• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Canadian Heathcare system sucks!!

Rolfe said:
I don't know about bright, but I'm beginning to suspect you're not very well informed.
Click to expand...

Volatile personally insulted me, and I'm not going to roll over for him. I suggest you stay out of that exchange.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you think that the american public will demand infinite spending on their health?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No, I did not. But what was being suggested was not just some sort of rationing (since that already takes place), but rationing which would significantly reduce costs from current levels. Which, in this context, meant significant reduction of services from current levels. And no, I don't think the American public will tolerate that.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Proof that this happens to an extent that hurts patients?
Click to expand...

Whether or not it hurts patients is somewhat beside the point. Americans want access to the newest drugs through whatever coverage they have. Even if there's not much good reason to have such access, it's still what the voters will demand. How do you think politicians will respond to that demand, if they're holding the strings for that coverage?
 
Ziggurat said:
Volatile personally insulted me, and I'm not going to roll over for him. I suggest you stay out of that exchange.
Click to expand...

Why don't you calm your hackles and spend some time reading, thinking about and responding to the posts Rolfe made up-thread?
 
Ziggurat said:
Did I say that? No, I did not. But what was being suggested was not just some sort of rationing (since that already takes place), but rationing which would significantly reduce costs from current levels. Which, in this context, meant significant reduction of services from current levels. And no, I don't think the American public will tolerate that.
Click to expand...


The USA has a huge amount of scope for reducing costs without reducing the provision of care. As I said, in another thread we looked at a very detailed document which dissected the various areas in which the overspending occurs. Some are easier to address than others.

Reducing costs =/= rationing.

Also, I fail to see where anyone is suggesting that Americans should not be able to go right on purchasing the services they currently receive, in the same way they do now. Not all these services will necessarily be available under the publicly-subsidised system, but that's an entirely different matter.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Did I say that? No, I did not. But what was being suggested was not just some sort of rationing (since that already takes place), but rationing which would significantly reduce costs from current levels. Which, in this context, meant significant reduction of services from current levels. And no, I don't think the American public will tolerate that.
Click to expand...

That all depends, there are lots of inefficiencies that could be gotten rid of to start with, with out effective services. Of course there are also many unnessacary services.

For example if a patient is demanding an MRI for a knee injury and the doctor does not think it is warrented yet, why should it be carried out? We are spending a lot on procedures that do not increase peoples health. Rationing unnessacary procedures might well be palatable to people.

Of course they can allways buy suplemental unnessacary procedure insurance.
 
Ziggurat said:
Whether or not it hurts patients is somewhat beside the point. Americans want access to the newest drugs through whatever coverage they have. Even if there's not much good reason to have such access, it's still what the voters will demand. How do you think politicians will respond to that demand, if they're holding the strings for that coverage?
Click to expand...


"Americans want". There you go again. Characterising the wealthy (in which I include the comfortably-off middle classes) as being all the Americans there are.

Americans who have no way to afford comprehensive healthcare coverage, and are struggling to fund the premiums for woefully inadequate insurance, are not holding out for such luxuries as far as I can see.

And nobody is even suggesting that the former group should be forbidden from purchasing such luxuries if they happen to be able to afford them. Are you seriously saying that voters will demand that a publicly-subsidised system provide OTT luxury coverage, or they will reject the entire concept? Even if they themselves are not in any way required to alter their current arrangements? This seems very strange to me.

Rolfe.
 
Ziggurat said:
Wait... is that supposed to be an argument for greater government involvement in healthcare? How does that work?
Click to expand...

Well it would probably work poorly if we had to have congress determining exactly what was covered. On the other hand I don't see why an agency with a mandate would nessacarily have undo influence from lobbiests.
 
Ziggurat said:
Whether or not it hurts patients is somewhat beside the point. Americans want access to the newest drugs through whatever coverage they have. Even if there's not much good reason to have such access, it's still what the voters will demand. How do you think politicians will respond to that demand, if they're holding the strings for that coverage?
Click to expand...

And if it was phrased as "if you want this we will raise your taxes" it might well not have the broad political support you think it would.
 
Yesterday I made three posts putting forward points I believe are worthy of serious debate. None of these was addressed. I then made five subsequent posts referring back to these, and asking for comment. The only comment has been from some other posters who have asked the nay-sayers to address these issues.

Still nothing. So here we go, sixth time of asking.

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

Would the people who have such problems with the idea of universal healthcare provision and are defending the status quo like to comment on anything there?

Rolfe.
 
I haven't read all of this thread, but I doubt that another round of anecdotes about Canada's system, or Lithuania's system, or anyone else's system, will help us much right now. We do not live or vote in Canada or Lithuania. And since we have our own problems with healthcare, let's talk about that.
 
Lemastre said:
I haven't read all of this thread, but I doubt that another round of anecdotes about Canada's system, or Lithuania's system, or anyone else's system, will help us much right now. We do not live or vote in Canada or Lithuania. And since we have our own problems with healthcare, let's talk about that.
Click to expand...

What is the fundamental difference between Canada and the USA, such that what works in Canada (or Europe) cannot work elsewhere?

I think you'll find that this thread - and Rolfe's posts above, if you'd care to discuss them - are precisely about the problems with American healthcare, and how other systems strive to solve them. All we get in response is "That won't work in America". Well, why not?

If you haven't read this thread, start with the posts Rolfe just linked.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Whether or not it hurts patients is somewhat beside the point. Americans want access to the newest drugs through whatever coverage they have. Even if there's not much good reason to have such access, it's still what the voters will demand. How do you think politicians will respond to that demand, if they're holding the strings for that coverage?
Click to expand...

Under a UHC, like the NHSs of the UK, what happens is that the public pretty much gets what they campaign for.
 
I'd say to a large extent yes. The last dozen years of Labour government have helped make up for the decades of underinvestment by previous governments.

I've had to make use of the NHS extensively since the early 80s because of chronic health problems and the transformation over the last ten years has been absolutely astonishing. And not just in the actual health-care provided but in how it is provided.

Of course it is far from perfect and in some areas is still not up to scratch but we've only recently seen our expenditure rise to the level they have historically been in other EU countries for some time so it isn't surprising that in some areas we still fall short.

That aside my comment was more on the idea of high-cost and new drugs not being available to those that have a medical requirement for them. The regulators in the UK have shown that they will react to public pressure not just legal pressure.
 
Darat said:
Under a UHC, like the NHSs of the UK, what happens is that the public pretty much gets what they campaign for.
Click to expand...

And I think that in the US, the public would campaign for enough to keep total costs well above the costs in the UK.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And if it was phrased as "if you want this we will raise your taxes" it might well not have the broad political support you think it would.
Click to expand...

It won't be phrased that way. It will be phrased as, "we can give you this if we raise someone else's taxes".
 
Rolfe said:
Are you seriously saying that voters will demand that a publicly-subsidised system provide OTT luxury coverage, or they will reject the entire concept?
Click to expand...

No. I don't think it will happen in anything like such a concious decision process. Rather, I think if such a system gets implemented, a chorus will begin to expand provided services, and politicians will start giving it to them to buy votes. The costs will largely get brushed under the rug by those same politicians. And we'll end up with an expensive health care system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom