRIME example of a private solution that will provide adequate care and prescription coverage.  The only catch is, you have to take personal responsibility and pay for it.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-11-2009 -- 11:13:51

Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 23:46:44
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Adam:

What is your solution to provide the 45 million uninsured in this country access to good healthcare and stop the abuse of the hospital system?

First, the 45 million uninsured do have access to good health care.  A lack of insurance is NOT a lack of access to health care.

Second, I have said, repeatedly, that abuses will occur in either system, you are the one who specifically said controls are easy to implement so the onus is on YOU to prove that abuses can be stopped with controls.

Third, what is to stop those without insurance from purchasing individual plans for coverage?

For instance I went to Kaiser Permanente's web site and inquired about coverage for me, a 34 yr old male...  The Gold $500 with Rx Deductible Plan offers predictable costs for office visits, hospitalization, and other services with a moderate deductible. Prescription coverage is included.  The monthly premium is $218 a month.

That wasn't even their cheapest plan - in fact, it was one of the more expensive plans.  The cheapest was $107 per month.

This is a PRIME example of a private solution that will provide adequate care and prescription coverage.  The only catch is, you have to take personal responsibility and pay for it.

So you're ok with the real problem off ER abuse in the US, but condemn the likelihood of it anywhere else under any other system? That's kind of an odd position, but ok, your solution is the status quo, where the uninsured go to ERs and the hospitals and private insurance comapnies pass the cost along to everyone else.

Just so you don't think I've asked you to provide an example of it in Canada without having one handy for the US, besides the one posted by someone else, here's an example for you. The way the US system is designed right now, actually encourages it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090402/ap_on_re_us/frequent_er_patients


You keep saying those millions of uninsured folks ought to just run out and buy the some insurance, do you really think there are over 40 million people who woke up one day and "Hey! I don't feel like having health coverage for me and my family"
The 'welfare mom's' are covered by Medicaid programs, like the one you mentioned in Oregon, the over 65 crowd has Medicare. Those aren't among the 40 million, the 645,000 who lost jobs and employer health coverage last week are in the group of uninsured. The single parent who works to support their family and makes just enough to bump her income above the max level for Medicaid is in that group.

Your assumption that these people all lack personal responsibility is REALLY odd when you just finsished posting this:

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-11-2009 -- 11:13:51My little brother had a $300k back surgery compliments of the citizens of the State of California

I'm not thinking that you consider your brother to be an irresponsible slacker, does your judgement only apply to other people? If he couldn't afford to get insurance, why didn't you sign him up for that $107 plan?

Griff,

What you are failing to consider in this whole conversation is the morality of the topic at hand. The "problem" of 45 million uninsured Americans is not a problem of liberty. It is a problem of socialism.

Walter Williams is one of my favorite authors on this subject and I am posting an article of his here for your convenience. I think his point here is brilliant but I'm sure you will disagree. It reads as follows:

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.

Again, Dr. Williams brilliance on display. That's logic and moral clarity that I think even you will understand.

Thanks Duck..

BTW, I snowblow the driveway and walks of the lady next door, and also mow her yard..I do it for no return, because it's the thing to do..

However, in return I get some of the hottest peppers grown around here  :-D  Taco night is special

Forced servitude (whether through service or money) is not good..It should be from the heart and soul..just spend a week at a local food pantry

Mike

Wow Mike,  I would love to have you as a neighbor!!!!

Anyone heard of the Selective Service Act.  Or the stop-loss policy for the military. Talk about forced servitude!!!

Or how about forced retention when a company sues an employee who leaves for another company.  Microsoft did this when some of their top notch employees tried to leave for Google.

What stops a person from purchasing insurance....hmmmm the fact one has no money seems to hit the top of the list. 

Quote from: griff61 on 04-11-2009 -- 11:54:47
I'm not thinking that you consider your brother to be an irresponsible slacker, does your judgement only apply to other people? If he couldn't afford to get insurance, why didn't you sign him up for that $107 plan?

Nope, he is an irresponsible slacker.  Smart as heck but prefers to smoke his life away on medical marijuana.  It drives me nuts that he is OK with letting the state cater to his needs.  So much so that my efforts to get him turned around has driven him away.  As far as not signing him up for the $107 plan, I am not my brother's keeper.  Had he asked, I would have done what I could to help.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-11-2009 -- 23:45:40

Quote from: griff61 on 04-11-2009 -- 11:54:47
I'm not thinking that you consider your brother to be an irresponsible slacker, does your judgement only apply to other people? If he couldn't afford to get insurance, why didn't you sign him up for that $107 plan?

Nope, he is an irresponsible slacker.  Smart as heck but prefers to smoke his life away on medical marijuana.  It drives me nuts that he is OK with letting the state cater to his needs.  So much so that my efforts to get him turned around has driven him away.  As far as not signing him up for the $107 plan, I am not my brother's keeper.  Had he asked, I would have done what I could to help.

Well, I guess as long as everyone else was there to pick up the slack, it worked out ok.

Griff,

What you are failing to consider in this whole conversation is the morality of the topic at hand. The "problem" of 45 million uninsured Americans is not a problem of liberty. It is a problem of socialism.

Walter Williams is one of my favorite authors on this subject and I am posting an article of his here for your convenience. I think his point here is brilliant but I'm sure you will disagree. It reads as follows:

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her lawn, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.

Again, Dr. Williams brilliance on display. That's logic and moral clarity that I think even you can understand.

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-12-2009 -- 01:17:05

Again, Dr. Williams brilliance on display. That's logic and moral clarity that I think even you can understand.

Duck,
Thank you for posting that touch of logic.

To the Socialistic leaning folks here:
I think I saw the argument that some have said firefighters and police are also examples of socialism, and to an extent they are.  But, going to an extreme position to make a point does nothing to advance an argument.

I don't think that providing for providing police or firefighters forces servitude on others.  I feel this way because police forces and firefighters are run mostly by local governments so there is no real method for power hungry officials to defraud or manipulate the system.  I think providing for national defense can, and has, been manipulated and I suspect everyone here sees that no-bid contracts are a prime example.

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-12-2009 -- 01:43:51

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-12-2009 -- 01:17:05

Again, Dr. Williams brilliance on display. That's logic and moral clarity that I think even you can understand.

Duck,
Thank you for posting that touch of logic.

To the Socialistic leaning folks here:
I think I saw the argument that some have said firefighters and police are also examples of socialism, and to an extent they are.  But, going to an extreme position to make a point does nothing to advance an argument.

I don't think that providing for providing police or firefighters forces servitude on others.  I feel this way because police forces and firefighters are run mostly by local governments so there is no real method for power hungry officials to defraud or manipulate the system.  I think providing for national defense can, and has, been manipulated and I suspect everyone here sees that no-bid contracts are a prime example.

You, Duck & Coup are all very good at prounouncing judgements on what the ills of the wolrd are.
You're also very good at never contributing a single workable idea towards a solution, because  it's not your job or some such thing.

I actually had a bit more faith in your logic than that Adam, but oh well. The fact is, one of the biggest reasons that people can't get insurance is pre-existing conditions, not because they lack personal responsibility.
The welfare mothers that Coup refers to are already covered by your state/federal Medicaid plan, because they contribute very little or nothing as far as income goes. They're also the ones who may stay on the dole for years, depending on the State they live in.
I'm not interested in them at the moment, it's the ones above the poverty line and just below an income level high enough to afford insurance after paying thing like rent & food. That's where the 'hand up' needs to come in. In the present system, these people get stuck in limbo and usually end up at the ER. The person on State aid can just go to their doctor.

From all appearances. None of you actually know any more about how anything is funded in the US beyond what you heard on AM talk radio this morning. You say Medicare and Medicaid are ok, but none of that 'socialized'(the new Republican boogeyman word)* medicine!!! That takes my money!!!
If what you're concerned about is 'local control', then you could expand Medicaid to cover everyone and let States decide on most of the implementation. You know, just how it works in Canada (except they have provinces).

