• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Just when you thought socialised medical care was the answer . . .

Fearandloathing said:
The best argument you have made so far is above, where you talk about what has become of competition, and you are right, what point is there to a free enterprise system that is neither...free nor enterprising.

'
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
ObamacareFail said:
The rest of the first world is certainly not doing healthcare better and the lower cost comes from simply providing less healthcare by way of rationing and waiting lists, and having much lower populations.
Click to expand...

health care in first world countries like Canada is not the horror story that your side pretends that it is. everyone knows it. the data shows it. it just isn't. health care here is crushingly expensive, though for you personally, it hasn't been, and i'm glad that it hasn't been. you are apparently a legacy worker with a great plan. the rest of us get to choose from a hodgepodge of overpriced plans that don't do enough or cheap Safe Auto plans that don't do enough. you're great until you actually have to use them. that's a stupid system.

ObamacareFail said:
The hard truth is that the profit motive in the healthcare field results in more doctors, specialists, and high tech diagnostic equipment. Single payer results in much less. In any case...it still does not answer why you have so much faith in single payer working in the US despite such monumental failures of already existing single payer systems. Medicare has been around for decades....yet the US government still cannot make it work effectively or efficiently. If they cannot handle single payer healthcare for seniors......how on God's green earth are they going to handle it for the entire US population??????
Click to expand...

my parents are on Medicare, and they say that there's not much difference between Medicare and their former for-profit plan. their health care is the same as before. i don't see seniors rioting in the streets demanding to be thrown back to the wolves. and the US would handle single payer the way other first world countries do, except on a larger scale.

it's funny how when i'm debating war with a hawk, there's nothing we can't do. we should stand up to Russia, fight China over some ****ing islands, occupy large swaths of the Middle East for decades, the sky's the limit. but health care? no ****ing way we could ever fix that. it's too big of a problem. well, you know what?

i just don't believe you.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Yes, Hurricaine Katrina stripped bear for the world to see just how well your poor live.
European systems are unequal because we have capitalism. Your system is more unequal because you have rampant, uncontrolled capitalism. Socialist and social-democratic governments have done something in Europe to address inequality. You guys are far, far behind.





Where I live they do, and you don't have to be wiped out for being ill.












You only believe what you want to believe. Why let the truth get in the way?

Cuba does have a top rate health care system. You refuse to believe that of a communist system. You are blinkered.






Many of you do desire it, that's why Obama was voted in, twice.
Click to expand...

When I noticed the childish moniker edits, I stopped reading and moved on. Have a nice evening.
 
Helix said:
see the link in the previous post. the US does do somewhat better with breast and colorectal cancer survival. we just pay a lot more for it. with some other forms of cancer, the American system is not in first place, though we still pay a ****load more for health care. so no, increased cost does not necessarily mean increased efficacy.

and yes, we do already have universal healthcare, delivered to the uninsured at emergency rooms, which is the most inefficient way to do it. you pay for it every time you pay a premium or pay for a health care procedure.
Click to expand...

Seen the link.

The US does do better in certain areas.. and does worse in others. So you think why that is? If our system was really actually bad.. we should do worse in ALL categories... but we don't. In fact when it comes to effective care.. we are generally in the top 10.

The problem is.. the statistics DON"T factor in differing demographics.. such as obesity, genetics (we do have high risk populations like African americans and latinos for things like heart disease).. stress, working loads, and effective age of retirements. Plus it doesn't factor in that costs are different in each country..

AND it doesn't factor in other costs of healthcare for each country. When a hospital in America builds a new wing.. that cost is directly reflected in your bill. It is most definitely a cost of healthcare. the same when a physician gets an education, and when a physician gets sued.

When a country like Britain builds a wing on a regional hospital.. the money is not reflected on "cost of healthcare".. its in another column like public works. When a country like france foots the bill for education of physicians.. that cost is not calculated in "cost of healthcare"
And when a country spends money to set up a separate malpractice system... that money is not calculated in the cost of healthcare.
But in America.. they are.. because its directly reflected in the reimbursement.

And yes.. you are right.. we do have universal healthcare in a way..

so we are not letting people "die in the streets" as some would claim.

but that does really hurt us on efficiency rating, and on our equity rating by the who.. and those drag us down in their rankings. So when someone says.. America ranks below all these other countries.. its not on quality.. its because of the inefficiency and our equity rating.
 
