Canadian Heathcare system sucks!!

[volatile]

Ignore me, anyway, Ziggurat. Post 245?

 

[Ziggurat]

Funny, I culd have sworn you were arguing against universal healthcare as a general principle.

Yeah, you've got this recurring problem where you keep concluding that I've taken a position I did not express. Where in this thread did I argue against universal health care as a general principle? You will search in vain, Rolfe, because I never did that here.

Indeed, the devil is in the detail. rejecting the entire concept because of deficiencies in current proposals seems a bit extreme to me.

It is. Which is why I haven't actually done that, in this or any other thread.

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah, you've got this recurring problem where you keep concluding that I've taken a position I did not express. Where in this thread did I argue against universal health care as a general principle? You will search in vain, Rolfe, because I never did that here.

It is. Which is why I haven't actually done that, in this or any other thread.

Well, if you've ever made any positive suggestions, I'd appreciate a link. Because all I see is relentless negativity spiced with a soupcon of protectionism.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I hope this isn't considered spamming. But you see, I did take a lot of trouble over these posts. I genuinely think they contain food for thought and material worthy of discussion.

And not a single person has addressed a single point.

Here's my post about the effects of high healthcare costs on the economy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4928559#post4928559

And here's my post about the irrationality of compelling businesses to provide goods and services to people with no hope of ever being able to pay for them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4928580#post4928580

And here's my post about the lying bitch and her taradiddles about her "brain tumour".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4929210#post4929210

Is there nothing there equally worthy of discussion alongside exactly how the ambulance service is organised, and why comfortable middle-class people will prevent the introduction of universal healthcare by demanding that it supplies them with twice the medical services they actually require?

Just asking.

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

OK. Fine. So what's your preferred solution?

I'd prefer to start by decoupling health insurance from employment. And tort reform.

Because this thread includes examples of the type of propaganda that you seem to have based your ideas on

You've got no idea what my ideas are based on. Nor does it matter. Attack the ideas, not the person. But you couldn't manage that, could you?

Because no-one is proposing ones that actually will, because people like you oppose them on ideological grounds.

Oh please. The existence of ideological opposition doesn't prevent legislation from being proposed. The health care reform ideas that are on the table illustrate that rather clearly.

It's a vicious circle, and precisely the reason that I accuse you, Ziggurat, of standing between America and the healthcare system it deserves.

And you need to attack me, and not just my ideas... why? But no, of course it's not an ad hominem.

Single-payer systems work everywhere else they're tried, but no-one dares realistically propose one in the USA because the vested interests in the insurance industry have been phenomenally successful in (mendaciously) convincing people like you that such a system would be detrimental, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

In case you haven't noticed, legislators are more than willing to propose legislation they know has no chance of succeeding. So why wouldn't a legislator "dare"? What do you think the "vested interests" are going to do, assassinate them?

In any case, if we're talking about "improvements", what's your metric?

I've got multiple metrics. Cost, efficiency, quality of service, and yes, even a bit of equanimity in there, believe it or not.

Rolfe, in particular, has explained at length that not only are UHC systems better financially

And yet, neither you nor him can show where the promised cost reductions in the US would come from.

 

[Rolfe]

[....] the vested interests in the insurance industry have been phenomenally successful in (mendaciously) convincing people like you that such a system would be detrimental, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Indeed, we're seeing more and more of it now as the gloves come off. That lying bitch and her "brain tumour" is only one small part of it.

The thing that actually quite upsets me is that the money paying for these disinformation campaigns is coming directly from the pockets of those citizens who are scrimping and saving and going without small luxuries and even necessities in order to purchase health insurance.

It's bad enough what we were examining in the other thread, the executive jets and the gold-plated cutlery and the huge bonuses for denying care so that the profit margins are boosted. But squandering these poor people's money to influence political events away from something that could genuinely benefit them is just sick. Doing it in such a way that those being defrauded in this way are themselves persuaded to argue against their own best interestes is beyond evil.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

All right, one more try and I'm off to bed.

