People who want Public Health Care. BEWARE!

political_debater · Jul 17, 2009

For people who keep arguing that Obama isn't gonna nationalize and just have a public insurance option while others can keep there there private insurance. They just basically lied about it, you know why I say say this? They just found out that in the reform bill, they would actually MAKE PRIVATE INSURANCE ILLEGAL, I'm not lying, it's in the bill. What they say is we'll keep our private insurance but make the newer companies illegal. I don't see how this ain't gonna transform it into a single-payer insurance. WHAT THE HILLARY IS THIS SUPPOSE TO MEAN. We keep our own insurance but can't switch to another private one. I thought we were suppose to keep the private insurance company up, not make the other illegal?

metreon · Jul 17, 2009

political_debater said:
For people who keep arguing that Obama isn't gonna nationalize and just have a public insurance option while others can keep there there private insurance. They just basically lied about it, you know why I say say this? They just found out that in the reform bill, they would actually MAKE PRIVATE INSURANCE ILLEGAL, I'm not lying, it's in the bill. What they say is we'll keep our private insurance but make the newer companies illegal. I don't see how this ain't gonna transform it into a single-payer insurance. WHAT THE HILLARY IS THIS SUPPOSE TO MEAN. We keep our own insurance but can't switch to another private one. I thought we were suppose to keep the private insurance company up, not make the other illegal?

And why is this a problem? As far as I can tell private insurance companies only want to insure those who need health care the least. Private incentives have been inherently opposed to what consumers need. Moreover the current unregulated free-market approach rations health care according to personal wealth rather than health need. How is that good health care? It's all backwards.

From what I have read, almost every country implementing some form of UHC has lower per capita health care costs, - nearly half that of the U.S. I don't know about you, but lower health care costs and certain access when I need it sounds a lot better than the current private system.

The research I seen on waiting times in public systems doesn't sound that big of deal either, since I've heard of people dying in US hospitals waiting, and waiting, and waiting ... simply because they don't have insurance. Moreover, the very fact Congressional Republicans have been shown to have repeatedly lied about waiting times simply proves to me it is a non-issue. For example the other day, Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, made an impassioned claim that the waiting time for a knee replacement at Kingston General in Ontario was an average of 341 days. Fact-checking elves immediately raced out to Kingston General to directly ask the Chief of Staff if it was true, - the hospital admin shook his head and said it was only 91 days on average. The Senate minority leader: busted.

Now I personally would like to see some combo system, mostly public, but additionally a small private market for those who are both too hypochondriac and too wealthy to wait even a second for treatment. Basically, a convenience market. But leave health care mostly to the public sector where it can ensure health care is given according to health need rather than ability to pay.

I don't have any illusions about the possible cost of changing a system though. I am sure there will be transition costs as a new process is implemented which might make the change-over seem less worthwhile, but that IMO is to be expected. It is already illegal for hospitals to deny critical care on the basis of ability to pay. It only makes sense to fully realize that existing ethical mandate and transform it into a consistent policy for everyone.

political_debater · Jul 17, 2009

metreon said:
And why is this a problem? As far as I can tell private insurance companies only want to insure those who need health care the least. Private incentives have been inherently opposed to what consumers need. Moreover the current unregulated free-market approach rations health care according to personal wealth rather than health need. How is that good health care? It's all backwards.

This contradicts the dem statists that say they'll only put a public option to compete with the private, not make it illegal.

Insurance prices are HIGH(like you, aswell) for alot of reasons, one being the government regulating of companies that do exist, and this ain't free-market practice. And not to mention the government fully controls Medicare, Medicaid and Social-Security that everybody can go to for free care.. OH.. TOO SOON?

metreon said:
From what I have read, almost every country implementing some form of UHC has lower per capita health care costs, - nearly half that of the U.S. I don't know about you, but lower health care costs and certain access when I need it sounds a lot better than the current private system.

Well, your right, CANADIANS DO PAY when they come here for better care.

People also pay alot of money for unnecessary care, aswell such when they can afford to get treated for abusing there body like smoking, chewing tobacco, not eating healthy(hey, this the U.S.) and not taking care of themselves which bumps alot of the price up. This is the richest country in the world.

metreon said:
The research I seen on waiting times in public systems doesn't sound that big of deal either, since I've heard of people dying in US hospitals waiting, and waiting, and waiting ... simply because they don't have insurance. Moreover, the very fact Congressional Republicans have been shown to have repeatedly lied about waiting times simply proves to me it is a non-issue. For example the other day, Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, made an impassioned claim that the waiting time for a knee replacement at Kingston General in Ontario was an average of 341 days. Fact-checking elves immediately raced out to Kingston General to directly ask the Chief of Staff if it was true, - the hospital admin shook his head and said it was only 91 days on average. The Senate minority leader: busted.

You hear about people dying, siolely because of our system?

There's alot of stories of people waiting in lines and developed preventable cancer in other countries.

website Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care
Myth No. 7: The U.S. systems also engages in rationing - 18,000 people die each year due to lack of insurance.

There's alot of stories of people waiting in lines and developed preventable cancer in other countries.

According to PNHP, "Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can't, you don't. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance."

The Institute of Medicine study purporting to show that 18,000 people die each year due to a lack of health insurance is actually a "meta-analysis," a study that summarizes the results of other studies. Yet many of the studies the Institute relied on have some rather odd results. One study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women with private insurance were more likely to survive breast cancer than those uninsured. However, data in the study also showed that those who were uninsured had a higher survival rate than women covered by Medicaid. This suggests that factors other than health insurance, like education and income, were at play in determining breast cancer survival.

Furthermore, everyone in the U.S. can get care regardless of income. In 1986 the U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This requires emergency rooms to treat any person who shows up seeking medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay

metreon said:
Now I personally would like to see some combo system, mostly public, but additionally a small private market for those who are both too hypochondriac and too wealthy to wait even a second for treatment. Basically, a convenience market. But leave health care mostly to the public sector where it can ensure health care is given according to health need rather than ability to pay.

One, got to Canada if you wanna see a public system, or look at Medicaid and Medicare although you probably don't use them much and I don't blame you.

Canada is operating illegal private clinics, and one province(Quebec, I think) ruled it uncostitutional to ban private insurance an order to avoid public outcry.

