Sicko/Foreign Healthcare

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So who’ll lead the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc., when whe go universal?

We need less government involvement, if you’re asking me.[/quote]

Why would insuring the uninsured and under-insured lead to an end to the us leading the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc?

The rich will still buy better insurance. Govt will still fund R&D. Private firms will still have an incentive to do research. You can still choose to have your own insurance if you’d like. As others on this thread have pointed out, no one is talking about eliminating the current insurance infrastructure.

42

So, we’re going to expand government even more, when it already can’t keep up with SS and medicare/medicaid? Fabulous idea!

43

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So who’ll lead the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc., when whe go universal?

We need less government involvement, if you’re asking me.

Why would insuring the uninsured and under-insured lead to an end to the us leading the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc?

The rich will still buy better insurance. Govt will still fund R&D. Private firms will still have an incentive to do research. You can still choose to have your own insurance if you’d like. As others on this thread have pointed out, no one is talking about eliminating the current insurance infrastructure.

[/quote]

A discussion about foreign healthcare doesn’t exclude universal healthcare.

44

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So who’ll lead the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc., when whe go universal?

We need less government involvement, if you’re asking me.

Why would insuring the uninsured and under-insured lead to an end to the us leading the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc?

The rich will still buy better insurance. Govt will still fund R&D. Private firms will still have an incentive to do research. You can still choose to have your own insurance if you’d like. As others on this thread have pointed out, no one is talking about eliminating the current insurance infrastructure.

A discussion about foreign healthcare doesn’t exclude universal healthcare.
[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand, could you elaborate? Do you agree that insuring the uninsured and under-insured would not lead to an end to medical know-how, technological advancement, etc?

I’m trying out a new diet and am feeling a bit drained, so excuse if I’m missing something.

45

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So who’ll lead the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc., when whe go universal?

We need less government involvement, if you’re asking me.

Why would insuring the uninsured and under-insured lead to an end to the us leading the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc?
The rich will still buy better insurance. Govt will still fund R&D. Private firms will still have an incentive to do research. You can still choose to have your own insurance if you’d like. As others on this thread have pointed out, no one is talking about eliminating the current insurance infrastructure.

A discussion about foreign healthcare doesn’t exclude universal healthcare.

I’m not sure I understand, could you elaborate? Do you agree that insuring the uninsured and under-insured would not lead to an end to medical know-how, technological advancement, etc?

I’m trying out a new diet and am feeling a bit drained, so excuse if I’m missing something. [/quote]

First, I don’t get the impression the topic of this thread was narrowly focused on insuring the uninsured only, but on foreign health-care in general.

As far as insuring the uninsured, I’d say it would ultimately result in worse healthcare, more government ownsership of our wages, more deficit spending, and baby steps to socialized medicine. The government doesn’t make enough of the health care purchases in this country, already? And isn’t it already running enough programs into the ground (which will saddle today’s children with huge burdens in their adulthood).

Leave it to charity.

46

Pictured as he waited to die: Father, 37, subjected to 6-hour delay in A&E - despite GP’s note that said he had to be seen immediately

A father-of-two died after a six-hour wait at A&E despite having a letter from his GP saying he must be treated immediately.

Stewart Fleming, 37, arrived at his local hospital with his wife Sarah clutching an urgent note from his doctor.

But instead of being sent to the head of the queue, Mr Fleming had to sit and wait in agony as a virus ravaged his body, causing his organs to fail.

47

I’ve had to go to the ER a few times for stitches, I’ve always had to wait more than an hour.

Last year me and my fiance made several trips to the ER and various doctors, as it took the moronic, incompetent, overpaid doctors MONTHS to discover and diagnose her adrenal gland tumor. A majority of the time in the ER we waited more than an hour to see a doctor.

48

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I have never waited more than an hour at an ER, nor have I had any trouble making appointments.[/quote]

Padded rooms have their advantages.

49

[quote]streamline wrote:
The simplist way to answer that question is with this statement. “Canada is a great place to live, just don’t get sick”.

Hip & knee replacement and elective surgery have up to a three year wait list. Emergency rooms are hours of waiting, I think thats pretty standard.

By the way, it’s not free either. One was to pay into their provincal medical plans on a monthly bases. It’s not a real lot but you pay then and in your federal taxes.[/quote]

Wow, three year wait for hip replacement? My grandmother got hers within the week.

My experience with health care in ON has been positive.

50

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So who’ll lead the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc., when whe go universal?

We need less government involvement, if you’re asking me.

Why would insuring the uninsured and under-insured lead to an end to the us leading the world in medical know-how, technological advancement, etc?
The rich will still buy better insurance. Govt will still fund R&D. Private firms will still have an incentive to do research. You can still choose to have your own insurance if you’d like. As others on this thread have pointed out, no one is talking about eliminating the current insurance infrastructure.

A discussion about foreign healthcare doesn’t exclude universal healthcare.

I’m not sure I understand, could you elaborate? Do you agree that insuring the uninsured and under-insured would not lead to an end to medical know-how, technological advancement, etc?

I’m trying out a new diet and am feeling a bit drained, so excuse if I’m missing something.

First, I don’t get the impression the topic of this thread was narrowly focused on insuring the uninsured only, but on foreign health-care in general.

As far as insuring the uninsured, I’d say it would ultimately result in worse healthcare, more government ownsership of our wages, more deficit spending, and baby steps to socialized medicine. The government doesn’t make enough of the health care purchases in this country, already? And isn’t it already running enough programs into the ground (which will saddle today’s children with huge burdens in their adulthood).

Leave it to charity.[/quote]

Well I certainly understand your hesitations. But I’m not sure that govt insuring the uninsured would “lead to worse healthcare” particularly for the rich and upper middle classes. Also, I don’t think that it has lead to worse healthcare in Japan (the only other country where I’ve lived long enough to experience the health system)… and it has improved society in a lot of ways there.

As far as govt programs being run to the ground, this is, of course, a major issue.

As far as “leave it to charity,” are you arguing that charities are currently insuring enough uninsured people? Or are you arguing that the govt should use charities (and other market mechanisms) to accomplish the goal?

51

How many of the uninsured, are voluntarily uninsured? Meaning, if they had to turn their cable off, stop buying packs of smokes and their bud light, how many would be able to pick up some insurance?

52

As far as I know here in Europe health care is free because generally we pay a lot more taxes than you in the US.
In the US people don’t pay as much taxes so they have more money to have their own private health insurance.

53

Just saw the movie last night. While I’m not a fan of Michael Moore I do have to say NO ONE should go broke b/c they get sick. I don’t know what the answer is but we do need drastic change to US healthcare. Both of my parents had cancer and even with insurance it cost over $20,000 out of pocket combined. That’s just wrong.

54

[quote]DB297 wrote:
Just saw the movie last night. While I’m not a fan of Michael Moore I do have to say NO ONE should go broke b/c they get sick. I don’t know what the answer is but we do need drastic change to US healthcare. Both of my parents had cancer and even with insurance it cost over $20,000 out of pocket combined. That’s just wrong. [/quote]

The problem with this becomes obvious when you state it like this:

No one should go broke in order to drive a Porsche. That it just wrong.

Capitalism has led to enormous advances in medical technology. They would become cheaper and more affordable over time, but unfortunately people who have cancer now do not have that time and yet want the best treatment there is.

Unfortunately not everyone can drive a Porsche, because they are expensive to build and the same is true for first class health care.

And yes, that means that people die.

Unfortunately, more people die if a sozialized system goes broke, which it invariably will.

If the US comptrollers numbers are correct the US would need 75 years of two digit growth to be able to honor its obligations stemming from SS.

So, neither the US, nor any European country has any chance whatsoever to live up to its promises and yet they have taxed their population like crazy, preventing affordable alternatives.