Helix said:
health care in first world countries like Canada is not the horror story that your side pretends that it is. everyone knows it. the data shows it. it just isn't. health care here is crushingly expensive, though for you personally, it hasn't been, and i'm glad that it hasn't been. you are apparently a legacy worker with a great plan. the rest of us get to choose from a hodgepodge of overpriced plans that don't do enough or cheap Safe Auto plans that don't do enough. you're great until you actually have to use them. that's a stupid system.
Click to expand...

I agree that the present system..obamacare is a stupid system. However My legacy healthcare plans ended with the passage of obamacare. Now the cheapest policy I can get is nearly $700.00 My home mortgage payments are less then that. And I cannot expect any benefit in any given coverage year until I have spent $6000.00 for healthcare. Had I agreed to that, I would be in the same fix you are in. I opted for enrolling in Veterans Healthcare and I am eligible for medicare in a little over 3 years. Both of those systems suck.


my parents are on Medicare, and they say that there's not much difference between Medicare and their former for-profit plan. their health care is the same as before. i don't see seniors rioting in the streets demanding to be thrown back to the wolves. and the US would handle single payer the way other first world countries do, except on a larger scale.
Click to expand...

However to make it workable for those who are not wealthy, they had to sign up for additional coverage by way of medicare advantage plans....that they have to pay for. We pay into medicare for all of our working lives. Therefore why should we have to cough up a couple hundred dollars or more to make it more like private healthcare?

it's funny how when i'm debating war with a hawk, there's nothing we can't do. we should stand up to Russia, fight China over some ****ing islands, occupy large swaths of the Middle East for decades, the sky's the limit. but health care? no ****ing way we could ever fix that. it's too big of a problem. well, you know what?

i just don't believe you.
 
health care in first world countries like Canada is not the horror story that your side pretends that it is. everyone knows it. the data shows it. it just isn't. health care here is crushingly expensive, though for you personally, it hasn't been, and i'm glad that it hasn't been. you are apparently a legacy worker with a great plan. the rest of us get to choose from a hodgepodge of overpriced plans that don't do enough or cheap Safe Auto plans that don't do enough. you're great until you actually have to use them. that's a stupid system.
Click to expand...

And its not the utopia that your side wants to pretend either. The Canadian system has struggled with waiting times for things like specialists and MRI's

This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that, overall, waiting times for medically necessary treatment have not improved since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed across 10 provinces and 12 specialties report a median waiting time of 18.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment. This wait time is 96% longer than in 1993 when it was just 9.3 weeks.

There is a great deal of variation in the total waiting time faced by patients across the provinces. Ontario reports the shortest total wait (14.1 weeks), followed by Saskatchewan (14.2 weeks), and Quebec (16.9 weeks). On the other hand, New Brunswick reports the longest wait at 37.3 weeks, followed by Prince Edward Island (35.9 weeks) and Nova Scotia (32.7 weeks).

The same is true of variation among specialties. Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (42.2 weeks), neurosurgery (31.2 weeks), and plastic surgery (27.1 weeks). By contrast, the shortest total waits exist for medical oncology (3.3 weeks), radiation oncology (4.2 weeks), and elective cardiovascular surgery (9.9 weeks).

Physicians also indicate that, across the 12 specialties, patients generally wait more than three weeks longer than what they consider “clinically reasonable” for treatment after seeing a specialist.

The study also estimates that, across the 10 provinces, the total number of procedures for which people are waiting in 2014 is 937,345—9,225 more than in 2013. This means that, assuming that each person waits for only one procedure, 2.7% of Canadians are waiting for treatment in 2014. Importantly, physicians report that only about 10.4% of their patients are on a waiting list because they requested a delay or postponement.

Patients also experience significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across the provinces. This year, Canadians could expect to wait 3.8 weeks for a computed tomography (CT) scan, 8.7 weeks for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and 3.3 weeks for an ultrasound.
Click to expand...

Helix said:
my parents are on Medicare, and they say that there's not much difference between Medicare and their former for-profit plan. their health care is the same as before. i don't see seniors rioting in the streets demanding to be thrown back to the wolves. and the US would handle single payer the way other first world countries do, except on a larger scale.
Click to expand...