Two, they don't want us to have private insurance, just let us keep ours until it wears out and they can control everything else, including who live and who die due to limitations.

metreon said:
I don't have any illusions about the possible cost of changing a system though. I am sure there will be transition costs as a new process is implemented which might make the change-over seem less worthwhile, but that IMO is to be expected. It is already illegal for hospitals to deny critical care on the basis of ability to pay. It only makes sense to fully realize that existing ethical mandate and transform it into a consistent policy for everyone.

Sometimes it might be cheap, then again, it ain't healthcare they really give you, just crappy limitations of what you have.

They have Medicaid,Medicare and Social-Security that are all going bankrupt and burden on the health care don't need to nationalize.

look at this site and see what you think about public healthcare.
Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

And watch this video of two women and a tran-sexual named Suan Gapka who got it for free(OH, I mean out of taxpayers).
YouTube - Two Women

And about the uninsured.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNk&feature=channel_page"]YouTube - Uninsured In America[/ame]

justone · Jul 17, 2009

metreon said:
And why is this a problem? As far as I can tell private insurance companies only want to insure those who need health care the least.

You assumption is wrong. You pay according to your needs. If you are the least to need health care you practically pay nothing. If you are in the most need you most likely don’t pay at all.

metreon said:
Private incentives have been inherently opposed to what consumers need. Moreover the current unregulated free-market approach rations health care

You assumption is wrong: the current approach is no free-market, it is not unregulated but it is overregulated.

The further you post goes on the more you show that you are posting a piece of brainwashing propaganda having nothing to do to reality.

The bottom line:

The present system has problems:

You have to list them correctly:
1.
2.
3.
4.
.
.
.
n

Then have to provide the best solution for each.

Since you have your list backwards, it is guaranteed you are offering a backward solution.

In overall you help Obama to pump up hysterics and cause panic in this country so nobody would be able to think and reason.

You deserve no more attention than bots coming from Russia with no love or BBC “news” about Russia.

Now get of the floor and clean yourself, your theater is pathetic.

political_debater · Jul 17, 2009

justone said:
You assumption is wrong. You pay according to your needs. If you are the least to need health care you practically pay nothing. If you are in the most need you most likely don’t pay at all.

It's illegal for a clinic or hospital to turn someone down because of ones inability to pay, and if you can prove this, then report it and they'll get in trouble. Otherwise, wise there's not much of that.

justone said:
Private incentives have been inherently opposed to what consumers need. Moreover the current unregulated free-market approach rations health care

Canada rations care!

justone said:
You assumption is wrong: the current approach is no free-market, it is not unregulated but it is over regulated.

The further you post goes on the more you show that you are posting a piece of brainwashing propaganda having nothing to do to reality.

Watch this video about why Healthcare insurance is high and a solution to solve it starring John Stossel it's 6-parts and show me what you think about how the insurance companies work and Public care compared.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I"]YouTube - John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 1 (of 6)[/ame]

Being denied care? How do you explain cancer survival rates in the U.S. and why do Canadians come over her?

Kinda of unique that we have the highest cancer survival rate, especially a population of 300 million.

http://seekerblog.com/archives/20070914/where-are-the-best-cancer-survival-rates/

Donc · Jul 18, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, naturally, the question of cancer, and the relative survival rates of sufferers between those nations with "healthcare" and the United States has no place in any discussion of ...um..."healthcare", since those nations already suffering under "healthcare" die more often when they make the mistake of getting sick.

We can't discuss that, or you'll get unhappy

.

Sure lets discuss it shall we? Let’s talk about the poor soul that cant afford to get his prostate examined despite the fact that he has to get up three times in the middle of the night because of an enlarged prostate and take a piss.

Let’s talk about the fact if he scores enough dough for an exam, he can’t afford the flomax the doc prescribed for his enlarged prostate.

Let’s talk about the fact of if the Doc. found that he didn’t have an enlarged prostate and wanted to refer him to an urologist for a biopsy, at around $2000 or $3000.

Lets deflect all of this to cancer so we don’t have to talk about the rest of the industrialized world out living us at an average of three years in spite of us spending 17% of our gdp on healthcare, plus for a bonus we get to have the highest infant mortality rate of the industrialized world.

Of course that's right. Medicaid isn't a "healthcare" system, it's a system intented to provide for the care of people who don't have "healthcare"...that it's run by the same people who want to jam "healthcare" down our throats isn't important, no, not at all.

Ok, what do you want to talk about on Medicaid? Bang for the buck? I was hoping to narrow him down a bit with that snark, he appears to have a tendency to slap up a bunch of links rather than discuss something but if you want to discuss Medicaid in addition to the other subjects have at it.

Yes, dead babies have nothing to do with "healthcare".

Go back and look, that was settled as for as I was concerned with life expectancy.

justone · Jul 18, 2009

political_debater , being quite puzzled I reread and I found I misplaced [/quote] once, but beyond that mistypo I wouldn’t even know or understand what are your arguments against my points. ....still puzzled...

political_debater · Jul 18, 2009

donc said:
.

Sure lets discuss it shall we? Let’s talk about the poor soul that cant afford to get his prostate examined despite the fact that he has to get up three times in the middle of the night because of an enlarged prostate and take a piss.

Let’s talk about the fact if he scores enough dough for an exam, he can’t afford the flomax the doc prescribed for his enlarged prostate.

Let’s talk about the fact of if the Doc. found that he didn’t have an enlarged prostate and wanted to refer him to an urologist for a biopsy, at around $2000 or $3000.

I think if he's poor he should go to Medicaid for poor people or ask a non-profit organization to take him to Canada to get it.

donc said:
.Lets deflect all of this to cancer so we don’t have to talk about the rest of the industrialized world out living us at an average of three years in spite of us spending 17% of our gdp on healthcare, plus for a bonus we get to have the highest infant mortality rate of the industrialized world.

Again, I I've repeated those are innacurate statistics.

This is more like it.
Myth No. 6: on Life Expectancy and Infant mortality.

Most single-payer advocates point to life expectancy and infant mortality as evidence that single-payer systems produce better health outcomes than the U.S. And, indeed, the U.S. has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than many nations with a single-payer system.

The problem is that life expectancy and infant mortality tell us very little about the quality of a health care system. Life expectancy is determined by a host of factors over which a health care system has little control, such as genetics, crime rate, gross domestic product per capita, diet, sanitation, and literacy rate.

The primary reason is that the U.S. has lower life expectancy is that we are ethnically a far more diverse nation than most other industrialized nations. Factors associated with different ethnic backgrounds -- culture, diet, etc. -- can have a substantial impact on life expectancy.

