A Glimpse Into Our Healthcare Future

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
A glimpse from Canadian doctors and health care experts

And all you have to do is sacrifice a little of your freedom. You do realize it is illegal to purchase health coverage in Canada?

There is a reason so many Canadians will come here and pay out of pocket for treatment.

Besides, the system is apparently imploding.

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

Not to mention satisfaction rates are as much about perception as absolute value and merit. Besides America has high satisfaction rates without making buying health insurance for your family a crime.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

And all you have to do is sacrifice a little of your freedom.
[/quote]

This is where it begins and ends for me.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
A glimpse from Canadian doctors and health care experts

And all you have to do is sacrifice a little of your freedom. You do realize it is illegal to purchase health coverage in Canada?

There is a reason so many Canadians will come here and pay out of pocket for treatment.

Besides, the system is apparently imploding.

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

Not to mention satisfaction rates are as much about perception as absolute value and merit. Besides America has high satisfaction rates without making buying health insurance for your family a crime.
[/quote]

No I do not realize that trying to purchase non-government health care in Canada is illegal. So it seems with that statement -if true- you are pointing out lack of freedom of choice with their system. But what about forcing me to pay for our current health care providers instead of letting me have a choice between state-run or for-profit?

If the system is imploding then why such a high satisfaction rate?

If for-profit health care is so much better why won’t Canadian politicians run on that issue?

From what I understand Obama’s plan gives you a choice between for-profit and government run health care. Although I remember reading lately that he is backing down a little.

I hear Americans complain all the time about the rising costs of health care that are spiraling out of control. They’ve been doing so for decades. The majority of Americans want significant health care reform. So your idea that most Americans have a high satisfaction rate is untrue. And what about the millions of uninsured?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
But what about forcing me to pay for our current health care providers instead of letting me have a choice between state-run or for-profit?
[/quote]

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. But, you’ve overlooked that a state-run plan takes away from others, without giving them choice of funding it in the first place.

If the government bowed out of the game completely, ( exempt healthcare from tax, repeal regulation on policies/portability, etc ) you would have so many insurance companies competing for your business that the entire healthcare discussion would be a moot point. The govt doesn’t give a fuck about you. It’s about control. I’ll never understand why half of you can’t grasp that.

Pure misdirection.

Whatever the issues with the NHS and the Canadian system (and there are issues) you are not going to end up with anything quite like either of them.

[quote]Iain wrote:
Pure misdirection.

Whatever the issues with the NHS and the Canadian system (and there are issues) you are not going to end up with anything quite like either of them.[/quote]

No we will end up with worse. Our government already pays more for health care then Canada does.

Now what happens if there is a “public” option? It will seem to work great for ~5 years. All the liberals who support such an option will jump on it, plus anyone who cannot afford it will be placed on it.

And, as Obama has specifically stated, the private plans will be taxed to help pay for the public one. This will cause more people to jump to the public plan. And with all these people moving to the public plan, insurance companies will start failing, and to survive, they will consolidate, meaning a lot fewer health insurance companies to chose from.

But the one thing you (and others) don’t seem to understand is that this is only a step toward universal health care. It is not just to give us an option, but to eventually take away all options, and have the government run it.

Now after 5 years the cracks will start to appear, especially when the government debt, due to massive increases in spending because of the public option, (and don’t tell me there is anything the government has done under budget,) and the rationing starts. Doctors are told they will not get paid for certain procedures, so the doctors no longer supply those procedures.

After 10 years, the thing is a massive boondoggle, but has become politically entrenched, and here to stay, and head toward failure, just like Social Security is headed.

You guys voted for this.

When you accepted as a given that government should do anything other than national defense, internal police and judiciary, you voted for this.

As long as you see a problem and vote for people who promise to ‘do something’, you vote for your own destruction.

Human societies cannot be planned except at a very micro level. Every attempt to plan on a national level is and always will be a disaster, except in the 3 things (above) that government SHOULD do. Public schools, welfare, Social Security, the Post Office, Amtrak,…every one a disaster.

You will never vote for someone who says: “Leave each other alone.” You will always want to use government as a great big club to hammer over the heads of those who disagree with you. You will always find some ‘worthy cause’ to expand government.

You are all now merrily on your way into hell. Enjoy the trip!

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Iain wrote:
Pure misdirection.

Whatever the issues with the NHS and the Canadian system (and there are issues) you are not going to end up with anything quite like either of them.

