FuzzyBunny
Verified User
It requires reading, I covered all 5 points, just in case. But HOW it helps you, is entirely up to you.
ObamaCare repeal FAIL
- Thread starter Cancel9
- Start date
Bfgrn
New member
It is mostly bullshit. The NHS article is from 2007.
The Sweden article:
About 18% of overall health spending in the country comes from the private sector, according to the World Health Organization. But on top of that, private companies compete alongside public facilities for government funding and the right to provide health care to Swedish citizens.
The winning bid — whether public or private — receives government funding with the goal of leaving the end service (in other words, what the patient sees) unchanged, regardless of the service provider, while rewarding those who can provide the quickest and cheapest treatment.
The France article is mostly about pharma cuts and reflects the economic climate in all of Europe
The Japan article is throw in for weight...it is totally irrelevant
The Canadian article: Canada will allow some Canadians to go to US border cities for treatment. Detroit treated 300 Canadian patients in 2009.
It is a nice story about the two countries working togeter for the health and well being of human beings.
Excerpt:
Michael Vujovich, 61, of Windsor was taken to Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital for an angioplasty procedure after he went to a Windsor hospital in April. Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system, but shows how it works.
"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the Ontario health ministry.
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
Don't make fun of Canada they have the only sustainable socialized health care system in the world.
apple0154
MEOW
I'm saying the idea health care can not be supported is a lie. As for being against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness I'm not sure how ripping up perfectly good sidewalks or cleaning up public parks constitutes that while looking after ill citizens goes against the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Governments have been bitching about health care ever since it came into being even though it's been operating for 40 or 50 or more years in many countries. As for Canadians going to the US, sure, just as some wealthy folks prefer the Hilton to a local motel.
Health care is available in Canada, for everyone. Some just feel they're more important and want to be catered to. However, and this is the BIG however, life expectancy is slightly higher in Canada. Go figure.
So what you're saying is the US can not look after it's ill citizens. Even though it's the richest country in the world having the wealthiest people they just don't give a damn about the sick.
I don't believe that. The primary reason people are against government health care is due to the lies being told. Again, show one country where the citizens want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system. Show just one country.
Show one country where government health care has been dismantled. Surely after 40 or 50 years ONE country would have failed but the fact is none have. It’s natural adjustments have to be made just like adjustments on any other government program but that doesn’t change the fact everyone is entitled to health care and receives it and, most important, the citizens in those countries have as long or slightly longer life span than in the US.
As for the Mayo clinic losing money the important quote in the article was, “More family doctors are needed to help reduce medical costs by encouraging prevention and early treatment”, Obama said in a June 15 speech to the American Medical Association meeting in Chicago.
Early treatment. Compare the cost of one medication for hypertension, 25 cents a day, to the cost of looking after a person incapacitated by a stroke. Literally hundreds of people could receive free medication for what it costs to look after one person. That’s the type of thing government medical can address.
There is no logical argument against government medical. Lower cost and a longer life span. What else is there to consider?
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
You really do spend too much time tap dancing around a point then actually addressing it directly. Can you find the Article in the last couple years that says the NHS is doing swimmingly.. No you can't. There system is in Failure mode.
If you knew anything about the Swedish Model, It was entirely Gov Run up till the 90's when the System started going to shit and they found that Privatizing actually improved service at a lower cost.
Clearly I can draw on far more support for my position than you can for yours. If you want you nad I can Trade Links till the cows come home and in the End, everyone will see what I see.
Why don't you take a crack at the underlining question:
What happens to the people when Government ceases to be the Safety Net and Becomes the Adminstrator and the Adminstrator fails?
Bfgrn
New member
Answer this simple and direct question. Name one country that has ever run a successful market based health care system?
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
The United States.
apple0154
MEOW
I swear you could make a rose garden sound like an invasive weed patch.
Check out the Japanese robots with President Obama. http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/11/15/video-obama-meeting-japanese-robots/
Would you rather have an overworked, tired, cranky nursing assistant looking after you or this sweet thang?
http://www.physorg.com/news189528493.html
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
Just for the sake of my own sanity I will pretend you know the difference between state and Federal government. Being that you used 2 state government examples. I'll mentally change them to Federal Highway system and National Parks.
The difference being Anybody and everyone gets to use the Highway or National Park regardless of age, race, sex or any other demographic. "ill citizens" are few and specific. In order to care for the Few and Specific, the government must take from the rest.
There is slightly more difference in Healthcare between Canada and the US than Hilton to Local Motel.
As far as life expectancy..... Americans are NOT Canadians. We are slightly more violent and self destructive. Blame the Video games if you want.
Talk about missing that point by a Country Mile.
Point being.. Government SUCKS ASS and has all but created this shit storm we current enjoy and you what them running the system because of some childish idealistic notion that Government is Good and benevolent.
And to carry on with the theme. YOu missed the MOST important qoute. "Mayo says it lost $840 million last year treating Medicare patients"
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
I swear you could make a rose garden sound like an invasive weed patch.
I Suppose if I tried, But I actually like rose Gardens as opposed to Gov Care
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
Why not have both privet and gov care options for everyone.
apple0154
MEOW
There is no reason the government can not be the safety net. The bottom line is they either supply medical care for the citizens or say to hell with the ill. What is more important than the life of the citizens?
It's like saying suppose the government can not afford weapons to protect us. Would people just accept that or would they insist the government do whatever it has to do?
The problem is a classic "Overton Window" one. That's where ideas and concepts are discussed within a certain framework or window. Health care has been treated as just another option as one would discuss anything else the government can afford.
Would we ever consider a Mayor of a large city saying they decided to stop prosecuting murder because they couldn't afford a public prosecutor? Would renovation of City Hall or a new park take precedence?
Unless the people demand health care politicians are going to spend the money elsewhere. The solution is simple. Health care sits at the top of the list. If there's no money for health care there's no money for anything else.
Unless, of course, people feel looking after the ill is not worth it.
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
How about security, justice, liberty, property and democracy?
apple0154
MEOW
Thanks. It's a pleasure to debate someone who comprehends the meaning even though the terms differ.
Most people do pay for insurance and it's been shown worldwide the costs go down when everyone is paying the same insurer, the government.
There is the prevention factor that has to be taken into consideration. Surely the death toll would decrease if people had preventative medical care.
In any case it's not just Canada. Almost every Western European country, along with Australia, show a longer lifespan.
It's been shown the governments running health care are good and benevolent. Every country started out with a "pay or suffer" system. Surely one would have reverted if what you say is true. The citizens in every country, without exception, insist their governments maintain the plans. There's no evidence of any systematic abuse.
The question is what is their loss compared to. What the market will bear? If primary care physicians are in short supply the government can and should subsidize doctor training.
Again, I have to come back to the fact dozens of other countries dealt with similar problems before opting for government medical and many of those countries have been successfully operating for 40 or 50 years. Also, when it comes to cutting services it depends on what services. For example, in France, doctors make house calls.
In the end the free enterprise system has been tried throughout the world and people have ended up either being denied medical care because they couldn't pay or they faced bankruptcy. Politicians, the world over, have not found a solution other than government medical.
apple0154
MEOW
Some places have that, including Canada. One is able to buy supplemental insurance to include private rooms, lab tests, etc.
apple0154
MEOW
Not sure what your point is.
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
That is the governments primary job is to do those things all else is secondary.