How do you think those things get paid for? Your sad little FICA contribution? Where do you think your State gets the money for Medicaid or the National Guard or education? Do you see a seperate deduction on your check, or is it from your taxes, both State AND Federal?

I thought corporations were our friends, they'd never do anything wrong like screw us on no bid contracts, they're all unicorns and rainbows! We just need to get rid of whatever government regulation that forced them to have to bankrupt us...that'll fix it.

The next few years are going to be rough on folks like you, all these things are going to be addressed and solutions arrived at.

Many corporations have proven themselves to be untrustworthy when unregulated and brought the financial system to near collapse, as well as the housing market, food safety, drug safety, military, etc etc. The pendulum is swinging the other way, you can either help offer alternatives to help slow it down or get run over. You can get in on the discussion so it looks like something more to your liking or you can sit around with your fingers in your ears going "la-la-la, I can't hear you" and offering nothing to the discourse.

You can feel free to sit in your little circle and stroke each other with how right you are about everything while the world passes you by. The rest of us will be over here in reality, having some kind of say in what the aftermath of this recession looks like.

Even the health insurance companies are changing their tune, they can see the writing on the wall. Perhaps you three might give it a try.
http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2009/03/24/insurers_charge_sick_people.html

In any case, you guys feel free to discuss amongst yourselves.

If any one should have an actual, non-fantasy land, idea about an alternative to our existing system, I'll be glad to discuss it.

You're very welcome, Adam.

I believe that looking at the issue purely from an economic standpoint failed to take into account that most important factor. When the issue is framed through the lens of morality it becomes clear that what he is advocating is an assault on liberty and freedom. His position is untenable and I think his lack of response to the moral aspect of the issue bears that out.

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-12-2009 -- 11:33:39
You're very welcome, Adam.

I believe that looking at the issue purely from an economic standpoint failed to take into account that most important factor. When the issue is framed through the lens of morality it becomes clear that what he is advocating is an assault on liberty and freedom. His position is untenable and I think his lack of response to the moral aspect of the issue bears that out.

Folks like you are the reason that people like Pelosi & Reid are in charge. One side wants to sell the country to corporations, lock stock and barrel, and spent the last 30 years pillaging the national treasury while bleating about 'personal responsibility and morality.
The other side wants to flush every aspect of personal responsibity out of daily life and dumpe every penny of taxpayer money down the hole of good intentions without oversight.

You and yours can wave your little flags and bask in your tiny self centered morality all day long while two extremes shred the Constitution, I'll try to actually look for solutions that actually preserve the true American way of life.

This true American way of life, would that be?

Griff, using the analogy Walter Williams posits with the widow and the lawn, do you support that type of government intervention?

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-12-2009 -- 13:08:55
This true American way of life, would that be?

Griff, using the analogy Walter Williams posits with the widow and the lawn, do you support that type of government intervention?

I haven't suggested it, what your example is described as is a straw man argument, you have nothing to say about solutions, only excuses to do nothing. Quoting a guy who thinks organs ought to be able to be sold to the highest bidder isn't quite the genius people would admire.

You just keep on fiddling while the Constitution burns, enjoy the ride.

Lens of Morality.... Whose lens?

What some think is right for them sure as heck ain't necessarily right for me.

I believe Universal healthcare is something that reduces poverty. That does not make me morally wrong nor personally irresponsible.  

Griff,

Adam was right. You are intellectualy dishonest. If you substitute health care for the lawn, that is exactly what you propose. When confronted with the moral bankruptcy of your position you try to deflect the direction of the argument to something completely off-topic.

If you want to debate about the sale of one's own organs and private property rights, I will gladly engage you on that topic.

Answer the question, do you support the government forcibly taking the fruits of the labor earned by one American, and giving it to another American who didn't earn it?

Winterfire,

Go back and read my post about the widow and the lawn. Would you support the government intrusion described in the post? That is the lens of morality I am referring to.

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-12-2009 -- 14:03:27
Griff,

Adam was right. You are intellectualy dishonest. If you substitute health care for the lawn, that is exactly what you propose. When confronted with the moral bankruptcy of your position you try to deflect the direction of the argument to something completely off-topic.