No we will end up with worse.

…[/quote]

And here is how it will come to pass:

As we should be aware, healthcare in Canada and the UK sucks ass.

And “obesity is a problem in the United States” because GOVERNMENT SCREWED UP. Food pyramids, HCFS etc. Won’t pretend to have a solution but should pierce the myth of government invincibility, government omnicompetence

Healthcare in the UK is great if you have a good job and health insurance. Same as it can be in the US. It is also nice to know that if you lose your job then you will not need to sell your house to fund healthcare should you get ill.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Healthcare in the UK is great if you have a good job and health insurance. Same as it can be in the US. It is also nice to know that if you lose your job then you will not need to sell your house to fund healthcare should you get ill.[/quote]

Is it nice to know if you get cancer in the UK you are significantly more likely do succumb to it?

[quote]Unaware wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Healthcare in the UK is great if you have a good job and health insurance. Same as it can be in the US. It is also nice to know that if you lose your job then you will not need to sell your house to fund healthcare should you get ill.

Is it nice to know if you get cancer in the UK you are significantly more likely do succumb to it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html[/quote]

Hey I am in Mexico, even with private healthcare I would probably be fucked.

Seems the supporters of socialized medicine have resorted to cannibalism to help convince those who oppose it.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-finger-bitten-rally,0,7135717.story

[quote]valiant knight wrote:
As we should be aware, healthcare in Canada and the UK sucks ass.
[/quote]

I don’t think it’s that bad, I’m not saying that it’s perfect by any means but I’m personally very grateful to the NHS.

I was born about three months premature and weighed 2 lbs, aside from the problems I had as at birth, like many premature babies I have had some medical issues since then and particularly as a child was in hospital fairly regularly. I have no idea how much money my parents would have paid for my healthcare without the NHS.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s common sense. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that everyone can be provided top notch medical care, using the best uncurbed medical advances, with timely access to a supply of doctors that aren’t falling even further behind the demand. And, and, make it cheaper. And, and, the government can keep up with the costs. There’s a reason it sounds like utopian fantasy.

I’d like to hear them tell us the trade-offs in their own words, honestly. You all aren’t Santa Claus, so shoot straight with us. What are the trade offs?

Fair argument.

Can I ask though; does everyone currently have access to top notch medical care with a timely access to an unlimited supply of doctors? No, of course not. There is already rationing of health care, already a limited supply of doctors, and it’s already more expensive than the care found in most other industrialized nations, yet without that seeming to have any affect on our general health or life expectancy.

Now, obviously there are other factors involved. Obesity is an epidemic in the sates, the “Baby boomers” are all approaching senior citizenship (the most expensive bracket of the population in terms of health care), etc…

But people act like what we’ve got now is so wonderful, when it’s not. Change needs to occur, and while personally I like the idea of a public option (or maybe even simpler, just the option to buy into Medicare for all citizens), I’m open to hearing other legitimate suggestions. So far I haven’t heard any from the public option opposers (the political ones, not the ones on this site), only fear mongering, misinformation, and downright lies.

When controlled for accidents and cultural issues such as violence, don’t we have the best life expectancy?[/quote]

no that we spend huge amounts of money per person more than other nations, particularly Canada and Europe and for the most part outside of high tech procedures (where we are very good) we don’t have any better health outcomes than they do.

were spending more and more and not getting any better returns. we give people a bunch of scans for head aches and broken toes because docs are afraid they’ll get sued and it shuts patients up and people think “well i might as well since insurance will cover it!”

we may have decent health care here, but were incredibly inefficient.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
A glimpse from Canadian doctors and health care experts

And all you have to do is sacrifice a little of your freedom. You do realize it is illegal to purchase health coverage in Canada?

There is a reason so many Canadians will come here and pay out of pocket for treatment.

Besides, the system is apparently imploding.

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

Not to mention satisfaction rates are as much about perception as absolute value and merit. Besides America has high satisfaction rates without making buying health insurance for your family a crime.
[/quote]

Chaoulli v. Quebec

It is, public money already pays for 51% of all money spent on health care. We already have the worlds most inefficient government health care.

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s common sense. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that everyone can be provided top notch medical care, using the best uncurbed medical advances, with timely access to a supply of doctors that aren’t falling even further behind the demand. And, and, make it cheaper. And, and, the government can keep up with the costs. There’s a reason it sounds like utopian fantasy.