A good deal of the lower life expectancy rate in the U.S. is accounted for by the difference in life expectancy of African-Americans versus other populations in the United States. Life expectancy for African-Americans is about 72.3 years, while for whites it is about 77.7 years. What accounts for the difference? Numerous scholars have investigated this question. The most prevalent explanations are differences in income and personal risk factors. For example, one study found that about one-third of the difference between white and African-American life expectancies in the United States was accounted for by income; another third was accounted for by personal risk factors such as obesity, blood pressure, alcohol intake, diabetes, cholesterol concentration, and smoking and the final third was due to unexplained factors.

Infant mortality is also impacted by many of the same factors that affect life expectancy -- genetics, GDP per capita, diet, etc. -- all of which are factors beyond the control of a health care system. Another factor that makes U.S. infant mortality rates higher than other nations is that we have far more pregnant women living alone; in other nations pregnant women are more likely to be either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own.

Perhaps the biggest drawback of infant mortality is that it is measured too inconsistently across nations to be a useful measure. Under United Nations' guidelines, countries are supposed to count any infant showing any sign of life as a "live birth." While the United States follows that guideline, many other nations do not. For example, Switzerland does not count any infant born measuring less than 12 inches, while France and Belgium do not count any infant born prior to 26 weeks. In short, many other nations exclude many high-risk infants from their infant mortality statistics, making their infant mortality numbers look better than they really are.

In areas where a health care system does have an impact, such as treating disease, the U.S. outperforms single-payer systems. For example, the U.S. has a higher five-year survival rate for victims of heart attacks than Canada, due to the fact that we do more bypass surgeries and angioplasties in the U.S. Hospitals in the U.S. also commit fewer errors than hospitals in countries with single-payer systems like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

donc said:
Ok, what do you want to talk about on Medicaid? Bang for the buck? I was hoping to narrow him down a bit with that snark, he appears to have a tendency to slap up a bunch of links rather than discuss something but if you want to discuss Medicaid in addition to the other subjects have at it.

It's just that Medicaid is free because it's owned by the government and people can go get treated there instead of nationalizing the health care system, instead of you destroying our healthcare system like a bunch locusts.

Stay as concerned as you want, those are not health care statistics

political_debater · Jul 18, 2009

justone said:
political_debater , being quite puzzled I reread and I found I misplaced once, but beyond that mistypo I wouldn’t even know or understand what are your arguments against my points. ....still puzzled...

My point is you hipocriples don't ever go to Medicaid or go to a campaign of non-profit organizations to help you go somewhere else like Canada to have insurance to get a band-aid for a cut.

I have an aunt who was born a family of people with heart disease and her sister didn't have insurance she got care, my uncle was part of campaign(special place for people with cancer or disease) for donations if not always health insurance or other people to support an order to get surgery.

The truth is you don't always need insurance to get treatment, illegals get it all the time and alot of them don't have health insurance.

Donc · Jul 18, 2009

=Scarecrow Akhbar;1058142347]Nope, no coincidence at all.

Of Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States, which have more than 10% of their population illegally entered into the country from an illiterate peasant nation sharing their southern border?

Answer: Only the United States.

That's going to affect mortality in a negative way.

How can an illegal entering our country affect our mortality rate? 34% of our legal Latinos don’t have healthcare, it stands to reason the ones that enter the country illegally don’t have it. Are you saying that they come here and work themselves to death?

Of those four countries, which has developed a significant cultural trend towards obesity caused by an exceptionally sedentary lifestyle? The United States. How would "healthcare", ie hospital care and direct intervention by medical staff, lengthen the lives of people who won't get up to exercise?

Answer: It won't.

So, where are they going to get the healtcare that they surely will need in the future?Emergency rooms of course.

Of those four countries, which has the most males are dying from crime related causes, from drug abuse, and from other examples of plain stupidity?

Answer: The United States.

"Healthcare" won't fix that, either.

Sixteen thousand murders, in a nation of three hundred plus million wouldn’t affect the discrepancy in the “Life expectancy at birth”.

Question:

What responsibility does the man who has income and takes care of his family and his own medical issues himself have towards the support of those who don't have a job or who won't take care of themselves?

Answer: Not a damn thing, they can die and it shouldn't affect him at all.

It will save money over time if we have a healthier nation.

Donc · Jul 18, 2009

political_debater said:
I think if he's poor he should go to Medicaid for poor people or ask a non-profit organization to take him to Canada to get it.

Again, I I've repeated those are innacurate statistics.

This is more like it.
Myth No. 6: on Life Expectancy and Infant mortality.

Most single-payer advocates point to life expectancy and infant mortality as evidence that single-payer systems produce better health outcomes than the U.S. And, indeed, the U.S. has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than many nations with a single-payer system.

The problem is that life expectancy and infant mortality tell us very little about the quality of a health care system. Life expectancy is determined by a host of factors over which a health care system has little control, such as genetics, crime rate, gross domestic product per capita, diet, sanitation, and literacy rate.

The primary reason is that the U.S. has lower life expectancy is that we are ethnically a far more diverse nation than most other industrialized nations. Factors associated with different ethnic backgrounds -- culture, diet, etc. -- can have a substantial impact on life expectancy.

A good deal of the lower life expectancy rate in the U.S. is accounted for by the difference in life expectancy of African-Americans versus other populations in the United States. Life expectancy for African-Americans is about 72.3 years, while for whites it is about 77.7 years. What accounts for the difference? Numerous scholars have investigated this question. The most prevalent explanations are differences in income and personal risk factors. For example, one study found that about one-third of the difference between white and African-American life expectancies in the United States was accounted for by income; another third was accounted for by personal risk factors such as obesity, blood pressure, alcohol intake, diabetes, cholesterol concentration, and smoking and the final third was due to unexplained factors.

Infant mortality is also impacted by many of the same factors that affect life expectancy -- genetics, GDP per capita, diet, etc. -- all of which are factors beyond the control of a health care system. Another factor that makes U.S. infant mortality rates higher than other nations is that we have far more pregnant women living alone; in other nations pregnant women are more likely to be either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own.

Perhaps the biggest drawback of infant mortality is that it is measured too inconsistently across nations to be a useful measure. Under United Nations' guidelines, countries are supposed to count any infant showing any sign of life as a "live birth." While the United States follows that guideline, many other nations do not. For example, Switzerland does not count any infant born measuring less than 12 inches, while France and Belgium do not count any infant born prior to 26 weeks. In short, many other nations exclude many high-risk infants from their infant mortality statistics, making their infant mortality numbers look better than they really are.

In areas where a health care system does have an impact, such as treating disease, the U.S. outperforms single-payer systems. For example, the U.S. has a higher five-year survival rate for victims of heart attacks than Canada, due to the fact that we do more bypass surgeries and angioplasties in the U.S. Hospitals in the U.S. also commit fewer errors than hospitals in countries with single-payer systems like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

It's just that Medicaid is free because it's owned by the government and people can go get treated there instead of nationalizing the health care system, instead of you destroying our healthcare system like a bunch locusts.

Stay as concerned as you want, those are not health care statistics

Is that all you have it cut and paste?any original thoughts in the ole dome?

Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

political_debater · Jul 18, 2009

donc said:
Is that all you have it cut and paste?any original thoughts in the ole dome?

Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

When Canadians come to the U.S for healthcare, is this all you can say "..?.."

When we have a higher cancer survival rate, is this all you can say "..?.."

When I mention Medicaid, Medicare and Social-Security being government owned but no ever goes there and is going bankrupt, is this all you can say "..?.."

When I say there's more to life and infant expectancy, is this all you can say "..?.."

When I suggest you find a non-profit org(and there everywhere and talk about health care) to go to another country for cheap surgery or go the emergency room to get the treatment, is this all you can say "..?.."

When I say it's illegal to turn someone down based on there cost and you never see anyone getting in trouble for doing that because we would know it alot if it happens, but is this all you can say "..?.."

We need government healthcare for control, because of life and infant expctancy and for more control and uninsured for even more control, because that's all they can say.

metreon · Jul 18, 2009

political_debater and justone said:
metreon said:

And why is this a problem? As far as I can tell private insurance companies only want to insure those who need health care the least. Private incentives have been inherently opposed to what consumers need. Moreover the current unregulated free-market approach rations health care according to personal wealth rather than health need. How is that good health care? It's all backwards.

Click to expand...

(1)

political_debater said:

This contradicts the dem statists that say they'll only put a public option to compete with the private, not make it illegal.

Insurance prices are HIGH(like you, aswell) for alot of reasons, one being the government regulating of companies that do exist, and this ain't free-market practice. And not to mention the government fully controls Medicare, Medicaid and Social-Security that everybody can go to for free care.. OH.. TOO SOON?

Click to expand...

(2)

justone said:

You assumption is wrong. You pay according to your needs. If you are the least to need health care you practically pay nothing. If you are in the most need you most likely don’t pay at all.

Click to expand...

(1) I am not sure how 'Dem' promises have anything to do with my statement, since I have no particular political affiliation here. My only purpose was to state my general perspective, not to defend what is actually on the table in Congress now. That is why I subsequently suggested what I thought would be the better system. So at best this particular statement of yours was irrelevant.

As for the other part of political_debater's ramble, he didn't have much of a counter point since all he did is contradict with zero to back up his claims. The only thing political_debater objectively states is that he believes current "regulation" of the insurance industry is somehow to blame for its failures. If you think you had a valid argument to blame healthcare costs on regulation, why didn't you even attempt to clarify your position? I see no evidence that government regulations are what drove insurance companies to (1) deny prior conditions, (2) create byzantine legal contracts that make it easy to exclude coverage at the whim of insurance adjusters, (3) create insurance contracts with co-pays so high that increasing numbers of people can not afford even that. Instead of making health care accessible, insurance companies strive to make it inaccessible, - that is by definition, rationing. That is how they compete. If they can pay out less than the next company while collecting similar premiums, then they are more profitable. Therefore profit motive drove them into this form of rationing, not government regulation.

Moreover, political_debaters dubious assertions are obvious elsewhere: not "everyone" who can't afford insurance can get into a Medicaid program, and Medicare is for those over 65. There are 47+ million who are uninsured in this country who are under 65 and within the adult population. Most of those are uninsured because they can not afford it. Moreover, there are many more who are underinsured. Therefore by definition you are again, wrong.

(2) Justone, my assumption is that ability to pay is what determines access. That is the default system we have, by definition. Your reply is also somewhat contradictory since, those "in the most need don't pay at all" leaves implicit the rest of the story: those in "most need" don't pay because they mostly go without healthcare, some receive samaritan aid, but most don't and therefore you end up falsifying your own counterpoint. Moreover, it is well known private hospitals attempt to skirt ethics laws that mandate critical care according to need. That is what "patient dumping" is all about" and why uninsured people have higher mortality rates than insured for the same problems even within the same hospital.

political_debater said:
metreon said:

From what I have read, almost every country implementing some form of UHC has lower per capita health care costs, - nearly half that of the U.S. I don't know about you, but lower health care costs and certain access when I need it sounds a lot better than the current private system.

Click to expand...

Well, your right, CANADIANS DO PAY when they come here for better care.

People also pay alot of money for unnecessary care, aswell such when they can afford to get treated for abusing there body like smoking, chewing tobacco, not eating healthy(hey, this the U.S.) and not taking care of themselves which bumps alot of the price up. This is the richest country in the world.

More Americans leave the US seeking treatment than Canadians enter the US seeking treatment. It's called "medical tourism" and the tide is mostly flowing out, not in. Current estimates which only count people actually enrolled in medical tourism programs run anywhere between 100,000 and up. Many more are uncounted simply because they hear how cheap it is and go by themselves and get work done without reporting it. Ask any doctor or dentist and they can tell you they see it very frequently. So your lone "canadian" is the exception, not the rule. People are leaving because they can't afford it anymore, and that is bad for their health, and consequently bad for the overall health of the country, (not to mention it takes more dollars out of the country).

Even if one were to accept your hypothesis, your facts as usual, are wrong. Obesity rates among western industrialized countries are very similar today, and I read that the US rate was recently surpassed in some places in Britain and Germany. Moreover, the absolute wealth of the country is irrelevant to your hypothesis, since it would be far more important to know what disposable income individuals have to abuse to get fat, in other words, the per capita income. The U.S. is 4th to 8th in per capita income depending on the source, so therefore your attempt at analytical debate fails again.

metreon · Jul 18, 2009

political_debater said:
metreon said:

The research I seen on waiting times in public systems doesn't sound that big of deal either, since I've heard of people dying in US hospitals waiting, and waiting, and waiting ... simply because they don't have insurance. Moreover, the very fact Congressional Republicans have been shown to have repeatedly lied about waiting times simply proves to me it is a non-issue. For example the other day, Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, made an impassioned claim that the waiting time for a knee replacement at Kingston General in Ontario was an average of 341 days. Fact-checking elves immediately raced out to Kingston General to directly ask the Chief of Staff if it was true, - the hospital admin shook his head and said it was only 91 days on average. The Senate minority leader: busted.