It seems to me that paying so much, and having to make so much provision for potential healthcare requirements is detrimental to the US economy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4928559#post4928559

Would anyone like to comment on the arguments laid out there? (And admiring remarks about my new car are all very welcome too.)

It seems to me that the US government compelling private businesses to give away their goods and services to people who have no hope of ever being able to pay for them is not something to boast about. Neither is requiring and encouraging citizens to take these goods and services with every intention of bilking without paying.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4928580#post4928580

Again, would anyone like to comment? Any of those posters who have implied that this is an admirable situation?

And here's my post about the lying bitch and her taradiddles about her "brain tumour". Just think again about where the money is coming from to pay for this propaganda, and why.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4929210#post4929210

Going to bed now. Hoping for some good comment in the morning.

Rolfe.

 

[joobz]

It seems to me that the US government compelling private businesses to give away their goods and services to people who have no hope of ever being able to pay for them is not something to boast about. Neither is requiring and encouraging citizens to take these goods and services with every intention of bilking without paying.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4928580#post4928580

Again, would anyone like to comment? Any of those posters who have implied that this is an admirable situation?

I would love an answer to this one as well.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by volatile
The invention of the car destroyed the bridle market too, BaC. ... snip ...

... snip ...

Is his argument merely protectionism? Oh dear.

Sorry Rolfe and Volatile, but that wasn't the point of my post at all. The issue I raised isn't whether Obamacare will make the private market smaller or whether that's good or bad, but that Obama, other democrat leaders, and the man (Jacob Hacker) who is widely recognized as developing the health care approach that Obama has adopted have admitted in various speeches to their liberal base that their plan will spell the end of private insurance eventually and turn us into a single payer system ... something that Obama and the other advocates of his health care reform have denied.

As noted in the link, Hawkins went so far as to to say in January 2008 that his approach would "eliminate, I think, the small group market insurance industry ... snip ... It's premised on doing so."

And in July 2008 he told an audience that "Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for single-payer,' and I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there.' I'm telling you, we're going to get there. Over time, slowly, but we'll move away from reliance on employment based health insurance as we should but we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they are going to lose their private insurance."

I also quoted democrat Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (from Obama's home state) boasting to constituents that the public plan will indeed "put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer".

And I quoted Obama (telling the AFL-CIO) that he's a "proponent" of single-payer. In that speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE ) he also said "that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House." I also quoted him saying in another speech that we wouldn't "be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process".

Since those quotes seem to directly contradict claims by Obama, administration officials and other leading democrats, in the process of trying to sell the current plan, that the objective isn't single payer and the plan won't lead to it, it seems to me they are lying ... AGAIN.

For example, (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105442888 ) in June, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary, stated that

This is not a trick. This is not single-payer ... snip ... That's not what anyone is talking about -- mostly because the president feels as strongly, as I do, that dismantling private health coverage ... snip ... is really the bad, you know, is a bad direction to go.

And here's what Obama told the AMA recently (http://washingtonindependent.com/47101/obama-touts-public-plan-rejects-single-payer ):

What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.

How can that not be a legitimate concern given the Trojan Horse statement by the man who authored the approach that Obama has adopted?

Obama went on to say

So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this — they are not telling the truth.

Well I suspect Obama is the one who is not tell the truth here.

 

[kellyb]

I've decided there are no realistic options which can dramatically reduce our total healthcare spending. That does not mean improvements cannot be made, in terms of efficiency, distribution, or quality.

You admit admin costs, bulk purchasing, etc will bring the cost down some, right?
For the rest, what about overt rationing?
Just being completely upfront about the fact that we're all working on a limited budget, and that people will get what they need, but not necessarily everything they want?

