• 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:
Zig, do you acknowledge that there is scope in the US system for significant cost savings without cutting back on the amount of healthcare that is delivered? If we've put that to bed, then at least something has been achieved.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

It might well take a while for the savings to me made if ever. Why do you think that the health care industry is by and large backing Obama's plan? It is not that they expect there to be cuts in spending any time soon.

It is going to take a long time to get health care spending in this country under control, at least in part because those who are making a killing on the current system have a lot of money to spend on lobbyists, way more than those trying to get costs cut.
 
Ziggurat said:
And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. I am not clinging to the current system. But the changes I would like to see are not for the most part the changes being advocated by UHC advocates.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see the changes being advocated by "UHC advocates" is simply that the USA should move to a UHC system, what part of that are you not for?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Not necessarily anything. But it would mean that the costs would almost certainly not drop to Canadian or UK levels.



I don't think we can realistically achieve even that much.
Click to expand...

So we are back to americans really are uniquely ineffective at running an efficient health care system, and that by and large americans do not even want an efficient system.
 
Ziggurat said:
For the right definition of "require", I suppose that's true. And yet, at least some UK citizens are stating that their expectations are lower.
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Washington_Watch/Socialized_Medicine_Through_the_Eyes_of_a_Recipient/2169/
Yes, this is anecdotal. But when you make a categorical claim (as you did), all it takes is one anecdote to disprove it.
Click to expand...

Actually her anecdote does not disprove anything because she is factually wrong.

The "expectation level" I posted was simply a way of expressing the legal right every single citizen of the UK has.

Indeed in some circumstances we can even get legal aid to help us fight, in court, for the right to the treatment our doctors say we should receive. And if the court rules in our favour that becomes a legally binding obligation on the NHS.
 
Ziggurat said:
And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. I am not clinging to the current system. But the changes I would like to see are not for the most part the changes being advocated by UHC advocates.
Click to expand...


Do I take it then that the changes you would advocate would not lead to universal health coverage for the US population? That you envisage some alteration to the system that would still leave a substantial number of people without practical access to healthcare?

Because that's all "universal healthcare" is. A system, any system, which ensures that all citizens, or legal residents, or residents, or however you want to define it, have access to healthcare without being denied treatment due to inability to pay for it.

If you don't advocate "universal healthcare", then by definition you support a system which does not provide universal access to healthcare. It's simple English.

Rolfe.
 
Ziggurat, could you sum up all the flaws in the Canadian UHC-system and explain how in the world those flaws apply to the current plans for healthcare reform in the US?
 
ponderingturtle said:
It might well take a while for the savings to me made if ever. Why do you think that the health care industry is by and large backing Obama's plan? It is not that they expect there to be cuts in spending any time soon.
Click to expand...


I think the health care industry is keen because it sees a lot more custom coming its way, if those potential customers who are at present unable to consume its product are no longer excluded due to lack of funds.

I think the insurance industry is in a flat panic.

ponderingturtle said:
It is going to take a long time to get health care spending in this country under control, at least in part because those who are making a killing on the current system have a lot of money to spend on lobbyists, way more than those trying to get costs cut.
Click to expand...


Well, that's back to my comments on that lying bitch with Cushing's who's making these dishonest and deceptive commercials on behalf of the US health insurance industry. I've been trying to discuss that for about 24 hours now without any takers.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
...snip..


Well, that's back to my comments on that lying bitch with Cushing's who's making these dishonest and deceptive commercials on behalf of the US health insurance industry. I've been trying to discuss that for about 24 hours now without any takers.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


It's very bad.

(Please will someone else discuss this with Rolfe as I expect all I can say is "I agree".)
 
Rolfe said:
Well, that's back to my comments on that lying bitch with Cushing's who's making these dishonest and deceptive commercials on behalf of the US health insurance industry. I've been trying to discuss that for about 24 hours now without any takers.
.
Click to expand...

She's basically the healthcare version of Joe the Plumber.
 
Well, you know, is it OK to present bare-faced lies on US TV? I guess so. I sort of wonder why this hasn't been exposed yet by anybody though. Joe the Plumber was, fairly quickly.

And who's paying for it all? Well, the US health insurance industry. And where do they get their money from? Oh yes, that's money that US citizens have scrimped and saved to give themselves some healthcare coverage. We're always being told how Americans ought to make this their first priority after food and shelter, and maybe not even behind these. Certainly they must forego any small luxuries of life, in order to take responsibility for themselves in this area.