Click to expand...

You hear about people dying, siolely because of our system? There's alot of stories of people waiting in lines and developed preventable cancer in other countries. website Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care
Myth No. 7: The U.S. systems also engages in rationing - 18,000 people die each year due to lack of insurance. ... According to PNHP, "Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can't, you don't. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance."

The Institute of Medicine study purporting to show that 18,000 people die each year due to a lack of health insurance is ... a "meta-analysis," ... Yet many of the studies the Institute relied on have some rather odd results. One study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women with private insurance were more likely to survive breast cancer than those uninsured. However, data in the study also showed that those who were uninsured had a higher survival rate than women covered by Medicaid. This suggests that factors other than health insurance, like education and income, were at play in determining breast cancer survival.

Furthermore, everyone in the U.S. can get care regardless of income. In 1986 the U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This requires emergency rooms to treat any person who shows up seeking medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.

Well let's see, so far the Republican Senate leader was caught fabricating data. That is not a promising start to raise confidence in your sources. There are many stories of people in the US dying waiting for cancer treatment, organ transplantation, and so on, too. Anecdotal stories abound. And most of the "horror stories" opposed to public health legislation are paid-for nonsense from the medical insurance industry. How do I know this? Last week on Bill Moyer's Journal, Wendell Potter, the retired Corporate Chief of Communications at Cigna, admitted it. He even brought in documents to back up his claims, battle plans for deceiving the public. Here is an excerpt:

"Strategy 2: Tactics and Timeline
1. Highlight horror stories of government run systems
Conduct aggressive national and regional media outreach to
ensure that allies are inserted into the coverage around the
policy debate so that an alternative view is represented in
the article.
2. Create and ad that would show Democrats the likely response to
a singlepayer proposal. Float the ad on the internet
and encourage conservatives to donate..."

He further went on to say they used lobbyists to threaten lawmakers by running negative ads in that person's home district when they are running for reelection, and by not contributing to compaigns or contributing to competitors. He said their policy was to make it so Democrats understand that embracing reform "is a oneway ticket back to minority status." Insurance companies then feed their fabrications to Republicans, like the minority Senate leader. And perhaps to people like you, political_debater.

Now, let's look at your specific rebuttal. Basically, you say "other factors" besides insurance status are to blame for the more frequent deaths in the U.S. No one will deny there are complex reasons for life or death in any given individual, but isn't the whole point of health care reform to help overcome the problems of "education and income", the two factors you cited as a reason to abandon reform? Those I know in public health indicate the problem of low income is less utilization of health services which would provide an early intervention for things like cancer, and lack of education implies a lack of health knowledge as well. Aggressive preventative treatments, including community outreach and education programs, are not standard in the current system. Increasingly such programs are coming into existence, but I doubt they were in place or routine when the studies were done. So it's hardly surprising the presence of Medicaid does not ensure a better outcome. More significantly, the difference in outcome between insured and uninsured (or Medicare) is far different than between insured and those on Medicare. There is no comparison.

Supporting that are related studies showing people on Medicaid are diagnosed much later with cancer than insured, so they are not much better off than the uninsured to begin with (they also examined a broader selection of cancer types). Easy cashless access goes a long way to dispelling people's hesitancy in seeing a doctor in the first place, especially for the poor. The poor would rather play roulette with themselves then be subjected to the uncertainty of financial-legal problems stemming from an unpayable doctor's bill. That fear would not exist if access was known to be unfettered with insurance-wrangling, exclusions, copays, endless unexpected itemizations, and other bureaucratic headaches currently looming over every patient seeking treatment.

Their last statement, "everyone in the U.S. can get care regardless of income", is simply untrue. There is a legal mandate for emergency care, but hospitals have found plenty of leeway in getting around the law, through patient "dumping" and other such tactics. Also, other studies of insured and uninsured populations which do a better job at controlling for those "other factors", also show higher rate of mortality among uninsured vs. insured for such emergency care. (As in the first link). And of course, emergency treatment is usually treatment too late for many chronic diseases which otherwise would have been intercepted at an earlier, much more treatable stage.

metreon · Jul 18, 2009

political_debater said:
metreon said:

Now I personally would like to see some combo system, mostly public, but additionally a small private market for those who are both too hypochondriac and too wealthy to wait even a second for treatment. Basically, a convenience market. But leave health care mostly to the public sector where it can ensure health care is given according to health need rather than ability to pay.

Click to expand...

One, got to Canada if you wanna see a public system, or look at Medicaid and Medicare although you probably don't use them much and I don't blame you.

Canada is operating illegal private clinics, and one province(Quebec, I think) ruled it uncostitutional to ban private insurance an order to avoid public outcry.

Two, they don't want us to have private insurance, just let us keep ours until it wears out and they can control everything else, including who live and who die due to limitations.

As a practitioner I am very familiar with the limitations of the existing welfare programs, which is why ultimately I would want to see a migration from procedure-based reimbursements to some more wellness-based standard. I question patients from around the world all the time, and have done so for years, so I know exactly what their feeling is for their health care in their home countries, and you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. The vast majority range from being indifferent to being appalled at the way health care is conducted in this country. Very few really like the hassles. Various public surveys over the years support my own observation as well. Most in UHC countries report high satisfaction with their health service, while a minority in the U.S. can be said to claim the same.

As for the rump of your statement, I have seen all those inane videos from ideologues like Stuart Browning, and it was precisely because of their absurd conclusions that I did my own research and came to the conclusions that I have now. What is even more hilarious, the video you have posted here, your own source, even has a testimony from a Devon Herrick at NCPA stating, "studies have found the uninsured get about 50-60% as much care as someone who is insured. We spend more than $1000 for every [uninsured] man, woman, and child on charity care". Not only are we haphazardly spending large amounts of money on the uninsured, raising costs anyway, but the uninsured are not even getting good care, and the mortality differences bear that out. Many of those "free clinics" mentioned in the video also suck funds from local or state sources, raising taxes in those locations. All of the inconsistent, haphazard occurances of free care would be unnecessary with comprehensive national care. Also, the free clinics are not for everyone, usually they have strict poverty guidelines, acceptance is by screening. Worse, the poor often never find out those free clinics even exist. I happen to volunteer time at one so I know. The video you provided is the most convincing evidence yet for my argument.

political_debater · Jul 18, 2009

donc said:
If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government -- which they say can't run anything -- suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical." President Obama

Besides, wouldn't there be a huge outcry if that many who are uninsured, wouldn't there be rallies of families friends and people's have died because of that, I mean 16% is alot.

I mean, a judge in one of the provinces of Canada ruled banning private-health insured and care unconstitutional an order to avoid immense outcry of people using it.

Well, one: government can't run any business, just control.

I just figured this out. It's actually government-run entities like Medicaid, Medicare and Social-Security that actually partly make Insurance prices rise that and stupid lawsuits. You know why, because they run as an unfair competition(which is actually fair because they TAX insurance companies alot rather than make a profit to compete) which makes Insurance companies compare competition by raising prices, this is only part there's alot of others, aswell. Not very many people pay too much to Medicaid, anyways, apparently.

If Obama does put a so-called public option it would run the other insurance companies out of business, because alot of people will join the public option because it's free(not because they can't afford, because it's free and it's there)You could probably afford something but if that something is free, like a skate-board you would probably, the was a lady who did that and stop when she started getting taxed and realized in that from that documentary because she became wasteful and realize she started paying eventual, so part of it is no personal responsibility(no wonder they want government in there lives)

And ofcourse Public care would be as good as the private in the sense that they'll still be relying on the private market that does have drugs which alot of people will join and then it'll start to deterriate leaving just the public system(because they highly-TAX insurance companies to stay in business not make profit from good quality) Most drugs are also made by the private-market not-government, which would eventually come that way and ration would hit in because of the lack of business insurance and medical research.

And let's put it this way, why would the government spend alot of money(too busy using money to take care of 300 million)on research if they know it probably won't have results in the next 10 years, so it wouldn't advance new quality.

Let's say you have insurance for a free steak, you would probably take it regardless because it's free.

Like it or not, health care is product, not a right because were fortunate to atleast have health care but people survived without it a long time

So, I don't see how the is free-market doing it's thing so therefore companies who probably would have bought something cheaper without government-burden woulrd probably be ablt to help others easier

Maybe, I'm not 100% accurate on this, but I don't think I'm 100 inaccurate.

Please don't say we have to nationalize because your just gonna say life expectancy and uninsured and we know where that leads us?

And the claim that wanna do all this to balance greedy insurance companies, there was evidence that social-security execs using tax payer monet have a good time. WHAT A BUNCH OF LAMEDUCK HYPOCRITES!

And you worry about companies being greedy? YOU CAN'T EVEN SUE THE GOVERNMENT!

political_debater · Jul 18, 2009

political_debater said:
Besides, wouldn't there be a huge outcry if that many who are uninsured, wouldn't there be rallies of families friends and people's have died because of that, I mean 16% is alot.

I mean, a judge in one of the provinces of Canada ruled banning private-health insured and care unconstitutional an order to avoid immense outcry of people using it.

Well, one: government can't run any business, just control.

I just figured this out. It's actually government-run entities like Medicaid, Medicare and Social-Security that actually partly make Insurance prices rise that and stupid lawsuits. You know why, because they run as an unfair competition(which is actually fair because they TAX insurance companies alot rather than make a profit to compete) which makes Insurance companies compare competition by raising prices, this is only part there's alot of others, aswell. Not very many people pay too much to Medicaid, anyways, apparently.

If Obama does put a so-called public option it would run the other insurance companies out of business, because alot of people will join the public option because it's free(not because they can't afford, because it's free and it's there)You could probably afford something but if that something is free, like a skate-board you would probably, the was a lady who did that and stop when she started getting taxed and realized in that from that documentary because she became wasteful and realize she started paying eventual, so part of it is no personal responsibility(no wonder they want government in there lives)

And ofcourse Public care would be as good as the private in the sense that they'll still be relying on the private market that does have drugs which alot of people will join and then it'll start to deterriate leaving just the public system(because they highly-TAX insurance companies to stay in business not make profit from good quality) Most drugs are also made by the private-market not-government, which would eventually come that way and ration would hit in because of the lack of business insurance and medical research.

And let's put it this way, why would the government spend alot of money(too busy using money to take care of 300 million)on research if they know it probably won't have results in the next 10 years, so it wouldn't advance new quality.

Let's say you have insurance for a free steak, you would probably take it regardless because it's free.

Like it or not, health care is product, not a right because were fortunate to atleast have health care but people survived without it a long time

So, I don't see how the is free-market doing it's thing so therefore companies who probably would have bought something cheaper without government-burden woulrd probably be ablt to help others easier

Maybe, I'm not 100% accurate on this, but I don't think I'm 100 inaccurate.

Example: When someone steals from a store the store raise prices of that product for everybody, it might be fair but, healthcare, deals worse. Just a thought and not nothing.

Please don't say we have to nationalize because your just gonna say life expectancy and uninsured and we know where that leads us?

And the claim that wanna do all this to balance greedy insurance companies, there was evidence that social-security execs using tax payer monet have a good time. WHAT A BUNCH OF LAMEDUCK HYPOCRITES!

And you worry about companies being greedy? YOU CAN'T EVEN SUE THE GOVERNMENT!

rivrrat · Jul 18, 2009

We just need to get the government AND the insurance companies out of healthcare. They are BOTH the reason the prices are so high. Get rid of them and let us take care of ourselves. Prices would plummet.

You know, just a couple weeks ago I had to have some labwork done. I had the doctor's lab orders in hand and went to the hospital to have it done. At the hospital they said the following:

You can use that lab work order from your doctor and the labwork will cost you over $100. OR, you can throw that away and order the tests yourself, pay us right now, and the tests will cost you $15.

If I had had insurance or been on medicaid/medicare, they wouldn't have even mentioned that option.

political_debater · Jul 18, 2009

rivrrat said:
We just need to get the government AND the insurance companies out of healthcare. They are BOTH the reason the prices are so high. Get rid of them and let us take care of ourselves. Prices would plummet.

You know, just a couple weeks ago I had to have some labwork done. I had the doctor's lab orders in hand and went to the hospital to have it done. At the hospital they said the following:

You can use that lab work order from your doctor and the labwork will cost you over $100. OR, you can throw that away and order the tests yourself, pay us right now, and the tests will cost you $15.

If I had had insurance or been on medicaid/medicare, they wouldn't have even mentioned that option.

I don't why people think we should have government our lives, it's just an excuse to control

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT WIPING MY BUTT FOR ME!

Baralis · Jul 18, 2009

rivrrat said:
You can use that lab work order from your doctor and the labwork will cost you over $100. OR, you can throw that away and order the tests yourself, pay us right now, and the tests will cost you $15.

If I had had insurance or been on medicaid/medicare, they wouldn't have even mentioned that option.

This is a great example of what happens in any feild where insurance is involved. Its not exclusive to health care.

And you are correct. The 2 main reasons medical costs are so high are government intervention and insurance. So we will add more of each so that we can lower costs. :doh

political_debater · Jul 18, 2009

Baralis said:
And you are correct. The 2 main reasons medical costs are so high are government intervention and insurance. So we will add more of each so that we can lower costs. :doh

And I don't see in any way how this is a a free-market.

I mean think about it, what would happen if corporations could tax in order to stay in business, it would be a scandal, not money made by competition.

And when people say that fire-department, law inforcement and public schools(which don't work very well) are paid by taxes.

All this is at local level, except public schools(which alot seem to be at, because they obviously know nothing about the free-market)

Fire department paid for security, to put out a fire which is national defense.

Law enforcement is to inforce the law which government is for(not taking over everything).

Public Schools, although they don't work very well. I'm just grateful not to come out a Marxist.

They want PUBLIC-HELL-CARE at a federal level, power-mongering greedy, neo-marxist hypocrites.

So you government execs, leave my private-healthcare alone, leave my privates alone.

Donc · Jul 18, 2009

political_debater;[QUOTE said:
1058142989]When Canadians come to the U.S for healthcare, is this all you can say "..?.."

I have talked to both Canadians and Brits... they tell me that while their systems have some problems, there is no way they would trade it for ours. Wonder why that is if ours is so good?

When we have a higher cancer survival rate, is this all you can say "..?.."

Tell that to the uninsured who cant afford to go to the Doc to see what the lump on her breast is, or the guy that cant afford a biopsy after he managed to save enough for the PSA test at the local wal-mart urgent care center.

When I mention Medicaid, Medicare and Social-Security being government owned but no ever goes there and is going bankrupt, is this all you can say "..?.."

You forgot about the VA (why do you hate the troops

), the most efficient of the three and I might add that all three are run more efficient than any insurance company.

When I say there's more to life and infant expectancy, is this all you can say "..?.."

Huh?

…gettin kinda “murky” here.

When I suggest you find a non-profit org(and there everywhere and talk about health care) to go to another country for cheap surgery or go the emergency room to get the treatment, is this all you can say "..?.."

???See above.

When I say it's illegal to turn someone down based on there cost and you never see anyone getting in trouble for doing that because we would know it alot if it happens, but is this all you can say "..?.."

yep, go to the emergency room workin poor, we cant have you getting any kind of preventive care, wait till you need emergency care.:roll:

We need government healthcare for control, because of life and infant expctancy and for more control and uninsured for even more control, because that's all they can say.

No, we need more efficient/efficient healthcare because the system we have now is out of control at 17% of GDP, fast approaching 20% is not sustainable.

political_debater · Jul 18, 2009

donc said:
I have talked to both Canadians and Brits... they tell me that while their systems have some problems, there is no way they would trade it for ours. Wonder why that is if ours is so good?

Are they government-controlled, aswell?

Better than ours, can they give a some answers about that?

I hear they advise to flip sheets over rather than clean them.

and on to patients

I hear in Britain, atleast one board denied a man medicine form going blind and said he has to be completely blind
in the other eye an order to have medicine to save the other, WHAT... there was protest and finally it was reversed

Another story in Britain where I guy had to pull out his own tooth with tools using pliers and vodka, all due to rationing.

There was of woman who died because she denied insurance from CIGNA(PRIVATE) for a liver transplant turned because she had aleady had problems and didn't she would live, parents tried to sue and lost and claim she could been saved under universal healthcare, look a the bottom similar but in Britain

Another story in Britain about a guy named Peter Lord who has bone marrow transplant was not only denied hey couldn't possibly pay for it the other way because the board pays for it all, there guarantee, but said it reverse if the family wins a lawsuit.

A Canadian lady was sent to an American Hospital to have a baby because...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrQWadE2YpE&feature=related"]YouTube - Canada's socialist heathcare not healthy.[/ame]

We got better bypass surgery for heart attacks, Dick Cheney like him or hate him had 4 and still survived.

And in Canada about bypass surgery

In 1999, Canadian patient Daniel Smith, a cystic fibrosis sufferer, and his doctors agreed that he needed a lung transplant. But his surgery was cancelled by administrators because an open hospital bed could not be found.

Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.
Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

Media in foreign nations are full of stories about people suffer while on a waiting list. In Canada, Diane Gorsuch twice had heart surgery cancelled; she suffered a fatal heart attack before her third surgery. In Great Britain, Mavis Skeet had her cancer surgery cancelled four times before her cancer was determined to have become inoperable. In Australia, eight-year-old Kyle Inglis has lost 50 percent of his hearing while waiting nearly 11 months for an operation to remove a tumor in his ear. Kyle is one of over 1,000 children waiting over 600 days for ear, nose and throat surgery in Warnbro, a suburb in Western Australia.

These are not mere anecdotes. Much academic literature has examined the impact of waiting lists on health. A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50 people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in Ontario.

A video of two women who need surgery and tran-sexual. Only got visited by the Health Minister of Ontario, guess which one?
YouTube - Two Women

There is some truth in the idea that Americans do order drugs from Canada because prices are outrageous here(forother reasons rather than greed), and they go get marijuana medical which is illegal here(don't know why) and some people go to clinic who have relatives in Canada

Another thing is could come more if they did have money to cross, and I feel so sorry they can't the care they need, much less it bing expensive.

While Canada is legally single-payer, private clinic have been popin up due to high demand all Canada(and one province ruled unconstitutional to ban private health insurance anorder to avoid immense outcry) I betyou the laws know about and let it be because they know if they try to shut them down alot of people would be angry.

And some people do go pay a cheaper price to simpler mild surgeries in Canada because prices are higher but it's nothing compared to the BIG MAN stuff, but Canada is nothing compared to the U.S. in the rationing and care.

AND THAT'S BETTER?

donc said:
Tell that to the uninsured who cant afford to go to the Doc to see what the lump on her breast is, or the guy that cant afford a biopsy after he managed to save enough for the PSA test at the local wal-mart urgent care center.

Where did you hear, exactly, show me a link, please, And the one to the Wal-Mart guy?

donc said:
You forgot about the VA (why do you hate the troops), the most efficient of the three and I might add that all three are run more efficient than any insurance company.

I forgot to mention that, Umm, yeah... it's not working as good as the health care system, either.

donc said:
Huh? …gettin kinda “murky” here.

Well, because this jerk name Obama wants to nationalize everything and wants to control everything radical Marxist Chicago secret thug.

donc said:
???See above.

What, again?

donc said:
yep, go to the emergency room workin poor, we cant have you getting any kind of preventive care, wait till you need emergency care.:roll:

Medicaid has failed!

donc said:
No, we need more efficient/efficient healthcare because the system we have now is out of control at 17% of GDP, fast approaching 20% is not sustainable.

We spend more for unnecessary care, aswell like smoking, drinking , eating junk food and other abuses that cause the prices to go up, and this is the United States, not the only industralized nation without PUBLIC HELL CARE, we're the MOST industralized nation in the world.

And ofcourse some the reasons prices are going up Is because government is in the way.

political_debater · Jul 19, 2009

I've compiled a couple of hilarious insults towards liberals.

MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service

I hope you enjoy and I want to upload more.

I don't know how to upload it and listen online so your gonna have to download it.

not a big file 4mb

Donc · Jul 19, 2009

political_debater said:
political_debater said:

Are they government-controlled, aswell?

Better than ours, can they give a some answers about that?

I hear they advise to flip sheets over rather than clean them.

and on to patients

I hear in Britain, atleast one board denied a man medicine form going blind and said he has to be completely blind
in the other eye an order to have medicine to save the other, WHAT... there was protest and finally it was reversed

Another story in Britain where I guy had to pull out his own tooth with tools using pliers and vodka, all due to rationing.

There was of woman who died because she denied insurance from CIGNA(PRIVATE) for a liver transplant turned because she had aleady had problems and didn't she would live, parents tried to sue and lost and claim she could been saved under universal healthcare, look a the bottom similar but in Britain

Another story in Britain about a guy named Peter Lord who has bone marrow transplant was not only denied hey couldn't possibly pay for it the other way because the board pays for it all, there guarantee, but said it reverse if the family wins a lawsuit.

A Canadian lady was sent to an American Hospital to have a baby because...
YouTube - Canada's socialist heathcare not healthy.

We got better bypass surgery for heart attacks, Dick Cheney like him or hate him had 4 and still survived.

And in Canada about bypass surgery

In 1999, Canadian patient Daniel Smith, a cystic fibrosis sufferer, and his doctors agreed that he needed a lung transplant. But his surgery was cancelled by administrators because an open hospital bed could not be found.

Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.
Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

Media in foreign nations are full of stories about people suffer while on a waiting list. In Canada, Diane Gorsuch twice had heart surgery cancelled; she suffered a fatal heart attack before her third surgery. In Great Britain, Mavis Skeet had her cancer surgery cancelled four times before her cancer was determined to have become inoperable. In Australia, eight-year-old Kyle Inglis has lost 50 percent of his hearing while waiting nearly 11 months for an operation to remove a tumor in his ear. Kyle is one of over 1,000 children waiting over 600 days for ear, nose and throat surgery in Warnbro, a suburb in Western Australia.

These are not mere anecdotes. Much academic literature has examined the impact of waiting lists on health. A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50 people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in Ontario.

A video of two women who need surgery and tran-sexual. Only got visited by the Health Minister of Ontario, guess which one?
YouTube - Two Women

There is some truth in the idea that Americans do order drugs from Canada because prices are outrageous here(forother reasons rather than greed), and they go get marijuana medical which is illegal here(don't know why) and some people go to clinic who have relatives in Canada

Another thing is could come more if they did have money to cross, and I feel so sorry they can't the care they need, much less it bing expensive.

While Canada is legally single-payer, private clinic have been popin up due to high demand all Canada(and one province ruled unconstitutional to ban private health insurance anorder to avoid immense outcry) I betyou the laws know about and let it be because they know if they try to shut them down alot of people would be angry.

And some people do go pay a cheaper price to simpler mild surgeries in Canada because prices are higher but it's nothing compared to the BIG MAN stuff, but Canada is nothing compared to the U.S. in the rationing and care.

AND THAT'S BETTER?

Click to expand...

You can ramble on and post all the links/videos you want but you cant “honestly” deny the results almost forty years of data. In the 1930s the United States and Canada had about the same statistics as for as life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and spending on healthcare.

Both countries tried to alleviate the gaps in health care by bringing in private for profit plans. The difference is the Canucks gave up on that brain fart of an idea when they observed that it wasn’t working.

The United States on the other hand kept soldiering along with the failing system that is now eating up our GDP like some money/life sucking omeba.

This author Terry Boychuk pretty well explains it in his book, The Making and Meaning of Hospital Policy in the United States and Canada.

Where did you hear, exactly, show me a link, please, And the one to the Wal-Mart guy?

Click to expand...

Do you actually believe that the uninsured don’t put off going to a doctor because they cant afford it? How is the weather on Pluto since they down graded it to a Dwarf Planet? :shock:

I forgot to mention that, Umm, yeah... it's not working as good as the health care system, either.

Click to expand...

Sure it is, especially since they went to Electronic Health Records System, I can go to any VA Medical Center in the country and they have my medical history it front of the at the click of a mouse.

Well, because this jerk name Obama wants to nationalize everything and wants to control everything radical Marxist Chicago secret thug.

Click to expand...

Oh,…shucks, I guess I shouldn’t have voted for him then….Huh? :mrgreen:

Medicaid has failed!

Click to expand...

The millions of people that are seeing private doctors now and getting Medicaid healthcare where they would be getting healthcare at the emergency room of medical centers disagree with you.Our heathcare system has/is failing for everyone but the insurance companies and thier lobbiest.

We spend more for unnecessary care, aswell like smoking, drinking , eating junk food and other abuses that cause the prices to go up, and this is the United States, not the only industralized nation without PUBLIC HELL CARE, we're the MOST industralized nation in the world.

And ofcourse some the reasons prices are going up Is because government is in the way.

Click to expand...

When all else fails blame sick for being sick.:roll:

People who want Public Health Care. BEWARE!

Member

Active member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Member

Member

Goddess of Bacon

Member

Member

Member

Member