hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | reply to lg75
Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal
Canada's universal healthcare isnt bad either. You still have the option to have your private health care from your employer or not. Its better to pay for your own health care though in Canada that way you can get into see a doctor. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon.
I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else? |
|
linflas
join:1999-08-18
Manassas, VA
| said by viperlmw  :I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon. I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else? As far as I'm concerned it wasn't. I sure as hell know that I learned early on in the 4 years I was in the Navy not to see Navy doctors unless the choice was them or death. |
|
older dog
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Norwich, NY | Then your experience was far different than mine.
The doctors I had in the Navy were far better and more dedicated to proper health care than the quacks I have had since. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to viperlmw
Thank you for your service to our country sir.
I think the numerous cases of waste, abuse, fraud, and bureaucracy in the VA system that we've all heard about is a much better example of what we have to look forward to from universal socialist health care. The care you and your family received on base as active personnel was surely excellent and without hassle. |
|
knightmb
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·Comcast
·Vonage
·Speakeasy
| said by jester121 :Thank you for your service to our country sir. I think the numerous cases of waste, abuse, fraud, and bureaucracy in the VA system that we've all heard about is a much better example of what we have to look forward to from universal socialist health care. Socialist health care? Is that like the Socialist Fire Department and Socialist Police Department we have? Last time I checked, we didn't pay fireman or policeman insurance to a private company. It's provided via our taxes.
Too many people rail on universal health care, often throwing in the word socialist or likening it to Russia or China? People really need to learn some history, as when the US had universal health care before it became private, it worked very well. When health care became private, companies made billions, we all fight our insurance companies to get anything major covered, we still pay a ton for health insurance monthly, and insurance companies have staff dedicated to weaseling out of everything they are suppose to pay for coverage no matter how healthy you are.
Wake me up when we get our universal health care back and we don't have to walk into a hospital with a valid insurance card or some private company before they will treat the sick or injured.  |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
April 21st, @06:31PM
| said by knightmb :often throwing in the word socialist or likening it to Russia or China? IMO, this is just a ploy to stop all discussion. There are certain things we've been raised to reflexively oppose. Invoking those words is just a way to get people back into (unthinking) conformity.
"Socialist? I don't want to be that!"
And then we proceed with the status quo.... as our medical choices are limited by social regulation (creating non-free market standards). Or, the Federal Reserve bails out Wall St. banks (just 2-3 years after employees of those banks were receiving bonuses equal to their annual salaries). Or, home builders are allowed to write off current losses using taxes paid up to 5 years ago.
We have socialized capitalism. Those who invoke the reflex words the most ("socialist," "communist") don't want to delve into that topic.
Mark |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
·Skype
| said by amigo_boy :said by knightmb :often throwing in the word socialist or likening it to Russia or China? IMO, this is just a ploy to stop all discussion. There are certain things we've been raised to reflexively oppose. Invoking those words is just a way to get people back into (unthinking) conformity. "Socialist? I don't want to be that!" And then we proceed with the status quo.... as our medical choices are limited by social regulation (creating non-free market standards). Or, the Federal Reserve bails out Wall St. banks (just 2-3 years after employees of those banks were receiving bonuses equal to their annual salaries). Or, home builders are allowed to write off current losses using taxes paid up to 5 years ago. We have socialized capitalism. Those who invoke the reflex words the most ("socialist," "communist") don't want to delve into that topic. Mark Yes, it is a way to stop discussion by saying Socialist Medicine. Insurance companies figure tons of ways to deny a claim.
Boy, when Wall Street stumbles, they rush in don't they? Of course, the little people at Bear Stearns are all getting fired. The Bear Stearns CEO walks away with $80 million though.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
Tzale
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :Canada's universal healthcare isnt bad either. You still have the option to have your private health care from your employer or not. Its better to pay for your own health care though in Canada that way you can get into see a doctor. Canada's system isn't exactly as good as it is crocked up to be.. I'm simply against the idea at a national level and think it will fail miserably and raise our taxes.
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
Tzale
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw :I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon. I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else? Japan also has a much higher concentrated population and a much smaller population. They also don't have a U.S. Constitution...
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Tzale :Japan also has a much higher concentrated population and a much smaller population. They also don't have a U.S. Constitution... And those comments, while completely accurate and factual, when dealing with the topic at hand, which is quality of health care, have absolutely nothing to do with it.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Tzale
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
edit:
April 22nd, @10:19AM
| said by KrK :said by Tzale :Japan also has a much higher concentrated population and a much smaller population. They also don't have a U.S. Constitution... And those comments, while completely accurate and factual, when dealing with the topic at hand, which is quality of health care, have absolutely nothing to do with it. Well why don't they?
"I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon."
Japan has a higher population concentration, and much smaller population, thus it is easier for them to roll out broadband. It is also a lot easier to administer programs. The U.S. is gigantic compared to a lot of socialist countries and I am CONVINCED that it will fail HERE. The problem in this country is LACK of a good quality healthcare.. A socialist system isn't going to fix that IMHO. If you think healthcare is bad NOW, how do you think it will be when the Government is involved. Corporate greed isn't much better... But at least it is more inline with the American free market.. And this could is SUPPOSED to be a free market. Just because we have had a couple socialist czars who think they can run over our Constitution like an old newspaper doesn't mean that this country should be restored to its former quality.
