So being a person who understands numbers a little, and realize thats where we're getting ass raped the worst (how our government is spending dollars we dont have) i pulled out the calculator and did the math. This program will cost over $6000 per person. We'd better be getting some goddamn really good healthcare for the equivalent of $24k a year for a family of 4.
Well, unfortunately, this is just like everything else; the government is just using the "problem" as cover for gaining more control in the lives of citizens.
I know, and the irony of all of this is... Government caused the crisis. It wasn't the other way around, it wasn't capitalism. Healthcare has no mystery partner to jack prices way up. Healthcare runs the way they are told, and price is passed on to the consumer from the heaps of regulations, and to pay for people like illegals who know the US will not turn their back on them. Not to mention the millions of dumb ass lawsuits. No where else can you sue a nurse because they clipped your childs nails slightly to short (Seriously, that is why the hospital we delivered at would not clip our daughters nails when she was born).
Hmm sure, what percentage of your hard earned income do you pay to cover loosers who don't work? And how long is the waiting list for a kidney transplant? I think i'll pass, thanks.
Hey..survival of the fittest! It's fine with me!that only works if you view healthcare as your responsibility to maintain (say by eating healthy and exercising), rather than some intrinsic right
Well, that is a gross generalization of the entire system, but you know that already. The fact is, a considerable amount of data has been produced showing that the Universal coverage in Canada in terms of waiting times, quality of care and so forth is entirely comparable to private-sector care in the United States. Then there is the whole issue we have discussed before in terms of being denied for coverage due to preexisting conditions. To use your example, I would rather wait for a kidney transplant than be denied one altogether. Anyway, not wishing to get into this one in particular.
But the "studies" showing that in canada are biased, and also the population groups are different enough in other aspects that the point is moot. in the US having 2x the teen pregnancies and 15-20% higher obesity rates changes things. Also, apparently you don't understand how denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions works - it only is allowed to deny coverage for the length of gap in your insurance, up to 12 months maximum. If you know you had kidney issues, and it was already problematical for you, its up to you to keep insurance, or re-establish as soon as possible after a loss. The viewpoint of canada is quite different as there is a huge difference in how and why the US and canada were formed in the first place.
I must disagree with you on pretty much all accounts. Your care is not up to par with the private sector of the US. Your cancer rates actually fully support that as well. You cannot be denied for a preexisting condition if you go through an employer provided healthcare. If you are poor as hell, without insurance, you cannot be denied an organ transplant. Hell, a worthless piece of trash that used to be one of my fathers friends completely trashed his liver, no insurance, and guess what.... he's got a new liver.
Wow, you two are quite defensive about your system. To Adams: that is one perspective, done on other Universal Healthcare systems, so I am confused on how this applies to the U.S., private sector, or the general U.S., health system. In regards to biological markers, you may want to check your infant mortality rates, life expectancy rates, serious-illness death rates and so on, Adams. The U.S., ranks relatively low on all those markers, and below Canada. As well, here are two more pieces, not published in a Calgary paper, that refute your points as well:
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1
I don't care to defend our system, i think it needs to be reworked. Repeal the regulations that cause the problems, repeal medicare/caid, and banish the frivolous lawsuits that bank multi millions. The US Health Industry isn't perfect, and the reason it gets a black eye is because people dont want to take control of their own health care, instead they want it handed to them.
D, you used a newspaper as a reference, so maybe attacking methodology is not the best suited avenue for this discussion? As to John Stossel there, the WHO rankings consider 37 measures that take into account quality-of-care, and the rankings are generally quite systematic - obviously, Mr. Stossel has a bit of political slant himself. Anyway, the other study I quoted was a systematic review of case studies which more or less concluded with the same point I made above.
Utilizing the paper because it was there and detailing your problems that you have defended to death. I don't care about other health systems, but your gross misrepresentation of canada's system becomes annoying. You have painted it as all green grass and rainbows, yet the system is becoming bankrupt and foreseen not to be sustainable in the future. I do not want the US to follow suit in a failed(ing) system. You are taking values and facts from completely unrelated areas and applying them to your debate. It is a complete strawman argument.
No need for the condescendence Easy: I read it, but did you? The "may" refers to certain situations - i.e., the health outcomes in certain situations are superior in Canada, but this superiority is not consistent across the board. Or in even more other words: in certain situations Canadian healthcare is most certainly superior, but not in every situation. In terms of expenditures, the U.S., expenditure for its system is equal to the amount, or exceeds the amount, that Canada spends as a percentage of GPD, Easy.
Jesus man, you have to be kidding me. You stated that the Canadian system is inferior to the U.S., system, and then used a comparison of other Universal Healthcare Systems. So, I showed you several studies that refuted your points, showing that the Canadian system is superior to the United States system, or at least equal to it, using an actual comparison between the two nations. Nothing I have said is unrelated. If anything is annoying, it is your back in a tizzy because I called you on your bullshit.
Right, which is also why I stated it was in need of reform?
No systems is "green grass and rainbows", but I would rather have an honest discussion about something. You said something that I felt was not true, and I provided evidence for why I felt it was not true. The only difference between us is that you are getting your ego in a huff and blown-up over a simple disagreement.
What that means is that if it is only superior in some conditions it is inferior in others. So stating that is superior based on that is valueless as I can just as validly state US healthcare is superior from the same data. So its minimal value data.
For being so high on your logical horse, you can't seem to read. If you read that article, you would have read your precious wait times that you grossly misrepresented. You called me on no bullshit, you step in every thread trying to talk down to people spewing nothing but pure bullshit all over every thread. "Socialism is amazing, you just dont understand" "Canada healthcare is better" "You dont have a right to believe in this or that because its not in line with my own beliefs"
Easy, if you read the entire study, there are very few situations where the Canadian system was found to be inferior. The majority of the case-studies found that either: a) the Canadian system was superior; or b) that the systems were equal, or results were inconsistent. A very small percentage found that the Canadian system was inferior, and I think if we both read and speak about the study honestly, that is what we will find. As you said though, this is valueless as a claim the Canadian system is superior overall.
I completely agree. Something that is feasible in the scope of 30 million may not be on the scope of 300 million. I was never arguing that Universal is superior to private-sector, Easy. We were comparing relative care for the citizens of each country, and you said something I felt was false. So, in the context of care for Canadian Citizens, I defended the system. In no way I am saying the U.S., should adopt this type of system, or that it is viable for every nation.
Hmm, well i've known enough canadians who maintain US insurance and get care here even though they maintain multiple residences that i'm not so sure about your feelings on quality of care for canadian citizens, but you're right its not entirely relevant anyhow.
Pretty much agree here, Easy. As I said, in Canada's case it is feasible, for a wide range of reasons, and that is all I was trying to establish. Not that it is better in all, or even most, circumstances.
The WHO study is a piece of **** to anyone with half a brain who reads it. One of their 'systematic' measures is to automatically upgrade health care systems because they are single payer, and then use that to conclude that single payer is better. Called begging the question. I may as well hypothesize that blondes are more intelligent than brunettes and when testing them automatically give blondes a ten percent hike in their grades. Wow, wonder what my conclusions will be...
How do you with a straight face refer to the US as a 'private sector system'?
That was a nice little diatribe. Apparently the differences between you and I stem from you being unable to read. Allow me to bold two statements for you:
Now, what do these statements mean? Two things: a) I am fully aware of the exorbitant involvement of the U.S., Government in Health Care provision, the substantially greater % of GDP the U.S., government spends on health care provision compared to Canada, and the per-capita tax cost; and b) I was making a statement about what both Easy and Adams would ideally like the system to be [private sector] - i.e., they were both criticizing the current [and predominantly] single payer system in favor of a completely privatized system. (This means they were "endorsing" it.) To that end, I understood and, to a certain degree, agreed with their motivation. Easy and Adams were pointing out the inadequacies in the current U.S., system, and promoting an all for-profit method; I saw their motivation.
I don't think anyone is against a safety net except free market anarchists. The problem is designing that safety net to have as little impact on the market as possible. So the questions arise: how do you build the net but generally provide disincentives to use it; how do you do something which has been up until now impossible, that being control the cost of a government program? To the first question limited coverage with means testing and wagee garnishment are good starts. No tax guaranteed budget is another. That meaning, tally the bills for the year, then pay them. Don't tax everyone first. In so doing you essentially make a first purchase for them of the service and disincentivize marginal buyers to seek out private coverage. In much the same way people use the public school system with the justification of, "Why not, I'm already paying for it..." To avoid that payment has to come after use. As for controling costs, if payment comes after the fact I guess you could average returns on specific care categories and determine a return, below market to once more disincentivize use.
And on this point you're right, my bad, but from a guy who quotes the WHO report as an authoritative source, pot-kettle-black and right back at you.
No, you are right: the WHO report certainly has its inadequacies, and I posted it in haste, as a heat-of-the-moment response.
No, what's it about?
It also poses the very real possibility for discriminatory coverage provision/denial. "Risky behavior" can be an entirely subjective and arbitrary determination, and has the possibility to preclude certain population groups. It could be entirely exclusionary, and rule out coverage for certain individuals deemed to be "risky" as a function of their daily lives. For example, and to link to the other thread, the higher proportion of homosexuals with AIDS could naturally lead to homosexuality being deemed as "risky behavior"; when, in reality, there are myriad factors which lead to higher exposure.
and yet whether its sticking a needle in your arm, or a genital somewhere, its a conscious choice you make. I don't see why people who choose not to do those things should pay extra to cover people who do - particularly pay for your own insurance as well as pay taxes for someone who for whatever reason has no coverage. If you a drug addict with no job and no societal value, the fact that you continue to choose to use drugs doesn't obligate productive citizens to pay for your housing, food and health care.
And the drug addict scenario may be a justifiable one, but the premise itself simply lends itself toward exclusionary policies. Once you give an administration the option to begin "criminalizing" personal behavior, with the consequence of coverage-denial, you will certainly have moral imperatives guiding policy decisions. I see what you are saying, but the concept as a whole would be nothing more than an outlet for moral puritanism to explicitly suppress certain groups within society of their personal freedoms. As I said, higher probability does not equal causation, and labeling this or that behavior as more or less dangerous than any other is entirely arbitrary. It would most certainly not take into consideration all the cultural, societal, and economic factors that: a) predispose people to certain behaviors in the first place, or; b) make the outcomes of those behaviors more probable. I am ardently opposed, despite whatever my moral reservations may be, to any entity regulating personal choices that do not directly harm anybody but the end user. This stands for drugs, sex, and whatever other act some certain group is bound to find reprehensible, due to whatever justificatory authority.
#1 is why a single system for no $ for all people doesn't make financial sense. Its why there are different insurance rates in west virginia vs florida vs california. Different people fall into different risk categories, and pay a different premium for those. Whether based on age, race, blood test results etc. Its one of the built in disincentives to smoke or do other risky behaviors like staying obese - you'll save money on your insurance as well as save money on not spending on that habit. If you lose the financial disincentive, you are no more likely to quit smoking or binge eating, if anything less likely.
The problem with that is discriminatory practices are necessary for proper risk tiering. For something to qualify as strictly insurable you need to know the risk for a class but not necessarily for individuals, and it needs to be something largely out of your control. For example unemployment is not strictly speaking something you can get insured because the risk for being unemployed is not generally known and being employed is largely if not totally in your control.
Are we speaking about for-profit, or the "safety net" scenario mentioned earlier? My opposition to criminalizing personal behavior was in regard to the denial of the safety net. Insurability as a premise necessitates the meeting of certain criterion, and the end user remitting his freedoms to betray those criterion, lest he remit his coverage as well. And so, this is of course necessary in an a la carte system. I was against the criminalization of personal behavior.
rather than so much actual jail time, with the point being recouping the additional cost that the groups who use those products cost the overall pool if we were to get stuck with effectively a single risk tier. Again, much less an issue with catastrophic only coverage as the odds of catastrophic events although still higher for some groups are relatively low odds to begin with.
Ah. I see. I think there was some misunderstanding here, as all my comments about criminalization were in respects to the "safety net". For a safety net to operate properly under an a la carte system, it must disincentivize people from its use, but not preclude them. In the market, the private insurer then reserves the right to deny and/or charge people based on how that respective insurer determines risk. My point was merely that allowing the government to determine "risky behavior" on the level of this safety net would be nothing more than an avenue for tyranny.My thought of the "criminalization" part was more on the order of fines or something along those lines, perhaps even higher taxation on products like tobacco, alcohol, meals over 800 calories, anal lube, etc
As am I. However if those behaviors are not criminalized in the safety net, or at least otherwise dealt with, it serves no purpose because it is just allowing the negligent to pass their costs on to society. If you are going to ask society to provide for your health, then society gets to say under what terms they will do so. If you remit freedoms when entering into a voluntary contract in the private sector, you surely must remit along the same lines when using the government to force others to cover you via public contract. Otherwise you are saying a private organization has the right to deny my coverage or charge more per risky behavior that I may have, but the publically funded system can't do the same thing.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health Insurance Coverage and Steroid Use | Anabolics | 17 | ||
| Health insurance BS! | General Chat | 13 | ||
| Before physical examination for health insurance... | Supplements | 28 | ||
|
health insurance - I need help choosing one. | General Chat | 2 | |
| Free Health Insurance | General Chat | 5 |