And the irony is even more delicious than that. Who is this lying dishonest propaganda aimed at? Why, these very same people. Their own hard-earned and carefully hoarded money is being used to try to brainwash them into rejecting a proposal which in all probability would improve their lives quite substantially.

I'd just like to hear someone who is in favour of the current system defend this practice, or even acknowledge that it's indefensible.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
...snip...

Well, that's back to my comments on that lying bitch with Cushing's who's making these dishonest and deceptive commercials on behalf of the US health insurance industry. I've been trying to discuss that for about 24 hours now without any takers.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I think I can add something to that, look at the interview that Zig linked to: http://www.pjtv.com/video/Washington_Watch/Socialized_Medicine_Through_the_Eyes_of_a_Recipient/2169/
(Never mind that the very link shows a political bias.) This is another example of the "anti-UHC" advocates simply being dishonest in their description of other UHC systems.

For example she has apparently made the claim that she had never even thought of asking for anesthesia when having her teeth drilled in the UK because it wasn't "standard" when she was living in the UK, and the interviewer repeats this. That is simply untrue.
 
Rolfe said:
Well, you know, is it OK to present bare-faced lies on US TV? I guess so. I sort of wonder why this hasn't been exposed yet by anybody though. Joe the Plumber was, fairly quickly.

And who's paying for it all? Well, the US health insurance industry. And where do they get their money from? Oh yes, that's money that US citizens have scrimped and saved to give themselves some healthcare coverage. We're always being told how Americans ought to make this their first priority after food and shelter, and maybe not even behind these. Certainly they must forego any small luxuries of life, in order to take responsibility for themselves in this area.

And the irony is even more delicious than that. Who is this lying dishonest propaganda aimed at? Why, these very same people. Their own hard-earned and carefully hoarded money is being used to try to brainwash them into rejecting a proposal which in all probability would improve their lives quite substantially.

I'd just like to hear someone who is in favour of the current system defend this practice, or even acknowledge that it's indefensible.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Without lobbyists, people would demand fewer MRIs. And that would bankrupt the entire system, as it would cut income. And increase its costs far above the Canadian system.

Or something.
 
Darat said:
I think I can add something to that, look at the interview that Zig linked to: http://www.pjtv.com/video/Washington_Watch/Socialized_Medicine_Through_the_Eyes_of_a_Recipient/2169/
(Never mind that the very link shows a political bias.) This is another example of the "anti-UHC" advocates simply being dishonest in their description of other UHC systems.

For example she has apparently made the claim that she had never even thought of asking for anesthesia when having her teeth drilled in the UK because it wasn't "standard" when she was living in the UK, and the interviewer repeats this. That is simply untrue.
Click to expand...

Wow. Diana Furchgott-Roth is a lying douchebag. "Many people don't get the services [in the UK] that are routine here [in the USA]", huh Diana? I think you have that just about as ass-backwards as possible.

ETA: I also now understand where the "people's expectations" line that Ziggurat is parroting comes from. Directly from her mouth. It isn't true. In fact, as Darat explained, it's entirely the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Do I take it then that the changes you would advocate would not lead to universal health coverage for the US population? That you envisage some alteration to the system that would still leave a substantial number of people without practical access to healthcare?
Click to expand...

In the short term, definitely. In the long term, not necessarily.

If you don't advocate "universal healthcare", then by definition you support a system which does not provide universal access to healthcare. It's simple English.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. I am neither categorically in favor of nor opposed to universal health care, given the broad definition you have provided. I am opposed to a single payer system for the US. I am also opposed to plans which attempt to push us towards a single-payer system, which is what the current attempts at UHC in the US are.
 
Seriously, that video has just made be so cross. We leave old grandmothers "simply to die from whatever happens"? Really, Diana? Are you SURE about that?

How can this woman, with a straight face and a pink shirt, lie and lie and lie again?
 
volatile said:
Wow. Diana Furchgott-Roth is a lying douchebag. "Many people don't get the services [in the UK] that are routine here [in the USA]", huh Diana? I think you have that just about as ass-backwards as possible.
Click to expand...

She's from the Manhattan Institute, so her comments aren't suprising.
 
Ziggurat said:
False dichotomy. I am neither categorically in favor of nor opposed to universal health care, given the broad definition you have provided.
Click to expand...

That means "I am neither categorically in favor of nor opposed to some people going without healthcare they require".

Do you stand by that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom