Universal health care would be a good thing

[jenni_boo22]

sure iguess so... to be honest, i dont know much about him or even politics... but i want healthcare for my daughter thats all!!

 

[Reverend Rick]

sure iguess so... to be honest, i dont know much about him or even politics... but i want healthcare for my daughter thats all!!

Thank you for an honest answer. Have some frubals my dear.

 

[jenni_boo22]

haha! im always honest... but what are frubals? is that good or bad!?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Reading is fundamental. The Canadian I am talking about is an orthopedic surgeon.

Apparently, obfuscation is fundamental as well.

I won't bother to dig it up, but you made the claim (repeatedly) that you have seen Canadians coming to the US for health care.

Now, personally, I don't know of any Canadians that are coming to Louisville for their health care (although it is quite possible that they do), but I haven't seen any influx of Canadian money into the area.

Louisville has three VERY large hospitals, that specialize in spine, heart, and maternal issues. Knowing what I know about Berea, I would be surprised to find that they are flocking into your area.

 

[Reverend Rick]

haha! im always honest... but what are frubals? is that good or bad!?

Frubals are good. You can see them at the top right where you post and you can read remarks in your user control panel which is user CP top left.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

haha! im always honest... but what are frubals? is that good or bad!?

Frubals are the method by which other members let you know that they appreciate your post. They may like your wit, the point you made, your honesty (as Rick just did), or something else about it.

Rick has just paid you a compliment, and he wants you to be recognized for the part that he agrees with.

 

[jenni_boo22]

Oh thanks! thats a cute word!

back on topic...

i think that there is a lot of medical tourism happening in many different countries. India gets its share of american visitors just because the cost of flying over there is still cheaper than getting a surgery done in the states.
it used to be that america had the better health care system (doctors and technology and such) but now other countries with free healthcare have developed their hospitals into great places. so dont you think its time that america caught up to their system of payment? ...none!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Apparently, obfuscation is fundamental as well.

I won't bother to dig it up, but you made the claim (repeatedly) that you have seen Canadians coming to the US for health care.

Now, personally, I don't know of any Canadians that are coming to Louisville for their health care (although it is quite possible that they do), but I haven't seen any influx of Canadian money into the area.

Louisville has three VERY large hospitals, that specialize in spine, heart, and maternal issues. Knowing what I know about Berea, I would be surprised to find that they are flocking into your area.

I'm going to have to put you to task. Quote me! I never said Canadians where coming to Kentucky for health care.

I said a doctor came to Kentucky from Quebec because he was not being paid what he was worth. He is an excellent orthopedic surgeon who has a practice in London Kentucky. London is becoming a medical mecca. Normally you would be care flighted to UK in Lexington or to Knoxville where London is half way. We are building a new hospital and many doctors are coming here from all over the world.

You are right, Berea has a very limited medical facility. One small hospital and a few clinics.

 

[Troublemane]

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic or what you're saying at all. Why does it matter that U.S. care is private vs. public? Does that make the dollars smaller? Why are you dividing the GDP by the population? What does GDP have to do with it? How is the U.S. private system better than the UK public?

In the US we have employers/employees paying their own insurance premiums, with negotiated group rates (which keep going up), which cover themselves and their families; but also pay tax revenues, from which Medicare/Medicaid are funded (the US version of socialized medicine), which serve as a sort-of "safety net" for those who cant afford their own health care. (admittedly needs an overhaul)

But, the point i am trying to make is that taxpayers in the USA pay for their own insurance AND pay for Medicare, etc. --so the total amount we pay looks as if we are paying more for the same coverage. The total amount spent on healthcare includes the amount spent by both public and private sectors, which is why the numbers for the US seem so high per person.

Whereas in the UK the numbers given (the percentage of GDP) is for ONLY the amount spent by the public sector. This is why it appears they are spending less for better coverage, but I think they are actually spending the same amount (dollar for dollar) but less people are getting what may be termed excellent coverage.

For example, in the UK if you have the money, you can expect to get better than average medical treatment, but you pay for that out of pocket (which will not be typical, and will probably be done off the radar of any study tracking this--especially ones done by NPR...); though if you are a working schmoe, you will have to be satisfied with basic coverage, meaning if you need an operation it may take months before you can get one.