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| I can at least understand the broadband argument, However when it comes to quality health care, I can't see how population density figures into it.
I guess you could say they might be CLOSER to a quality facility, thus enabling better emergency care, but I can't figure out how a population density argument could be used as justification for the quality of health care available.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Tzale
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| said by KrK :I can at least understand the broadband argument, However when it comes to quality health care, I can't see how population density figures into it. I guess you could say they might be CLOSER to a quality facility, thus enabling better emergency care, but I can't figure out how a population density argument could be used as justification for the quality of health care available. The population density was in response to the broadband argument.. Not about healthcare.
Smaller populations are easier to provide healthcare to in this type of program versus at a national level. If we're going to have a "universal healthcare" type program, I'd rather it be at the state level so that people have the choice whether or not to be taxed for such a program. Plus,I think it would be run better...
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | reply to KrK
It has everything to do with it. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Explain how population density automatically means better health care. |
|
samwise2206
@insightbb.com | reply to hottboiinnc
Canada's health care system is anything BUT free. they pay 30-40% taxes on everything. and if its so great why do so many canadians come to the usa to receive their health care? |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
April 22nd, @10:09PM
| said by samwise2206 :
Canada's health care system is anything BUT free. they pay 30-40% taxes on everything. and if its so great why do so many canadians come to the usa to receive their health care?
I haven't seen anyone address this:
1. We (society) set high standards on healthcare products and services, standards which wouldn't exist in a truly "free market." The result is that those who can't afford this socially-created "market" go without. They don't just have the option to purchase what they can afford (lower quality professionals and products), they're *denied* them.
2. One argument against single-payer healthcare is the one you made: Folks who can afford what we have now will have to go elsewhere because they may have to wait for services, or they want higher-quality services which are no longer artificially mandated by society (see #1).
Which is better (or worse), and why?
It sounds to me like the popular arguments for/against boil down to nothing more than the base human condition: Don't gore my ox. Those who use the example of Canadians coming to the US for healthcare don't make a peep about Americans who go without due mostly to our socially-inspired medical system which sets high standards (because without them society would suffer, [wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.]).
I don't see people wanting to deal with this. Even Tzale returned to slinging the "socialist" term -- and in the same breath justifying society's creation of an artificial market because "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (He didn't use that quoted phrase. But, the meaning was the same when he said our standards are necessary to protect the public. Obviously those who are denied the option of purchasing lower-quality products and services aren't being protected from very much compared to those who've had their "caveat emptor" virtually eliminated by society.).
I'm not saying I know what the answer is, or that universal (single-payer) coverage would be better. Just that "better" is relative to whether you're currently reaping the benefits of our socialized medicine, or denied access due to the artificial market it creates. Just because those who benefit from it now would lose something doesn't mean very much without taking into consideration how people are losing something now (by having lessor products and services denied to them by the not-so-invisible hand of Society).
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| reply to Tzale
said by Tzale :I'd rather it be at the state level so that people have the choice whether or not to be taxed for such a program. Plus,I think it would be run better... Universal health care is like taxation. It only works if everyone participates. If one state offers it, and another doesn't, folks living in neighboring states (who'd benefit the most) will move there, adding to the burden opponents of universal health care want to avoid.
I saw this happen in the 70s when I lived in a state with more-generous disability benefits. Disabled folks in neighboring states (especially those living near the border) moved in.
I'm not saying universal health care is the best thing to do. Just saying, by definition, it's "universal."
It would be nice if we had more healthcare choices. Like seeing an LPN for basic needs. But, without tort reform I don't see that happening. Lower-quality services would obviously lead to lower-quality results. Under our current system this would lead to malpractice suits.
Mark |
|
Tzale
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| said by amigo_boy :said by Tzale :I'd rather it be at the state level so that people have the choice whether or not to be taxed for such a program. Plus,I think it would be run better... Universal health care is like taxation. It only works if everyone participates. If one state offers it, and another doesn't, folks living in neighboring states (who'd benefit the most) will move there, adding to the burden opponents of universal health care want to avoid. I saw this happen in the 70s when I lived in a state with more-generous disability benefits. Disabled folks in neighboring states (especially those living near the border) moved in. I'm not saying universal health care is the best thing to do. Just saying, by definition, it's "universal." It would be nice if we had more healthcare choices. Like seeing an LPN for basic needs. But, without tort reform I don't see that happening. Lower-quality services would obviously lead to lower-quality results. Under our current system this would lead to malpractice suits. Mark Well I'm not backing hniversal healthcare... But if it is going to happen, let it happen at the state level since then at least the people have a choice whether or not to support such a welfare state with their tax money by moving in or out. That is how the U.S. is SUPPOSED to be... Our country is "free" and "unique" because we have 50 "mini-nations" to choose from when deciding where to live. There is supposed to be a weak Federal government that provides the basic security for all states. It is wrong to assume that universal healthcare is the job of the Federal Government.
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