I cannot wait for THAT bubble to burst.

55

[quote]DB297 wrote:
Both of my parents had cancer and even with insurance it cost over $20,000 out of pocket combined. That’s just wrong. [/quote]

I broke my leg and it cost me over $25K even though it was my own fault should someone else who has never seen the inside of a hospital have to foot the bill for that? I am against the idea of taxpayers paying the costs of someone else’s unhealthy lifestyle.

If you want to solve the high cost of medical care you need to get the government out of the business of health care. It is the lack of competition created by its interference that drives prices up.

Prices are directly related to supply and demand. Since we know demand will only increase as the population becomes larger we need to provide a means to increase the supply of health care to help bring down prices. Government regulation and cartel organizations like the AMA, for example, reduce the supply of health care in an effort to protect their own interest at the expense of everyone else. Eliminating these groups’ influence would go a long way to help reduce the cost of medical care for the average person.

Another wrench in the system is HMOs. These are third party payer systems that reduce the choice of health care seekers which drives out competition. For example, my wife prefers to go to a naturopath but this is not covered by our HMO – who are directly influenced by drug companies. This drives out alternative health care which would bring the average cost of regular care down. HMOs usually also require their customers to see only certain doctors within certain geographical regions. Taking away an individuals choice is another means of driving out competition which thus reduces the supply and therefore raises prices. This is simple economics.

56

…and the stupid fucking frogs continue to sit in the pot of water - happy and content that the water is now warmer than it was a few minutes ago.

You stupid fucks will be boiling before you realize how fucking stupid gov’t sponsored health care is - if you ever realize it.

Name one industry that the government has taken over that has been even close to a success.

The mind-numbed stupidity of the ignorantly jealous never ceases to amaze me.

57

Government Healthcare. The good monopoly?

58

Isn’t private insurance basically the same thing? People pool together to spread the risks and costs. It’s on a smaller scale and done by a for-profit company instead of a government body.

Of course, participation is not mandatory, but I haven’t seen anyone argue for not having any insurance. As far as I can see, one system offers more choice as to what coverage you get, while the other provides universal access - everyone is covered.

People complaining about putting their health care in the hands of a government bureaucrat apparently have no qualms about putting it in the hands of a corporate drone. Either way, decisions about your health care are made by someone else.

59

[quote]pookie wrote:
Isn’t private insurance basically the same thing? People pool together to spread the risks and costs. It’s on a smaller scale and done by a for-profit company instead of a government body.

Of course, participation is not mandatory, but I haven’t seen anyone argue for not having any insurance. As far as I can see, one system offers more choice as to what coverage you get, while the other provides universal access - everyone is covered.

People complaining about putting their health care in the hands of a government bureaucrat apparently have no qualms about putting it in the hands of a corporate drone. Either way, decisions about your health care are made by someone else.

[/quote]

Exactly, insurance premiums rise because unhealthy people are using their medical insurance. So you ARE paying for them through your premiums! If everyone infrequently got sick we wouldn’t have to pay as much. It is the Governments job to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its citizens, and if they are unable to get healthcare because of rising costs why shouldn’t they do something to assist those in need? I suppose we should stop providing humanitarian aid Internationally because it raises our taxes as well!

60

[quote]pookie wrote:
Isn’t private insurance basically the same thing? People pool together to spread the risks and costs. It’s on a smaller scale and done by a for-profit company instead of a government body.

Of course, participation is not mandatory, but I haven’t seen anyone argue for not having any insurance. As far as I can see, one system offers more choice as to what coverage you get, while the other provides universal access - everyone is covered.

People complaining about putting their health care in the hands of a government bureaucrat apparently have no qualms about putting it in the hands of a corporate drone. Either way, decisions about your health care are made by someone else.

[/quote]

I can change my insurance.

My insurance has competition.

Must I quote your posts on monopolies back at you?

Because that is what mandatory health care would be.