LOL. And you may try looking in a mirror.
Rationing and long lines
- Thread starter TuTu Monroe
- Start date
Except, again, I am not. So far I have presented an idea of my own, you have presented nothing at all, except an anecdote and support for a single-payer system. Instead of thinking and coming up with any idea, you regurgitate well-worn propaganda supporting the status quo of places that have been shown to have problems, that apparently you'd rather live with than attempt to foresee and avoid. Ignoring problems will never net a solution.
As I said, because of sad complacency and a party devoid of any new ideas in charge (doesn't even matter which party), we'll get a recycled system with foreseeable problems that will be "tweaked" or "saved" every few years by more cash infusion and will never be more than barely adequate. We have the possibility of creating something superb, instead we'll get more of what has already passed while we ignore the easily foreseen issues.
Disingenuous is what you have shown yourself to be.
Ideas? You are bankrupt.
Propaganda, you are wealthy....
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
She would; but before the change they would just crack and then since the change, she no longer casts a reflection.
I hope Obama is open to more than one idea. We have an opportunity to create something that will be the envy of the world.
And our system will be no duplicate of the Canadian system. I do not foresee the government takeover of all medical facilities, nor a law making private practice illegal.
According to the Canadian Doctor in this article, deaths happen because of people who wait. Some necessary surgeries are called "elective"... There are myriad problems. Illegal clinics appear to be popping up everywhere...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/socialized_medicine_is_broken.html
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
The ultra conservative think tank Manhattan Institute has been sponsoring a lot of folk like Gratzer (a senior fellow) and McCaughey. Here's one of the reasons why I take what Gratzer says with more than a grain of salt:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/02/giuliani-commonwealth/
uscitizen
Villified User
Because of lobbyists and such running our govt we will get sdomething that benefits business far more than the citizens. And it will be at the taxpayers expense.
Pill Bill phase II
Wipe your chin, you're talking dribble.You have offered absolutely nothing but platitudes to disguise vapid thought. What the hell does "direct action" mean? It is the only thing you've offered beside empty words and short-tempered obfuscation. You think you are all-knowing even with the fact that the only experience you claim as evidence is somebody else's. Then you have the nerve to denigrate my personal experience, I daresay somewhat more extensive than yours yet not the reason for my preferences. You can't(won't?) even identify a problem in the system(you say) you want to change.
I'll re-iterate, despite all your noise, I'm convinced you side with your GOP buddies in Congress and pray that the failed US medical system remains unchanged. The market place is waiting for yet more of your beloved avarice.
I hope your ranting continues because YOU have convinced me more than ever that a single-pay public system is the correct and prudent way to go. Your alternative is the status-quo.
Your empty-headed party bozos re-iterate daily the absolute need for choice and I agree. My choice is the Congressional healthcare system for all, based both on mine and others experience in the system as it is.
Your choice is? No platitudes please.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And yours was what.....??
Here, I'll translate it for you.
Blah blah blah re-iterate blah blah blah blah re-iterate blah blah blah blah blah blah.
End of translation
Whomever
uscitizen alternate login
Still with the Rush quotes huh?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You really need to get over your obsessiong with President Bush.
Don't you have enough good things to say about President Obama??
And there is a reason why I take thinkprogress articles with a grain of salt.
But it doesn't change the very real experience of the Canadian doctor in his article, or any of the facts. There are real problems with that system, they are foreseeable, and we can avoid them. If such a system is what Obama comes up with he'll likely fail at passing his health care system.
Yeah, you are "convinced" that I have an opinion different than what I say, because you desperately want it that way.
It is the very definition of disingenuous. You are sad.
I "denigrate" nothing. I point out that anecdotes are not evidence, especially on teh interwebs.
try looking at the danish health care system
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
apple0154
MEOW
All this talk about the negative aspects of universal medical conveniently misses the point of what happens to people who can't pay under a "Pay or Suffer" system?
Of course there will be people who have to wait and, in some cases, probably die just as there are people who can't afford medical care and will die. The difference is the people on a waiting list have a better chance of receiving treatment.
The article you reference refers to waiting for a scan. What happens if someone can't afford a scan under a "Pay or Suffer" system? Is it better to deny a person a scan because they can't afford it or have a system where everybody can get a needed scan but there is a wait time?
There are private clinics in Canada and if someone wants to pay for the service, great. However, the person without money should not be denied medical care nor if they have money be required to deplete their life savings before welfare or some other assistance program steps in.
Many countries have a two-tier system. Not everyone demands to be hospitalized in an ultra-modern facility with pools and landscaped grounds like the way many pay facilities are designed.
I don't know what all the discussions are about. When the baby boomers started school new schools were built. People didn't sit around complaining about the cost. Now we need hospitals for the older folks.
Maybe start a program where a person's medical education is paid by the government but they have to devote a certain amount of hours to the government medical system after graduation or re-reimburse the government?
Lastly, the lack of money for universal medical is a bogus argument. There is money. If there's money for highways and parks and all the other things the government is involved in there is money for medical care.
Some countries have long care institutions where a person is charged a portion of their income. Or similar to government housing where an individual's rent is tied to their income. If things get to that point a person could be charged a fee for a medical service in relation to their income.