If you want to debate about the sale of one's own organs and private property rights, I will gladly engage you on that topic.

Answer the question, do you support the government forcibly taking the fruits of the labor earned by one American, and giving it to another American who didn't earn it?

You're very one dimensional, substitute corporations for government and you're suddenly ok with it.
I don't think the government should be paying civilians to do military jobs that troops used to do either. Does that describe yours? I've refused job offers from KBR and Halliburton on that basis alone. How about you? Empty grandstanding seems to be the rule of the day, under the guise of patriotism and morality.

Show me where I've suggested taking anything by force and you might have a point, as it stands your arguing with yourself, this country is (supposedly) a republic, majority rule is the way it goes. Some version of universal coverage is about to happen. In fact, why don't you find an example of it in real life an one of the countries I've mentioned with universal health care?

I asked for solutions to a problem, you've got nothing, probably because Rush, Bob and Glenn haven't got anything either.

We used to function as a republic, where people voted according to issues and actually went below headlines when they thought about problems.
We are effectively a parliamentary system now, there are only 2 to choose from and we can't get beyond our own provincial party pettiness.
George Washington was right.

Unless you actually respond with a plan that addresses what I have asked about, namely skyrocketing health care costs and universal coverage, feel free to debate yourself.

Griff,

As to your question, "substitute corporations for government and suddenly you're okay with it?" Could you please elaborate? I honestly don't see what point you are trying to make.

I don't have any problems with the government contracting out certain jobs to the private sector. To answer your question, yes, I am doing the exact same job that I did in the military. Does the fact that I no longer wear the uniform make me any less capable of doing the job? The government felt that the proposal my company made would be a better use of the money and resources that were already being allocated to the laboratory and would result in reduced costs. I can't speak for other labs, but in our case, that proved to be a correct assumption on the government's part. We have less than half the manning that the laboratory had when it was blue suit and the cost savings is substantial. I would call that a prudent use of taxpayer money. And unlike government, my company is not judged on it's good intentions, but rather it's results. If we do not provide a level of service that the Air Force feels is acceptable, we will be shown the door. That's called accountability, something our government sorely lacks.

Why you would refuse to accept a job with a government contractor is beyond me. The pay on our contract is good and the health insurance provided is excellent. You should look into it. As a matter of fact, I have more coverage than I want or need. I'm what some would call over-insured. I wish there was something I could do about that, but I don't have a choice in the matter. I can't get too bent out of shape about that though because I knew that going into it. It was a tradeoff that I was willing to make.

As to the issue of the government forcibly taking things, let me say this: By coercing me with fines and imprisonment if I don't comply with having my freedom violated by way of confiscatory taxation levels is not using force, I don't know what is. I think you are confusing what I said with physical force, though they will result to that if one pushes the issue to it's extreme conclusion.

And finally as to your point about majority rule, that was addressed in the article I referenced. Let me refresh your memory. It read as follows:
"Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her lawn, would that make it moral?"

I also would like to ask you a serious question. Would you agree with my point in the post about taxation levels? If you accept the basic premise of the post and how I arrived at the numbers, and putting your personal feelings about me aside, do you find it objectionable that the federal and state government takes more than $0.50 of every $1.00 that I earn in various taxes, fees, and surcharges?  And if you don't find it objectionable, what do you think is an appropriate level of taxation? At what point would even your sensibilities be offended?

Quote from: Duckbutta on 04-12-2009 -- 17:07:31
Griff,....

Duckbutta can't figure out why someone might actually live by their principles when there's money to be made, what a shocker.

Griff,

What principles are you not comprimising by refusing to work for a government contractor? I honestly don't see what you're getting at.

And what about the rest of the post? Your lack of response could easily lead one to believe that maybe you are finally starting to come around and beginning to embrace the principles of our Founders. That would be encouraging. Freedom loving Americans that value individual liberty and limited government are becoming more rare in this cradle to grave Age of Entitlement and we would gladly welcome you into the fold.

Just my two cents,

I would have to agree with Duck when he said

QuoteI don't have any problems with the government contracting out certain jobs to the private sector. To answer your question, yes, I am doing the exact same job that I did in the military. Does the fact that I no longer wear the uniform make me any less capable of doing the job?

When I got out of the AF, they had finished the A76 study and began outsourcing the Labs. I hired on to one of those Labs happily as it gave me a job. I don't get the point that I shouldn't work a job that used to be military as Griff said

QuoteI don't think the government should be paying civilians to do military jobs that troops used to do either.

. Duck is right, the Lab I went to had a total of 17 techs whereas before it had a manning level of 60. The contractor provided all benefits and what not so the cost to the government was substancially lower considering it no longer had to provide training, housing, medical, blah,blah,blah and so on and so on. I have been working different contracts for the past 10 years and feel I have only improved on my job knowledge and experience level albeit not wearing a uniform anymore.

As for the Health care issue I am kind of lost in the middle somewhere. I would love to see those 45 million without insurance receive good quality health care and I would love to see those under-insured people get to a much more acceptable level of insurance such as what I receive.
I would also love to not have to pay anymore taxes than the average person. I don't agree with taxing the wealthy simply because they have more money so they  need to give back thus the redistribution of wealth. This I believe alienates people from the drive that they had to make all that money in the first place. I believe more and more we are becoming a nation of entitlements while barking out loud this is what America should be. I know we here in America have a broken system, we pay more than any other country for Healthcare yet we still dont have the same level of Healthcare as a whole. I mean sure we have quality healthcare of course but not everyone is privvy. This saddens me of course but it does not mean we should go and triple or quadruple our national debt in less than 10 years in the name of giving fair and substantial healthcare to the less fortunate. At least not when the so called less fortunate is a gray area due to many Americans taking advantage of the system and bleeding dry every program they can.

Many single moms really need help, many children need help I agree and would be ok with providing that hand up in certain situations. What I dont agree with is the lazy American sitting on the couch getting food stamps, rent and utilities subsidized, monthly checks, tax breaks, and because of the hard work they put in doing absolutely nothing to better themselves what we are going to do is give them more hand outs so they will what? Work that much harder at staying exactly where they are doing nothing to better themselves!

I can be ok with giving a hand up if I thought the help was going to the genuinely needy and not the vast majority of people preying on a flawed system and the hard work of others. I think if we had a process that more thouroughly vetted the receiver of such entitlements to verify legitimate need and not simply just signing up whoever more people would be ok with this. I have seen families on welfare where the mother doesn't work, has 3 kids and gets her rent paid, utilities paid, monthly food stamps, free healthcare and they are all doing just fine especially since the father does work but they divorced so they can still recieive all the entitlements on a monthly basis and still remains at home but has a PO Box so the welfare office does not know. So not only are they taking advantage of all those social services but he is making a good living on the side. Now if we can create a better vetting process to elimnate theses kind of people which give truly needy families a bad name if you will I think I could feel a little more easy about a hand up.

John Wooden once said "The worst thing you could ever do for loved ones is something they could and should do for themselves"

So here we are, what kind of solotuions can we find?
FOR one I believe in a flat tax, no higher or lower depending on salary. Yes the more you make the more you will pay but at least everyone would be giving the same share of their hard earned money. Now of course this won't ever work unless we get a grip on all the different loop holes that are in the tax laws which allow so many to take advantage of and not pay their fare share. I know that probably opend up a can of worms but hey what can you do.

I think if corporations have more than 50% of their workforce in foreign countries they should not be allowed to be a U.S. company and should be subject to to all import duties, taxes and what have you. I think we should not only be making it beneficial to keep jobs here through certain tax breaks and whatever else we can do but also make it non-beneficial to outsource American jobs with tax hikes.