I’d like to hear them tell us the trade-offs in their own words, honestly. You all aren’t Santa Claus, so shoot straight with us. What are the trade offs?

Fair argument.

Can I ask though; does everyone currently have access to top notch medical care with a timely access to an unlimited supply of doctors? No, of course not. There is already rationing of health care, already a limited supply of doctors, and it’s already more expensive than the care found in most other industrialized nations, yet without that seeming to have any affect on our general health or life expectancy.

Now, obviously there are other factors involved. Obesity is an epidemic in the sates, the “Baby boomers” are all approaching senior citizenship (the most expensive bracket of the population in terms of health care), etc…

But people act like what we’ve got now is so wonderful, when it’s not. Change needs to occur, and while personally I like the idea of a public option (or maybe even simpler, just the option to buy into Medicare for all citizens), I’m open to hearing other legitimate suggestions. So far I haven’t heard any from the public option opposers (the political ones, not the ones on this site), only fear mongering, misinformation, and downright lies.

When controlled for accidents and cultural issues such as violence, don’t we have the best life expectancy?

no that we spend huge amounts of money per person more than other nations, particularly Canada and Europe and for the most part outside of high tech procedures (where we are very good) we don’t have any better health outcomes than they do.

were spending more and more and not getting any better returns. we give people a bunch of scans for head aches and broken toes because docs are afraid they’ll get sued and it shuts patients up and people think “well i might as well since insurance will cover it!”

we may have decent health care here, but were incredibly inefficient.[/quote]

Now you are just making stuff up.

"(Cancer)Survival in the USA is high on a global scale "

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
A glimpse from Canadian doctors and health care experts

And all you have to do is sacrifice a little of your freedom. You do realize it is illegal to purchase health coverage in Canada?

There is a reason so many Canadians will come here and pay out of pocket for treatment.

Besides, the system is apparently imploding.

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

Not to mention satisfaction rates are as much about perception as absolute value and merit. Besides America has high satisfaction rates without making buying health insurance for your family a crime.

Chaoulli v. Quebec

It is, public money already pays for 51% of all money spent on health care. We already have the worlds most inefficient government health care.[/quote]

So we’ve established that our government is really inefficient at providing healthcare, and you want to double down?

[quote]Unaware wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s common sense. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that everyone can be provided top notch medical care, using the best uncurbed medical advances, with timely access to a supply of doctors that aren’t falling even further behind the demand. And, and, make it cheaper. And, and, the government can keep up with the costs. There’s a reason it sounds like utopian fantasy.

I’d like to hear them tell us the trade-offs in their own words, honestly. You all aren’t Santa Claus, so shoot straight with us. What are the trade offs?

Fair argument.

Can I ask though; does everyone currently have access to top notch medical care with a timely access to an unlimited supply of doctors? No, of course not. There is already rationing of health care, already a limited supply of doctors, and it’s already more expensive than the care found in most other industrialized nations, yet without that seeming to have any affect on our general health or life expectancy.

Now, obviously there are other factors involved. Obesity is an epidemic in the sates, the “Baby boomers” are all approaching senior citizenship (the most expensive bracket of the population in terms of health care), etc…

But people act like what we’ve got now is so wonderful, when it’s not. Change needs to occur, and while personally I like the idea of a public option (or maybe even simpler, just the option to buy into Medicare for all citizens), I’m open to hearing other legitimate suggestions. So far I haven’t heard any from the public option opposers (the political ones, not the ones on this site), only fear mongering, misinformation, and downright lies.

When controlled for accidents and cultural issues such as violence, don’t we have the best life expectancy?

no that we spend huge amounts of money per person more than other nations, particularly Canada and Europe and for the most part outside of high tech procedures (where we are very good) we don’t have any better health outcomes than they do.

were spending more and more and not getting any better returns. we give people a bunch of scans for head aches and broken toes because docs are afraid they’ll get sued and it shuts patients up and people think “well i might as well since insurance will cover it!”

we may have decent health care here, but were incredibly inefficient.

Now you are just making stuff up.

"(Cancer)Survival in the USA is high on a global scale "

[/quote]

The thing with cancer is detecting it ASAP. If you catch it early, your chances of beating it are much better, but if you wait until it’s terminal stage 4, you’re fucked. So if you have to wait in line to be seen, like my grandfather, by the time you are seen it’s too late.