For example, say, the removal of the gall bladder (cholecystectomy), due to stones, at roughly $3500.00. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1358595) A low wage earner or a single mom may find the cost prohibitive and live with the pain. The associated stomach upset may interfere with and jeopardize their job. The hospital could cross reference her last income tax filing and set the cost within her capability to pay.
People will never agree on how universal medical should work, how the costs should be structured, etc. To wait until all that has been debated and agreed upon is unrealistic.
If a plan is implemented the government/law makers will be obliged to come up with some way to pay and as I said before the money is there. It's all a matter of allocating it.
apple0154
MEOW
Also, the problem with medical statistics is they don't show how many people survived who couldn't afford any medical care.
In a country with universal medical a person who has lived a deprived life, one with inadequate food/nourishment, a person who is generally in poor health, is able to get treatment. Naturally, a successful outcome in those cases are poor.
We can reasonably conclude patients who can afford medical care are in better general health than those who can not. A 50 year old man who sat in an air-conditioned office, went to the gym regularly and ate well is going to have a much better chance of beating cancer than a 50 year old man whose body is worn out after 30 years of manual labor, eating hot dogs for dinner and spending every Friday night getting pissed with the boys. The fella in the latter case will probably succumb to the chemo treatments or be unable to accept them so statistics can be misleading.
The fatality rates for certain illnesses are higher in countries that have universal medical because treatment is available to people who would not normally be able to afford treatment or seek it due to their income/lifestyle. One example is the boozer who chows down on spicy food neglecting signs of blood in their stool until colorectal cancer has metastasized.
It's a case of lies, damn lies and statistics.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
But, that's Blabba's MO, don'tcha know?
She cut-n-pastes some conservative "opinion", then dispppears except for her BS cheerleading "rah rah" posts to her friends.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Last edited:
Good Luck
New member
Anyone know how long it take to get a new pharmaceutical on the market in the U.S.? How about the associated costs involved in the innumerable hoops the government makes the drug companies jump through? Ditto new medical procedures, new medical equipment, etc. etc. etc. Ever wonder why a new drug, piece of equipment, or medical procedure invented in America more often than not hits the market in other countries first?
Anyone know how much the average doctor pays for malpractice insurance? How about a major hospital? A medical office? How about the drug companies, medical equipment companies, even medical equipment SALES PEOPLE carry liability insurance. Ever consider the fact that a person getting a simple apendectomy has a minimum of 12 different malpractice insurance policies covering the people giving them the operation?
If we want to TRULY examine the idea of health care REFORM, we need to look at the factors that have driven costs through the roof. (Which, BTW, affect medical costs world wide, just as ME oil prices affect world wide gas prices whether dependent on ME oil or not.) The fact is government has put more and more regulation on the medical industry over the years, prices have skyrocketed, and now the only "solution" people can come up with is to have the government (ie: our taxes; ie: We the People) start paying to cover the costs caused by this self-same government!
Yes, REASONABLE regulations are needed when talking about putting new pharmaceuticals on the market. But are the current regulations, red tape, and circus hoops "reasonable"? If so, why is it a new medication is so often available much sooner elsewhere? If so, why is it DESPITE the regulations in place, the incidence of medications released with unacceptable side effects actually occurs MORE often with the laws in place than before? Could it be that the regulations currently in place have more to do with crossing government T's and dotting government I's than they have to do with actually practicing good research techniques? Could it, in fact, be that some of the regulations and red tape result in DECREASED research efficiency?
In short, yes, health care reform is needed. But the idea that REFORM means the government (ie: our taxes) simply going to pay for government induced problems is a damned poor definition of "reform".
Anyone know how much the average doctor pays for malpractice insurance? How about a major hospital? A medical office? How about the drug companies, medical equipment companies, even medical equipment SALES PEOPLE carry liability insurance. Ever consider the fact that a person getting a simple apendectomy has a minimum of 12 different malpractice insurance policies covering the people giving them the operation?
If we want to TRULY examine the idea of health care REFORM, we need to look at the factors that have driven costs through the roof. (Which, BTW, affect medical costs world wide, just as ME oil prices affect world wide gas prices whether dependent on ME oil or not.) The fact is government has put more and more regulation on the medical industry over the years, prices have skyrocketed, and now the only "solution" people can come up with is to have the government (ie: our taxes; ie: We the People) start paying to cover the costs caused by this self-same government!
Yes, REASONABLE regulations are needed when talking about putting new pharmaceuticals on the market. But are the current regulations, red tape, and circus hoops "reasonable"? If so, why is it a new medication is so often available much sooner elsewhere? If so, why is it DESPITE the regulations in place, the incidence of medications released with unacceptable side effects actually occurs MORE often with the laws in place than before? Could it be that the regulations currently in place have more to do with crossing government T's and dotting government I's than they have to do with actually practicing good research techniques? Could it, in fact, be that some of the regulations and red tape result in DECREASED research efficiency?
In short, yes, health care reform is needed. But the idea that REFORM means the government (ie: our taxes) simply going to pay for government induced problems is a damned poor definition of "reform".