Oddly enough, the minimum wage in the UK is also higher than the US ($21,000 dollars annually, compared to the US min. $12,000 dollars annually)....
List of minimum wages by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...However, the median incom for the USA is slightly higher ($48,000 in the US, compared to $39,000 in the UK)...
Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anyhoo, my argument sums to this: there are more people in the US paying more money both toward insurance and toward gov't socialized medicine, and this adds to a total spent per person per year that is higher then what is spent in the UK. Whereas the UK system spends less for less services, unless you pay additional amounts out of pocket. I just dont see how the UK system is more efficient, since they are providing essentially the same healthcare for everyone, while the US employee is providing healthcare for himself, and everyone on Medicare...plus paying for the war in Iraq :angel2:

...Now maybe if we stopped spending so much on the military, LoL...but thats another thread

 

[Alceste]

I can certainly agree that insurance companies are a serious problem when it comes to health care costs. I also never said capitalism was the best system, i just said it was the best for innovation. I advocate a system that provides health coverage for everyone but without raising taxes on the already embattled middle class. That will mean laws will have to be passed that control insurance companies' practices better, with greater oversight, but i dont advocate making the govt the sole means of paying for all health care.

"Capitalism is the best for innovation"? Can you give me some data to back that statement up? I can think of many things that are good for innovation - necessity, ingenuity, creativity, imagination, but I can't for the life of me make any connection between how greed and a lust for self-advancement alone could contribute to useful innovation.

Of course, because everyone there gets the same basic coverage for everything. But if you need an operation it may take months or years to get in. Money talks, so if you can pay for the service you get the treatment, otherwise you take what is there.

No, it does not take "months or years" to get in. Even the pro-free-market Canadian propagandists I quoted only claim there are wait times of 18 weeks for medically non-essential surgery or therapeutic treatment. For life-saving surgery you need there is no wait time, unless you need somebody's organs or something.

Basically its a gamble you wont need something. Insurance just helps offset that, but there really is no system of medical coverage that is "free"--someone has to pay for it somewhere.

Nobody is saying it's "free". (Nice straw man). We all pay - less than half of what you all pay. Less even than you all pay in taxes for your limited care that lets people die for lack of insurance. We all pay, and it is free at the point of use because the bill goes to the government - not to us.

What people with additional private health care get for their money is not a completely different standard of care or shorter wait times, but nice little perks like free ambulance rides (you might get dinged a couple hundred bucks otherwise), private hospital rooms (you can pay for these as well) and coverage for prescription drugs, which most Canadians have to pay for.

 

[Willamena]

I said a doctor came to Kentucky from Quebec because he was not being paid what he was worth.

He is not getting paid what he thinks he deserves, but his peers might be satisfied with their plight.

One of the reasons we have waiting lines is that doctors move to the U.S. where they can get paid like hockey players for doing honest work.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... where they can get paid like hockey players for doing honest work.

... and they get to keep their teeth!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Alceste -

I just wanted to tell you that I think you are doing an excellent job of rebutting the myths that are being put forth in this thread.

Outstanding.

 

[Troublemane]

"Capitalism is the best for innovation"? Can you give me some data to back that statement up? I can think of many things that are good for innovation - necessity, ingenuity, creativity, imagination, but I can't for the life of me make any connection between how greed and a lust for self-advancement alone could contribute to useful innovation.

Heres an example. A scientist in France (true story) invents a device which assists amputees drive a car. She spends 10 years waiting for the French govt to approve her designs, even though she has already done extensive testing, they want to be sure there is no problem with it. After a lengthy meeting with the french govt, there is still no decision. So, she goes to the US, shows her invention, after 6 months of testing, a prototype is made and a full, operating device is ready for production in less than a year. Meanwhile the French govt can only vote to name a street after her.

The reason capitalism is better for innovation is there is profit motive. You may call it greed, but without profit motive there simply is no movtive to create anything new. Socialist/communistic systems (i.e. anti-capitalist systems) tend to be less innovative, due to endless governmental regulation, where review after review after review, nobody can decide whether the invention will actually help anyone--when capitalism has a direct means to decide whether a new invention will be useful--its called "The Free Market". If nobody buys it, nobody wants it.