That's because Medicare is awesome as far as its coverage. That's why medicare costs WAY WAY WAY more than any other public system. Something that your side seems to forget to look at. Think about it man. Why does America spend so much? Who is it being spent ON? You think most medical costs are by younger, healthier folks? NO its by older folks on medicare... thing about it. And so when you are comparing other countries costs.. and our costs.. a whole bunch of medicare equates to that higher price tag.

Sooo.. if medicare were administered to get the SAME COSTS.. as say the UK... then it would have to operate with a TON less money. Which means, things like longer wait times, not getting to choose your physician etc... and even THEN its completely improbable that we could contain our costs more because we are in general less healthy than even the brits. ..

The devil is really in the details.. and your side doesn't want to look at the details any more than the radical right wing wants to look at the details.

The right wing things that we occupy a large swath of the middle east for decades with no cost or repercussion..

And the left wing thinks that we can simply switch to a UK type system and cut billions from the healthcare field without any costs or repercussions.

In neither case does the ideology deal with the facts and realities.
 
Helix said:
health care in first world countries like Canada is not the horror story that your side pretends that it is. everyone knows it. the data shows it. it just isn't. health care here is crushingly expensive, though for you personally, it hasn't been, and i'm glad that it hasn't been. you are apparently a legacy worker with a great plan. the rest of us get to choose from a hodgepodge of overpriced plans that don't do enough or cheap Safe Auto plans that don't do enough. you're great until you actually have to use them. that's a stupid system.



my parents are on Medicare, and they say that there's not much difference between Medicare and their former for-profit plan. their health care is the same as before. i don't see seniors rioting in the streets demanding to be thrown back to the wolves. and the US would handle single payer the way other first world countries do, except on a larger scale.

it's funny how when i'm debating war with a hawk, there's nothing we can't do. we should stand up to Russia, fight China over some ****ing islands, occupy large swaths of the Middle East for decades, the sky's the limit. but health care? no ****ing way we could ever fix that. it's too big of a problem. well, you know what?

i just don't believe you.
Click to expand...

Without intending to....you are misquoting me. I have never suggested that healthcare cannot be fixed. Reform was and is needed. We just disagree on the solutions. Having been on this earth long enough to remember very affordable and efficient private sector healthcare, I believe the best solution is to return to what we once had....a competitive healthcare market. The modern high costs of healthcare in the US are solely due to mostly misguided government tinkering with the healthcare system....as well as an out of control jackpot justice system. I understand your fears of what any possible catastrophic health malady may do to your finances. I have had the same fears under the VA Healthcare system and upcoming medicare eligibility. Yes...the cost is less...however if something catastrophic occurs, there is still much that is not covered. And there is no single payer system on the planet that pays your salary or wages while you are unable to work and earn a living.
 
jaeger19 said:
Seen the link.

The US does do better in certain areas.. and does worse in others. So you think why that is? If our system was really actually bad.. we should do worse in ALL categories... but we don't. In fact when it comes to effective care.. we are generally in the top 10.
Click to expand...

like i said, other countries get the same or better results with the exception of a few areas for a fraction of the price.

jaeger19 said:
The problem is.. the statistics DON"T factor in differing demographics.. such as obesity, genetics (we do have high risk populations like African americans and latinos for things like heart disease).. stress, working loads, and effective age of retirements. Plus it doesn't factor in that costs are different in each country..

AND it doesn't factor in other costs of healthcare for each country. When a hospital in America builds a new wing.. that cost is directly reflected in your bill. It is most definitely a cost of healthcare. the same when a physician gets an education, and when a physician gets sued.
Click to expand...

i agree that we should significantly increase the supply of physicians. they'll make less like they do in other countries, but they'll still deliver good care. (like they do in other countries.)

and i'm sure that you've considered that one of the reasons that our population is so generally unhealthy is because health care is so expensive and we have a general culture of avoiding it until it's absolutely necessary, right?

jaeger19 said:
When a country like Britain builds a wing on a regional hospital.. the money is not reflected on "cost of healthcare".. its in another column like public works. When a country like france foots the bill for education of physicians.. that cost is not calculated in "cost of healthcare"
And when a country spends money to set up a separate malpractice system... that money is not calculated in the cost of healthcare.
But in America.. they are.. because its directly reflected in the reimbursement.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure i support nationalizing the entire system like they did there. a Canadian-style system would probably be a better fit.

jaeger19 said:
And yes.. you are right.. we do have universal healthcare in a way..

so we are not letting people "die in the streets" as some would claim.

but that does really hurt us on efficiency rating, and on our equity rating by the who.. and those drag us down in their rankings. So when someone says.. America ranks below all these other countries.. its not on quality.. its because of the inefficiency and our equity rating.
Click to expand...

so cover everyone's basic care like other countries do, and then we can treat them at much cheaper primary care facilities and give them greater access to less expensive preventative care.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I agree that the present system..obamacare is a stupid system. However My legacy healthcare plans ended with the passage of obamacare. Now the cheapest policy I can get is nearly $700.00 My home mortgage payments are less then that. And I cannot expect any benefit in any given coverage year until I have spent $6000.00 for healthcare. Had I agreed to that, I would be in the same fix you are in. I opted for enrolling in Veterans Healthcare and I am eligible for medicare in a little over 3 years. Both of those systems suck.
Click to expand...

well, i'm glad that you had options. the VA system needs some work, like spending money there instead of on new wars. i hope that your experience with medicare is better.

ObamacareFail said:
However to make it workable for those who are not wealthy, they had to sign up for additional coverage by way of medicare advantage plans....that they have to pay for. We pay into medicare for all of our working lives. Therefore why should we have to cough up a couple hundred dollars or more to make it more like private healthcare?
Click to expand...

yeah, i think Medicare should just cover all of it.
 
jaeger19 said:
And its not the utopia that your side wants to pretend either. The Canadian system has struggled with waiting times for things like specialists and MRI's
Click to expand...

it seems to work pretty well, actually. if there's a serious wait, they pay for care in the US. sure, every system could be improved, but ours really needs improvement.



jaeger19 said:
That's because Medicare is awesome as far as its coverage. That's why medicare costs WAY WAY WAY more than any other public system. Something that your side seems to forget to look at. Think about it man. Why does America spend so much? Who is it being spent ON? You think most medical costs are by younger, healthier folks? NO its by older folks on medicare... thing about it. And so when you are comparing other countries costs.. and our costs.. a whole bunch of medicare equates to that higher price tag.

Sooo.. if medicare were administered to get the SAME COSTS.. as say the UK... then it would have to operate with a TON less money. Which means, things like longer wait times, not getting to choose your physician etc... and even THEN its completely improbable that we could contain our costs more because we are in general less healthy than even the brits. ..

The devil is really in the details.. and your side doesn't want to look at the details any more than the radical right wing wants to look at the details.

The right wing things that we occupy a large swath of the middle east for decades with no cost or repercussion..

And the left wing thinks that we can simply switch to a UK type system and cut billions from the healthcare field without any costs or repercussions.

In neither case does the ideology deal with the facts and realities.
Click to expand...

i didn't argue to nationalize the entire system like the UK, but i think we should look at their system and see if they are doing anything better than we are. i am more of a fan of single payer systems like Canada.

i'm not against looking at what other nations are doing and then taking the best part of each one. our largely employer based health care system needs to be phased out, though. it is a huge cost for a business, and your employer should not be your primary gateway to health care anyway.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Without intending to....you are misquoting me. I have never suggested that healthcare cannot be fixed. Reform was and is needed. We just disagree on the solutions. Having been on this earth long enough to remember very affordable and efficient private sector healthcare, I believe the best solution is to return to what we once had....a competitive healthcare market. The modern high costs of healthcare in the US are solely due to mostly misguided government tinkering with the healthcare system....as well as an out of control jackpot justice system. I understand your fears of what any possible catastrophic health malady may do to your finances. I have had the same fears under the VA Healthcare system and upcoming medicare eligibility. Yes...the cost is less...however if something catastrophic occurs, there is still much that is not covered. And there is no single payer system on the planet that pays your salary or wages while you are unable to work and earn a living.
Click to expand...

we tinkered with the system because a lot of people were falling through the cracks. it's the same reason every other first world country has had to do stuff like that, and the reason is that health care is an essential serve with inelastic demand in which geography is a significant variable.
 
Helix said:
it seems to work pretty well, actually. if there's a serious wait, they pay for care in the US. sure, every system could be improved, but ours really needs improvement.





i didn't argue to nationalize the entire system like the UK, but i think we should look at their system and see if they are doing anything better than we are. i am more of a fan of single payer systems like Canada.

i'm not against looking at what other nations are doing and then taking the best part of each one. our largely employer based health care system needs to be phased out, though. it is a huge cost for a business, and your employer should not be your primary gateway to health care anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the argument much, anyway.

