vroom, I agree with almost everything you just said, except I think price caps are the devil.
I think much reform is needed. As stated the advertising of medicine is expensive and I believe it is harmful.
The fact that Viagra and other recreational drugs are covered by prescription plans is ludicrous.
I think the whole system of insurance and prescription plans is broke.
Some of it is due to crooked CEO’s of drug companies and insurance companies and some of it is due to government meddling.
The governments job should be limited to making it a level playing field for the consumer. They have not done this. They have done a horrible job. I do not trust them to take more control.
And not one comment on the recent supreme court of Canada Chialoubi (sic)ruling that public (Read: GOVERNMENT) healthcare’s extremely long waiting times violate Canadians’ constitutional right to efficient delivery of healthcare services.[/quote]
I have heard many horrible anecdotes about the wait times and the limited options in treatment in the Canadian and British system.
In this day and age when the news media goes tries to mislead us by sensationalizing the problems I don’t know what to believe.
I do know that health care is not the same as health insurance, but the talking heads on TV don’t seem to understand.
[quote]redswingline wrote:
Polls show most Canadians support increased funding for the Canadian military.
Funny how liberals never reference the billions the liberal government has pissed away on gun control and HRDC fiascos; which could have been better used by the military.
And not one comment on the recent supreme court of Canada Chialoubi (sic)ruling that public (Read: GOVERNMENT) healthcare’s extremely long waiting times violate Canadians’ constitutional right to efficient delivery of healthcare services.[/quote]
Great points, let’s not forget the billions spent so far on Kyoto (which far as I can tell has had zero effect other than some advertising of the “one ton challenge”).
Vroom: Even though we sit on pretty much opposite political spectrums, I liked your last post, specifically:
Idea being that the people aren’t powerless against drug companies…
I don’t like gov’t interference, they screw things up far more than get them right (IMO). On the issue of drugs in the states, I can’t help but to wonder if the market system needs a hand.
Zap you have made some intelligent remarks but I think you’re wrong on the subsidizing. You make it sound like if americans received fair prices for drugs the drug companies wouldn’t be able to afford research. Even with price controls in the US they would be able to fund research. The reason american companies make the new drugs is because america is the economic and scientific leader of the world. A lot of new technology comes from the US, but its not because you guys are charged more.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Zap you have made some intelligent remarks but I think you’re wrong on the subsidizing. You make it sound like if americans received fair prices for drugs the drug companies wouldn’t be able to afford research. Even with price controls in the US they would be able to fund research. The reason american companies make the new drugs is because america is the economic and scientific leader of the world. A lot of new technology comes from the US, but its not because you guys are charged more. [/quote]
What makes the price of everything in US high is the packages they give to corporate execs and CEOs . thats were the money is wasted,These big companies ,Hospitals etc. are overloaded with people that really arent needed drawing big salaries.It seems these execs get in a place and try to create? jobs for their buddies then when cutbacks happen or major fups there is someone beneath them to let go or blame for fups.Also these guys are always gone to a meeting ,you usually never see them after lunch.
Well, really, the money could have been better used anywhere…
I think the ruling is great. It may open the way up for some type of private pay services also. There is nothing wrong with rich people spending money to receive benefit, as long as they aren’t given priority just because they happen to have money.
The difference is subtle, but it is there. For example, they (the rich) can go to other countries for immediate treatments now anyway. Why make them leave the country to do that?
Some questions, that I don’t have answers to might include:
If we go to a tiered system, would the so called rich only have to pay the premium or difference in cost to get private medical care?
If we go to the tiered system, would there be anybody willing to work in the public system, such that the poor could continue to get universal coverage?
Is there a way to structure it so that the private system isn’t underused but that it takes enough load away from the public system that wait times decline?
Just off the cuff, perhaps doctors wishing to be licensed for private practice must also provide some percentage of public services or procedures… whereas now all of their time is within the public health care sector. This type of thing would let them scale their private costs to demand from people that don’t want to wait – and thereby removing them from the public waiting list altogether.
If the system is set up right, so that doctors can make “more money”, then we may find that we have less of them heading away to earn big bucks outside of our country and outside of our health care system.
Just some thoughts. It’s not about “left” vs “right” to me, it’s about finding a way to make sure health care isn’t a crap shoot for the general public while finding ways to remove some of the current problems.
Again, health care is an area that simply will be regulated by governments, no matter how much anyone feels that free markets should prevail.
I’m going to put a different spin on this topic. I think the real problem is that most nations don’t devote enough resources to prevent illness. When you look at operations management you quickly learn that the costs of prevention are generally far less than the cost of correction. Charles Poliquin briefly touched on this concept in regards to training. He believed that if the government would setup a decent phys ed program in high school they would save alot of money in conditioning their elite athletes.
Just to clarify, various provincial/federal governments agree to buy a certain number of a specific drug every year. This is why the cost is far less than in America. One idea to note is the cost of a drug that isn’t in high demand in Canada will be about the same price in the USA.
Lastly, I believe in a different type of tiering system for health care. I have seen many cases where people would immigrate into Canada and within 3 months secure a major operation.
I would like to see a system where the longer you have been contributing to the system the more benefits you would recieve. It’s only fair that a person who’s been working hard and contributing to the social system for 30 years would have preference over someone who literally just landed in Canada.
would you please leave canada. move down to the states so you are close to the american ass that you kiss. Britain is americas bitch. We smartly refused to go to iraq. Why aren’t i surprised ur from quebec.
how about you leave canadian because we want our country back, btw it’s tony blair whose america’s sweet heart not the public. although i believe war on terror is just, i also believe the terror war should be fought with terror not that i mean we should go and kill innocent people, (unlike terrorist who say there doing it in the name of there god, i doubt there god wants them to kill innocent people???) we should hit target given to us straight away, check intellegence then go and get the bastards!!! okay that probably wasn’t the most mature post, but if i was more awake it would be a lot more coherent!!!
Bunyan wields his arguments like a blunt piece of wood, not an axe. Bunyan, your arguments are childish and lack rationale. Can you inject something worthwhile into this thread without resorting to leftist rants? Your posts only miss the key leftist tripe phrases “hegemony” and the michael moore rants about “the corporations”.
[quote]redswingline wrote:
Bunyan wields his arguments like a blunt piece of wood, not an axe. Bunyan, your arguments are childish and lack rationale. Can you inject something worthwhile into this thread without resorting to leftist rants? Your posts only miss the key leftist tripe phrases “hegemony” and the michael moore rants about “the corporations”.[/quote]
At least I say something. All I’ve heard from you is bullshit about liberals. When will you guys get tired of bitching about gun control. And I believe I have ranted about corporations in this thread.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Off topic, what really annoys me about rich people is that they have billions of dollars just sitting there. They put it in banks and investment but its not actually being used. Why not make a law where there is like a 100 million doller max on personal wealth. The rest should go to research or charity. Obviously it will never happen but imagine the cash that could go towards noble causes. [/quote]
Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with someone that would actually write something as stupid as this?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Off topic, what really annoys me about rich people is that they have billions of dollars just sitting there. They put it in banks and investment but its not actually being used. Why not make a law where there is like a 100 million doller max on personal wealth. The rest should go to research or charity. Obviously it will never happen but imagine the cash that could go towards noble causes.
Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with someone that would actually write something as stupid as this?
What a fucking moron.
[/quote]
I agree Rainjack. This is among the top ten most retarded things I have ever heard.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
rainjack wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Off topic, what really annoys me about rich people is that they have billions of dollars just sitting there. They put it in banks and investment but its not actually being used. Why not make a law where there is like a 100 million doller max on personal wealth. The rest should go to research or charity. Obviously it will never happen but imagine the cash that could go towards noble causes.
Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with someone that would actually write something as stupid as this?
What a fucking moron.
I agree Rainjack. This is among the top ten most retarded things I have ever heard.[/quote]
I think the “we have programs for mentally ill people so that they don’t go on the streets and cause crime” is also pretty competitive for most retarded statement ever posted.
I wrote that after writing about how millions of africans are currently dieing of aids because they can’t afford drugs. I was just rambling. You are right though 100 million is such a small sum how would those rich people survive. Rainjack you are a sad and ignorant little man.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
JPBear wrote:
rainjack wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Off topic, what really annoys me about rich people is that they have billions of dollars just sitting there. They put it in banks and investment but its not actually being used. Why not make a law where there is like a 100 million doller max on personal wealth. The rest should go to research or charity. Obviously it will never happen but imagine the cash that could go towards noble causes.
Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with someone that would actually write something as stupid as this?
What a fucking moron.
I agree Rainjack. This is among the top ten most retarded things I have ever heard.
I think the “we have programs for mentally ill people so that they don’t go on the streets and cause crime” is also pretty competitive for most retarded statement ever posted.[/quote]
Mentally ill people who are too sick to get a job and can’t afford medication often wind up on the street. Once on the street many people resort to crime as a means to survive.
I think the “we have programs for mentally ill people so that they don’t go on the streets and cause crime” is also pretty competitive for most retarded statement ever posted.
Mentally ill people who are too sick to get a job and can’t afford medication often wind up on the street. Once on the street many people resort to crime as a means to survive.
[/quote]
Back in the 70’s during Carters adminsitration it was decided that the mentally ill could not be locked away against their will unless they are dangerous.
I am not sure if it was Carter or if it was a judicial decision.
Either way, the US does not have homeless for lack of funding and shelters. We have homeless because the mentally ill on the street refuse to institutionalize themselves.
Does Canada lock up its mentally ill that are not dangerous to society?