 

[pgwenthold]

I have no real problem with people paying for extra care that they don't actually need. People do it all the time in Britain, to get a private room, and better food, and altogether treated as if they're in a swanky hotel. If someone wants to take them for even more to do extra MRIs on them, so long as the capacity exists in the system, I don't honestly care.

But I thought that there was already too much demand and not enough supply? On one side, people are complaining about the shortage of doctors. On the other side, you want to allow people to get excessive medical care? More care than is medically necessary?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's all unbillable.

No, it's billable to the taxpayers.

Who are the people who pay and who are the people who don't pay? The point of the system is that it is free at the point of need.

I thought the discussion was that your wife as a foreigner was not covered under the NHS?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Depends. In the US they do it by simply paying the employees much less especialy in benefits. THe difference between being a civil servant with a pension and a private employee.

Figure $10 and hour to start is not considered bad in the NYC area.

This is a bit over simplified. There are government jobs that pay better than private, security guards vs cops, for example.

And health care workers here in both the private sector and the public such as VA hospitals all make about the same.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

..
A lot of emergency service is done by private companies who have a contract with the municipality. It is cheaper than running their own ambulance after all....

Another example, our fire fighters provide ambulance service or if they are tied up they can now call a private service. The fire fighters make a lot more than the private ambulance company pays.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Everytime I flip on CNN or Fox News there's that ad playing with the woman who had a brain tumour in Canada and claims she would have died if she didn't go to America for treatment. She ends warning Americans not to "give up their rights".

As a Canadian, this constant slamming on the airwaves during ad-time is starting to get annoying, and I know its annoying our political leaders here too. But there's nothing we can do. I assume there are laws about foreign countries inserting themselves in policy debates - but its frustrating that as a result of these ads there are likely going to be many Americans who form their opinions of Canadian health care partially as a result of these ads.
.....

Some of us in this country are just as frustrated with the outright lies in those propaganda commercials.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The fact that they had to make up a lie out of whole cloth should tell you everything you need to know about this debate.

And then add in the obvious, those who stand to lose millions (insurance companies in particular) have millions to pour into these dishonest campaigns while those of us who want change have much less to pay for counter-ads.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is called self-selection and it’s one of the most serious problems in the US health care system. People forgo insurance and pocket the money until they need care. When the need care, instead of paying for the care itself they go shopping for insurance effectively passing on their medical bills to people who legitimately paid their insurance all along.

This drives the unavailability of insurance except in large pools, the sensitivity of insurance companies to preexisting conditions, the high cost of insurance and the extremely high administrative overhead in the US health care system.

The "choice" they are making isn't to not receive medical care, but to push the cost of the risk they insure for their own medical care onto other people.

While I agree this is a problem for insurers, you can't leave out the fact the insurance companies have been greedy pigs soiling their own bed at the same time. They have been caught by numerous whistle blowers purposefully denying benefits which should have been covered in order to maximize profits.

 

[Tailgater]

Insurance companies suck more. ****ing criminals. I can't begin to release my hate for them.

 

[Ziggurat]

You admit admin costs, bulk purchasing, etc will bring the cost down some, right?

Yes.

For the rest, what about overt rationing?

It won't be politically sustainable with the American public.

 

[D'rok]

It won't be politically sustainable with the American public.

I believe that this is a true statement and that it cuts right to the core of the issue. And it saddens me. With all the great things that America has accomplished and will accomplish, this thing is politically impossible in the foreseeable future.

It doesn't matter that, by any reasonably objective standard, every other developed western nation has a better health care system - Ziggurat's statement is a still a true statement.

I could speculate endlessly about why this is, but what's the point? There is something in the cultural zeitgeist of the USA that is viscerally opposed to universal health care.

I only hope one thing for my own nation: that we never succumb to this mindset. Currently, it would be politically impossible (except perhaps in Quebec - where every exercise of the federal spending power is obstructed on basic principle) to do away with universal health care. But we must remain vigilant. We are too close to the source of this phenomena to rest comfortably.