Employers compensate employees as little as they possibly can. Fast food restaurants have spent a lot of money to make their employees completely disposable. They will tend to get the cheapest health care they possibly can.

Do you trust your employer's "death panels" more than the governments? There's always so much complaining about how the government spends so much- why is having your employer have this heavy tax tied to reimbursement, a tax that increases faster than inflation, a good idea?

It seems obvious that every other country is doing health care better than we are. Despite jaeger's contentions to the contrary, it's abundantly clear. When my friend from Belgium described his first experience in an ER in the US, he said it felt like he stepped into the middle ages.
 
ObamacareFail said:
:lamo:lamo:damn
Click to expand...

Is that what you do when you can't actually refute a statement with facts? You just bluster and swear?

Ahh, now, now. I know. It's tough to be a conservative and not have the facts on your side. Stupid facts.

From 1970 to 2009, Medicare spending per beneficiary grew by an average of 1 percentage point less each year than comparable private insurance premiums. Between 2000 and 2009, Medicare’s cost advantage was even larger – its spending per beneficiary grew at an average annual rate of 5.1 percent while per-capita premiums for private health insurance plans grew at 7.2 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Click to expand...

ObamacareFail said:
I don't buy it. You need to do better then editorial type articles.
Click to expand...
There he goes again! The first "editorial type article" actually was all about a study by the Annals of Internal Medicine. But actually reading that and making sense of it would hurt your little conservative brain too much.

There, there. Go back to watching Fox "News."

You'll feel all better in no time at all!
 
Helix said:
yeah, i love that argument. as if cost doesn't already "limit usage" in the US. private insurance never "limits usage," either, i'm sure. regardless, most other first world countries have longer lifespans and the same or better outcomes when it comes to treating diseases.
Click to expand...

Here's the start of an 8-part NYT piece on my point. We pay more for things we don't need simply because we can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/h...ld-in-health-expenditures.html?pagewanted=all

Only way to stop it is to limit usage or start advertising how much each procedure costs upfront. University Hospitals here in Cleveland will start doing that in the next 12-18 months. Its a reaction to more and more companies shifting to HSA high deductible plans, which I think is the best thing that's come out of the ACA. They will start advertising how their procedures are cheaper than the Cleveland Clinic to get more market share.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
For once Henrin, you've got it. It is.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what the term free market means? Industry in the US is heavily regulated and controlled by the US government. There is no such thing as the free market in the US even in cases of new industry.
 
Samhain said:
Here's the start of an 8-part NYT piece on my point. We pay more for things we don't need simply because we can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/h...ld-in-health-expenditures.html?pagewanted=all

Only way to stop it is to limit usage or start advertising how much each procedure costs upfront. University Hospitals here in Cleveland will start doing that in the next 12-18 months. Its a reaction to more and more companies shifting to HSA high deductible plans, which I think is the best thing that's come out of the ACA. They will start advertising how their procedures are cheaper than the Cleveland Clinic to get more market share.
Click to expand...

yeah, i'm not interested in a high deductible plan. i don't need an insurance plan that doesn't do **** until i hit six grand or whatever it is now. that will keep people away from the doctor so that they can keep the money, and then we'll be mostly be treating illnesses when they get really serious.

i do like the idea of advertising prices, though. when i cut my thumb, i asked two different people what it was going to cost. neither could even give me a range. had i known it was going to cost nearly two grand out of pocket for superglue and a tetanus shot, i might have just walked and taken my chances with keeping it dressed and hoping that i could get the bleeding to stop enough that i could wait until morning and drive to another town for urgent care.
 
Helix said:
yeah, i'm not interested in a high deductible plan. i don't need an insurance plan that doesn't do **** until i hit six grand or whatever it is now. that will keep people away from the doctor so that they can keep the money, and then we'll be mostly be treating illnesses when they get really serious.
Click to expand...
I've had the HSA high deductible plan for about 4 years now and have been quite happy. I've hit the 3 grand deductible 3 out of the 4 years thanks to emergency surgeries, fertility treatments, and my twins being born(yeah!). Doing the post-year calculations I still ended up ahead than if we picked the traditional higher premium/lower deductible plan.