Course that doesnt mean its not useful, it just means the mass market may not find it desireable. But we are getting good at narrowly targeting markets, thus increasing the efficiency of delivering a product to a small percentage of the populace, while still making money off it. You just cant do that with anything but a free market.

No, it does not take "months or years" to get in. Even the pro-free-market Canadian propagandists I quoted only claim there are wait times of 18 weeks for medically non-essential surgery or therapeutic treatment. For life-saving surgery you need there is no wait time, unless you need somebody's organs or something.

LoL whats 18 weeks? sounds like months to me!

Nobody is saying it's "free". (Nice straw man). We all pay - less than half of what you all pay. Less even than you all pay in taxes for your limited care that lets people die for lack of insurance. We all pay, and it is free at the point of use because the bill goes to the government - not to us.

..no thats a fallacy, nobody dies for lack of coverage. dont be silly.

What people with additional private health care get for their money is not a completely different standard of care or shorter wait times, but nice little perks like free ambulance rides (you might get dinged a couple hundred bucks otherwise), private hospital rooms (you can pay for these as well) and coverage for prescription drugs, which most Canadians have to pay for.

I will admit the US has to overhaul its Medicare, and VFW, and other aspects of its socialized care. We have the money to do so.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Heres an example. A scientist in France (true story) invents a device which assists amputees drive a car. She spends 10 years waiting for the French govt to approve her designs, even though she has already done extensive testing, they want to be sure there is no problem with it. After a lengthy meeting with the french govt, there is still no decision. So, she goes to the US, shows her invention, after 6 months of testing, a prototype is made and a full, operating device is ready for production in less than a year. Meanwhile the French govt can only vote to name a street after her.

But this is anecdotal evidence at best and at worst it might simply be a lie since I only have your word to go on that its true. I couldn't find anything in Google to back up the story. Perhaps you could do better?

The reason capitalism is better for innovation is there is profit motive. You may call it greed, but without profit motive there simply is no movtive to create anything new.

Lolz! Reducing the driving force of human innovation down to a simple desire for montary profit is ridiculous.

Socialist/communistic systems (i.e. anti-capitalist systems) tend to be less innovative, due to endless governmental regulation, where review after review after review, nobody can decide whether the invention will actually help anyone--when capitalism has a direct means to decide whether a new invention will be useful--its called "The Free Market". If nobody buys it, nobody wants it.

This is empty political rhetoric. If it were true Cuba's healthcare would not develop solutions for the nation's health problems. It does. Its brilliant. Incidentally the U.S. had to break its embargo on Cuba in order to adopt the meningitis B vacine Cuban medical scientists had developed in the 1980s. It took the U.S. almost two decades for them to overcome their own governmental regulation in order to do so.

..no thats a fallacy, nobody dies for lack of coverage. dont be silly.

Lolz. No, you don't be silly.

18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance
Lack Of Health Insurance Costs North Carolina 3 Deaths A Day
Dying Too Young for Lack of Coverage

I will admit the US has to overhaul its Medicare, and VFW, and other aspects of its socialized care. We have the money to do so.

I hope so. The U.S. economy is worrying me of late.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...I will admit the US has to overhaul its Medicare, and VFW, and other aspects of its socialized care. We have the money to do so.

I'm not sure where you live, Troublemane, but here in the US, we are carrying a national debt of $9.5 TRILLION dollars.

The problem is that we DON'T have the money, but we continue to spend as if we did.

 

[Alceste]

Alceste -

I just wanted to tell you that I think you are doing an excellent job of rebutting the myths that are being put forth in this thread.

Outstanding.

Well, thanks. I don't think I can do much more though. It's impossible to debate against vague generalizations, one-off anecdotes, editorials from free market propagandists and anti-socialist paranoia, which is all I am seeing by way of conflicting opinions. Apart from Rick, who is apparently a millionaire and receives the privileged care that entails (is it as good as the care lazy snowboarders in Canada get for nothing? Who knows!!) I haven't seen anyone here with a proper, fact-based argument against universal health coverage. (And Rick's fact based argument is only that he likes to think he is receiving superior health care because he is wealthy.)

So I think I have done all I can here! I don't know why I should be more concerned with the atrocities of American health care than Americans are. I can only say, for those of you who can't get coverage for your kids, it's not that hard to move to Canada - where they will be covered from day 1. Now is a good time. Your country is bankrupt and there is a major skills shortage in Canada due to our economic growth, especially in Alberta.

The only downside is that to immigrate to Canada I believe you need a medical check!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well, thanks. I don't think I can do much more though. It's impossible to debate against vague generalizations, one-off anecdotes, editorials from free market propagandists and anti-socialist paranoia, which is all I am seeing by way of conflicting opinions. Apart from Rick, who is apparently a millionaire and receives the privileged care that entails (is it as good as the care lazy snowboarders in Canada get for nothing? Who knows!!) I haven't seen anyone here with a proper, fact-based argument against universal health coverage. (And Rick's fact based argument is only that he likes to think he is receiving superior health care because he is wealthy.)

So I think I have done all I can here! I don't know why I should be more concerned with the atrocities of American health care than Americans are. I can only say, for those of you who can't get coverage for your kids, it's not that hard to move to Canada - where they will be covered from day 1. Now is a good time. Your country is bankrupt and there is a major skills shortage in Canada due to our economic growth, especially in Alberta.

The only downside is that to immigrate to Canada I believe you need a medical check!

I don't expect you to do more. If someone wishes to simply repeat their arguments after they have been rebutted, that is up to them.

In my opinion, you have nailed this one down.

For what it's worth, I think that within another three or four years, we will have universal healthcare here, as well.

Let's just pray that God will still bless America, in spite of our wicked pursuit of that heathenistic communism.

 

[Alceste]

Just a closing anecdote - I went out for a drink last night with Wampus' brother, but on the way he gouged open his foot on an escalator. We got some bandaids and antiseptic and cleaned it up the best we could, but it was a really deep cut which neither of us could open up and disinfect without fainting, and it's always dodgy to rip open your foot on a filthy hunk of metal, and we didn't know if it might need stitches, so instead of going to the pub we hobbled up to the hospital. The receptionist asked for his name and birth date, confirmed his address, and told us to have a seat in the waiting room. Two minutes later, a doctor came and got us, had a look at the wound, cleaned it, dressed it, advised him on how to avoid infection, and sent us on our merry way. The whole adventure took about 10 minutes, gave Wampus' brother comfort, reduced risk of infection, and peace of mind, and there was not - and never will be - a bill. That's the reality of universal health care as I have experienced it my whole life. Simple, straightforward, efficient, effective and hassle-free at the point of use.

 

[Troublemane]

But this is anecdotal evidence at best and at worst it might simply be a lie since I only have your word to go on that its true. I couldn't find anything in Google to back up the story. Perhaps you could do better?

You know, I at least can respect a differing opinion without calling you a liar. I find it amusing that those with the socialist view seem to have such a superior attitude. If you can't win an argument, or convince someone your idea is the best, the other side must be simply a bunch of idiots, or they are simply evil. Why is that?

Lolz! Reducing the driving force of human innovation down to a simple desire for montary profit is ridiculous.

Again, you lack a valid argument so attack, attack, attack. I think I have attempted to be open minded and play devils advocate enough, here. Obviously you can't respond with anything civil unless I pretend to agree with you.

This is empty political rhetoric. If it were true Cuba's healthcare would not develop solutions for the nation's health problems. It does. Its brilliant. Incidentally the U.S. had to break its embargo on Cuba in order to adopt the meningitis B vacine Cuban medical scientists had developed in the 1980s. It took the U.S. almost two decades for them to overcome their own governmental regulation in order to do so.

I personally know doctors from Cuba who escaped to the US. The cuban medical system is outrageously bad. I think its hilarious you would even bring up Cuba since it must be the case your only source of information is the trash promulgated by Michael Moore.

Lolz. No, you don't be silly.

18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance
Lack Of Health Insurance Costs North Carolina 3 Deaths A Day
Dying Too Young for Lack of Coverage

Nice. All lies. Lies on top of lies...heck you do it, why not me.

I hope so. The U.S. economy is worrying me of late.

Well stop worrying. We dont need you to worry about us, we can take care of ourselves, thank you very much.