I think Healthcare needs to be reform and regulated but with caution, many believe without high profit levels that research or quality of research would suffer. I think we should regulate to a level that Americans can receive more affordable healthcar but not so much that it alleviates the drive for profit of the company and the researchers doing the work. By simply regulating and controlling costs you would help the uninsured and under-insured by my making it more available maybe even with some subsidies available to those at lower income level. I think if we nationalize Healthcare we would be paying way to much as we already are but then we would be stuck in a situation where our government and all the idiocy that involves will only have one more national program to screw beyond belief.

So basically I am in favor of Healthcare reform through regulation and cost control but not simply dolling out a trillion dollars so that someone else's Ideal of the American way can cost me my hard earned dollars simply because I was willing to go out and work hard for myself.

Wow I have just babbled on quite a bit, sorry if I jumped around too much I am not the best at putting thoughts down into words. Must be the HADD

Quote from: Smokey on 04-13-2009 -- 13:39:32
Just my two cents,

I would have to agree with Duck when he said

QuoteI don't have any problems with the government contracting out certain jobs to the private sector. To answer your question, yes, I am doing the exact same job that I did in the military. Does the fact that I no longer wear the uniform make me any less capable of doing the job?

I don't have a problem with all contractors, just the two I mentioned.

Quote from: Smokey on 04-13-2009 -- 13:39:32As for the Health care issue I am kind of lost in the middle somewhere. I would love to see those 45 million without insurance receive good quality health care and I would love to see those under-insured people get to a much more acceptable level of insurance such as what I receive.
I would also love to not have to pay anymore taxes than the average person.

Makes perfect sense, as far as taxes go, the smart way to do a single payer system is to replace the current, inflated, premium system with a universal, nearly flat rate to everyone. Not in addition, but a replacement. We could also (like we should do with Social Security) make those funds untouchable for anything but their intended purpose.

The method being proposed, as far as I can tell, is as bad an idea as Medicare part D was. It is simply finding a way for the government to pay a middle man to provide coverage for a profit. There's no way to control the costs in that case. The upsurge in health care costs doesn't lie with the providers, it is in the middle man's profit taking.

Quote from: Smokey on 04-13-2009 -- 13:39:32What I dont agree with is the lazy American sitting on the couch getting food stamps, rent and utilities subsidized, monthly checks, tax breaks, and because of the hard work they put in doing absolutely nothing to better themselves what we are going to do is give them more hand outs so they will what? Work that much harder at staying exactly where they are doing nothing to better themselves!

I can't imagine anyone thinking that is a good idea, unfortunately, those are the ones who actually have coverage (Medicaid). I would encourage you to also get on your State & Local people, because access to all those things you listed are decided at that level, here in AZ it's the DES.

Quote from: Smokey on 04-13-2009 -- 13:39:32So here we are, what kind of solotuions can we find?
FOR one I believe in a flat tax, no higher or lower depending on salary. Yes the more you make the more you will pay but at least everyone would be giving the same share of their hard earned money. Now of course this won't ever work unless we get a grip on all the different loop holes that are in the tax laws which allow so many to take advantage of and not pay their fare share. I know that probably opend up a can of worms but hey what can you do.

I agree, as long as it is on all income regardless of source, including capital gains.
The estate tax is obscene, in my opinion.

We could have a tax code that's a single page long.

Quote from: Smokey on 04-13-2009 -- 13:39:32I think if corporations have more than 50% of their workforce in foreign countries they should not be allowed to be a U.S. company and should be subject to to all import duties, taxes and what have you. I think we should not only be making it beneficial to keep jobs here through certain tax breaks and whatever else we can do but also make it non-beneficial to outsource American jobs with tax hikes.

We'd need to kill all those great free trade and most favored nation deals...I wouldn't shed a tear over them.

Quote from: Smokey on 04-13-2009 -- 13:39:32I think Healthcare needs to be reform and regulated but with caution, many believe without high profit levels that research or quality of research would suffer.

You might be surprised to find that most medical research is federally funded. Many of the big discoveries have been due to work in MASH and Military & VA recovery programs. I'm not sure that replacing the health insurance industry would affect pharmaceuticals or research hospitals too much, mainly because they are funded from other sources.

Griff,

First you said this:
"I don't think the government should be paying civilians to do military jobs that troops used to do either. Does that describe yours? I've refused job offers from KBR and Halliburton on that basis alone."

Then you said this:
"I don't have a problem with all contractors, just the two I mentioned."

Which is it?

Quote from: griff61 on 04-12-2009 -- 14:31:59
Show me where I've suggested taking anything by force and you might have a point...

This is interesting.  Follow me for just a second...    Here in the US, a citizen would likely go to prison and face penalties for not paying taxes correct?  If we implemented Canada's general taxation funded single payer system, then an individual could choose between paying taxes, or going to jail and face penalties correct?

This is definately taking something by force, granted it will be after the fact, but force will eventually be used.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-12-2009 -- 14:31:59
... as it stands your arguing with yourself, this country is (supposedly) a republic, majority rule is the way it goes.

Unless the majority rule is imposing the tyranny of the majority.  The majority cannot enact rules that are tyrannical in nature.  This is why, despite the many attempts of the majority, that gay and lesbian marriage will eventually be recognized by all states.  It is a civil rights issue that just because the majority opposes it doesn't nullify the civil rights of the minority.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-12-2009 -- 14:31:59
We used to function as a republic, where people voted according to issues and actually went below headlines when they thought about problems.
We are effectively a parliamentary system now, there are only 2 to choose from and we can't get beyond our own provincial party pettiness.
George Washington was right.

I agree.  What's to stop us from creating a viable third party?  I am prepared to vote libertarian if presented with a viable candidate.  In all of my adult voting life it has been the lesser of the two evils and I hope for the day when I vote for someone based on their actual merit without consideration to the ills of the opposing candidate.

Quote from: griff61 on 04-12-2009 -- 14:31:59
Unless you actually respond with a plan that addresses what I have asked about, namely skyrocketing health care costs and universal coverage, feel free to debate yourself.

That is funny.  My plan to address the issues is the free market. I honestly don't know that any plan will reduce health care costs.  In Canada's system the government is engaging in a form of price fixing.  One could successfully argue that we have not seen a free market in a very long time.  In today's world, we point to the existing market and claim "this is the scourge that free markets bring us" yet we are absolutely not in the presence of a free market.  Government intervention does work in certain scenarios, but not all.  I am certain that we shall soon learn under no false pertenses what 'too much government intervention' is going to cause.  Abuses in the medicare system couldn't exist without government intervention.  Under an actual free market, the consumer is the powerful party.  Such is the nature of the free market...  if provider "A" charges too much, the consumers in the free market are free to seek services from the other providers. 

I am bored with this thread. So I will not post on the topic. I will agree to disagree with all. :-D

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-13-2009 -- 19:07:25
I am bored with this thread.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

It is time for a medical joke

A nice, calm and respectable lady went into the pharmacy, walked up to the pharmacist, looked straight into his eyes, and said

"I would like to buy some cyanide! "

The pharmacist asked "Why in the world do you need cyanide?"

The lady replied, "I need it to poison my husband. "

The pharmacist's eyes got big and he exclaimed, "Lord have mercy! I can't give you cyanide to kill your husband.  That's against the law! I'll lose my license! They'll throw both of us in jail! All kinds of bad things will happen.  Absolutely not! You CANNOT have any cyanide!

The lady reached into her purse and pulled out a picture of her husband in bed with the pharmacist's wife.

The pharmacist looked at the picture and replied , "Well now, that's different. You didn't tell me you had a prescription."

Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-13-2009 -- 18:35:55
I honestly don't know that any plan will reduce health care costs. 

Fair enough.

Griff?.....Griff?

I can't hear you. Please remove your foot from your mouth.

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-13-2009 -- 19:07:25
I am bored with this thread. So I will not post on the topic. I will agree to disagree with all. :-D

Happy Birthday anyway :)

Quote from: griff61 on 04-14-2009 -- 16:50:27

Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-13-2009 -- 19:07:25
I am bored with this thread. So I will not post on the topic. I will agree to disagree with all. :-D

Happy Birthday anyway :)

Thanks. I needed that. It's been a tough day. :-)