The best part, though, is the tax deduction on my HSA contributions with complete rollover. We've now got the deductible covered for next year already by maxing out our contributions(about 4500 for me thanks to a 2000 employer contribution annually($6550 annual max family)). It rolls over every year and even premiums are qualifying expenses.


i do like the idea of advertising prices, though. when i cut my thumb, i asked two different people what it was going to cost. neither could even give me a range. had i known it was going to cost nearly two grand out of pocket for superglue and a tetanus shot, i might have just walked and taken my chances with keeping it dressed and hoping that i could get the bleeding to stop enough that i could wait until morning and drive to another town for urgent care.
Click to expand...

The advertising I think will really change the game. Hospitals, surgery centers, and primary care locales will be actively fighting for your business. Maybe they will even have coupons. ;)
 
Henrin said:
Do you even know what the term free market means? Industry in the US is heavily regulated and controlled by the US government. There is no such thing as the free market in the US even in cases of new industry.
Click to expand...

Name one successful free market economy.
 
like i said, other countries get the same or better results with the exception of a few areas for a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...

And as I point out.. that has to do with a lot of factors but notably our demographics and which are not going to change by simply adopting a UK style healthcare..

and i'm sure that you've considered that one of the reasons that our population is so generally unhealthy is because health care is so expensive and we have a general culture of avoiding it until it's absolutely necessary, right?
Click to expand...

Sure I 've considered it..and I reject it. Obesity which is a leading cause of costs isn't caused because you delayed seeing your doctor. Asthma from smoking isn't caused by you not seeing your doctor soon enough, Arthritis and repetitive use injuries from work are not caused by you not going to the doctor soon enough.

Sure..we could do better with preventative medicine in seeing patients before it gets so bad. You know which insurance companies are the worst for preventative medicine... that put the most barriers to getting care BEFORE it becomes expensive? The VA, Medicaid, and with Medicare following behind a couple of private insurance companies.

So you tell me again.. how when two of the government insurances are the worst for putting barriers to earlier care..... that this going to be better under a universal government system?

i'm not sure i support nationalizing the entire system like they did there. a Canadian-style system would probably be a better fit.
Click to expand...

You missed the point that the "fraction of cost" that you keep claiming that these countries pay is not accurate since they pick up medical costs in other ways... like paying for physician education.. which comes under education not "cost of healthcare".

so cover everyone's basic care like other countries do, and then we can treat them at much cheaper primary care facilities and give them greater access to less expensive preventative care
Click to expand...
.

Probably not.. because the government programs that we have now.. like Medicaid, and VA are terrible at granting access to less expensive preventative care. Its the problem with our culture. Even you. You are obsessed with "lower price" "Less cost"... and they way that currently the government reduces cost is by decreasing access to less expensive preventative care.

Look at the argument that I had with Threegoofs on one of the Obamacare posts regarding a patients family upset because their mother was sent home with a fractured shoulder and now she is doing poorly. They argue that it was appropriate to "keep costs down"... but as I point out.. that if admitting her prevents her from falling and fracturing a hip because she is unsteady from pain medication, or pain, or she is having some other problem which is why she fell.. then we come out ahead from a cost standpoint. but they can't understand that...and they are liberals that want universal healthcare.

So.. the reality is that if or when we go to the system that you suggest... we are going to find that it doesn't reduce any real cost... unless we seriously begin rationing care. The real problems with the costs of healthcare in this country have more to do with our culture.. than with our billing and reimbursement system.
 
Henrin said:
Do you even know what the term free market means? Industry in the US is heavily regulated and controlled by the US government. There is no such thing as the free market in the US even in cases of new industry.
Click to expand...
Yes I know what it means thank-you.
If you think the US is heavily regulated you need to get out and see the world young man.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Yes I know what it means thank-you.
If you think the US is heavily regulated you need to get out and see the world young man.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you were wrong and now you're picking on my word choice on a different matter. I really can't find anything in the US that isn't regulated, but I'm sure Europe has an even bigger problem with it than we do.
 
Henrin said:
Ok, so you were wrong and now you're picking on my word choice on a different matter. I really can't find anything in the US that isn't regulated, but I'm sure Europe has an even bigger problem with it than we do.
Click to expand...

Henrin why don't you just go back to being sexist. You were good at that.

Or otherwise, explain to us with concrete examples exctly how the US capitalist system is so "regulated" as you say, compared to social democratic, socialist and communist systems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom