Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74

Thread: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

  1. #61
    Comrade from Canuckistan! AgentM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    British Columbia
    Last Seen
    02-17-11 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    995

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    As I am one of those against government control (my libertarian tendencies are showing), I especially like the small-scale, local/state setup...and the lack of another massive federal bureaucracy.
    In Canada health care is a provincial responsibility. The only way the feds are involved is through enforcing certain standards through law, using their spending power. If provinces don't meet the standards laid out in the Canada Health Act, they lose the transfer payments for health care that they would have otherwise gotten from the feds.
    "When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. I say enjoy the show, don't take it seriously." - George Carlin

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    As I am one of those against government control (my libertarian tendencies are showing), I especially like the small-scale, local/state setup...and the lack of another massive federal bureaucracy.
    That's originally how corporations started. They were local initiatives. Now look at them.

    The U.S. is too consumerist for local initiatives like health care to work, in my opinion. People are too busy spending money to want to save it, and people are too selfish due to accumulation of goods to want to have some kind of local UHC. Not to mention, how would that work if someone needs million dollar procedures like cancer therapy? It would use up all of the group fund.

    Whereas the entire collective of the nation would make the group fund way bigger and harder to exhaust.

  3. #63
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    That's originally how corporations started. They were local initiatives. Now look at them.

    The U.S. is too consumerist for local initiatives like health care to work, in my opinion. People are too busy spending money to want to save it, and people are too selfish due to accumulation of goods to want to have some kind of local UHC. Not to mention, how would that work if someone needs million dollar procedures like cancer therapy? It would use up all of the group fund.

    Whereas the entire collective of the nation would make the group fund way bigger and harder to exhaust.
    Or if it were state-wide...
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Or if it were state-wide...
    I don't agree with state sovereignty in this case. It wouldn't be fair for some states to have UHC when others don't.

    Within the states, that would mean putting it up to a majority vote, even if that majority is 51%. That means 49% of people would've wanted UHC. UHC represents everyone: those who want it and those who don't.

    Those who don't want it will be grateful for it when they need it. They are self-righteous until they need an ER and they can't afford it, or their insurance company double crosses them.

    Something like 17-18% of the GDP is used on health care in the U.S. It would be around 15% or less if there were a UHC system. If you look at all the Western nations who have some kind of UHC system, their collective cost is less than it would be if everyone was stuck with private.

    Everyone has to be on board or it won't last.

  5. #65
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    I don't agree with state sovereignty in this case. It wouldn't be fair for some states to have UHC when others don't.

    Within the states, that would mean putting it up to a majority vote, even if that majority is 51%. That means 49% of people would've wanted UHC. UHC represents everyone: those who want it and those who don't.

    Those who don't want it will be grateful for it when they need it. They are self-righteous until they need an ER and they can't afford it, or their insurance company double crosses them.

    Something like 17-18% of the GDP is used on health care in the U.S. It would be around 15% or less if there were a UHC system. If you look at all the Western nations who have some kind of UHC system, their collective cost is less than it would be if everyone was stuck with private.

    Everyone has to be on board or it won't last.
    See, I can understand the arguement that health care should be paid for by everyone because someone lacking it effect everyone (albeit indirectly in most cases).

    But I can also understand and agree with arguements against it, or at least some forms of it.

    Perhaps if there were local "co-ops", as discribed in the link in that thread I linked...
    And the local "co-ops" received funding from the state and federal level, but could use those funds (within reasonable a framework) to purchase healthcare from private providers (of their choice) for their area in a way they saw best...that would eliminate some of my issues with the idea of UHC.

    It would still promote competition, thus (IMO) spuring improvements, and it would give everyone health care, as defined at the local level (within a reasonable framework, of course).
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  6. #66
    Comrade from Canuckistan! AgentM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    British Columbia
    Last Seen
    02-17-11 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    995

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    See, I can understand the arguement that health care should be paid for by everyone because someone lacking it effect everyone (albeit indirectly in most cases).

    But I can also understand and agree with arguements against it, or at least some forms of it.

    Perhaps if there were local "co-ops", as discribed in the link in that thread I linked...
    And the local "co-ops" received funding from the state and federal level, but could use those funds (within reasonable a framework) to purchase healthcare from private providers (of their choice) for their area in a way they saw best...that would eliminate some of my issues with the idea of UHC.

    It would still promote competition, thus (IMO) spuring improvements, and it would give everyone health care, as defined at the local level (within a reasonable framework, of course).
    That sounds like an extra layer of bureaucracy that even most UHC systems don't have.
    "When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. I say enjoy the show, don't take it seriously." - George Carlin

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    See, I can understand the arguement that health care should be paid for by everyone because someone lacking it effect everyone (albeit indirectly in most cases).

    But I can also understand and agree with arguements against it, or at least some forms of it.

    Perhaps if there were local "co-ops", as discribed in the link in that thread I linked...
    And the local "co-ops" received funding from the state and federal level, but could use those funds (within reasonable a framework) to purchase healthcare from private providers (of their choice) for their area in a way they saw best...that would eliminate some of my issues with the idea of UHC.

    It would still promote competition, thus (IMO) spuring improvements, and it would give everyone health care, as defined at the local level (within a reasonable framework, of course).
    Why would the government contribute money but relinquish oversight?

    The other problem is, costs are high because insurance companies have a monopoly on the market. I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to co-ops who would then in turn use it to purchase private insurance. That would be at greater cost than a UHC system itself.

    We wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place if corporate monopolies weren't willfully gouging people and double-crossing them in their insurance contracts. It also fails to address the millions who are ineligible for private insurance because of the thousands of pre-existing conditions that the companies won't allow.

    UHC needs to exist because the current system is a laughing stock.

  8. #68
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentM View Post
    That sounds like an extra layer of bureaucracy that even most UHC systems don't have.
    Perhaps, but it might also be necessary for some people to accept it. And I think it would be more effective than a one-size-fits all approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Why would the government contribute money but relinquish oversight?
    Because...the people who vote for them want it that way? Obviously...And additionally, it isn't the government contributing money, it's the taxpayers contributing money that they expect some return for. Again, obviously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    The other problem is, costs are high because insurance companies have a monopoly on the market. I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to co-ops who would then in turn use it to purchase private insurance. That would be at greater cost than a UHC system itself.
    First off, competing health insurance companies are not a monopoly...after all, who else but another health insurance company would compete with them?
    Secondly, I didn't say anything about insurance companies, why not just pay a local health clinic directly? The "co-ops" could REPLACE private health insurance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    We wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place if corporate monopolies weren't willfully gouging people and double-crossing them in their insurance contracts. It also fails to address the millions who are ineligible for private insurance because of the thousands of pre-existing conditions that the companies won't allow.
    And if a local or area "co-op" was collectively purchasing health care, would it not be reasonable to assume that they could far more easily demand coverage for pre-existing conditions, and any other issues that you mentioned...If they don't like the terms, they could form their own "health insurance" company, paid out of the collective fund, and say "screw you" to any health insurance companies attempting to "gouge" them. This would, it would seem, force any health insurance company to offer terms they could agree to, if they wanted to stay in business...

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    UHC needs to exist because the current system is a laughing stock.
    Why is it a laughing stock?
    You can't just say A is necessary because B, without proving B.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #69
    Comrade from Canuckistan! AgentM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    British Columbia
    Last Seen
    02-17-11 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    995

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Perhaps, but it might also be necessary for some people to accept it. And I think it would be more effective than a one-size-fits all approach.
    But you'd basically be paying for this huge, unwieldy bureaucracy that would only really be there for the benefit of private insurance corporations. There's no real point to this, except to benefit corporate interests. That is why most countries that have universal health care don't have a middle man, and provide health coverage directly to the people from the government.
    "When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. I say enjoy the show, don't take it seriously." - George Carlin

  10. #70
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentM View Post
    But you'd basically be paying for this huge, unwieldy bureaucracy that would only really be there for the benefit of private insurance corporations. There's no real point to this, except to benefit corporate interests. That is why most countries that have universal health care don't have a middle man, and provide health coverage directly to the people from the government.
    I think I explained ways that it wouldn't benifit the insurance corporations in the rest of my post. But I could be incorrect.
    And why would it be a massive bureaucracy?

    It could just be a team reviewing the standards set locally (all through paperwork), and checking to see that they met federal and state standards.
    Not intricate standards, just basic ones, like, for example:
    • Everyone must be covered.
    • Pre-existing conditions must be covered.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •