National Health Care

[Raiha]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]
The only problem I will point out with National Health Care is that you HAVE to have it. Of course you have it because you pay taxes to have it, but there is no getting out of having health care. But hey, this means that as long as you pay your state taxes you have health care and can't suddenly be dropped for pre-existing conditions.

[/color][/font][/size][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]No, but there is no guarantee that the government is going to have the resources, or the interest in signing off on the bills to pay to fix your pre existing conditions.

A guarantee of service is nice, but that doesn't mean it'll be good service. Or timely service. So it's like having a car that runs one day out of the week. I'm sure the health care will be good for yearly checkups, I'm not so sure I want the health care for when I have a ruptured appendix. Or a rare form of cancer whose treatments are still in the experimental stage.

Although on the plus side, it will be easier to abuse pain medication now...

I can't imagine this not going to the post office. Or the DMV. Unless you saw a health problem coming two months in advance, you didn't make an appointment and you wait half the day, week, month? to see the doctor. Doctors I see are overloaded with patients now, and I've seen everything from the rich doctors in Orange County to the extremely poor ones in rural San Bernardino county. I'm not sure the government has figured out the answer to how to come up enough doctors to treat everyone under their plan.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Ravenstorture]

[color=darkgreen][font=garamond]Hello again everyone. CBH said she'd like people's experiences with other systems and here is mine.

I live in Australia and work in the private healthcare sector and study within the public healthcare sector. I cannot afford private health insurance and won't be able to any time in the near future, which doesn't concern me in the slightest because I don't need it. The public system in Australia is fantastic. After many years of working in healthcare I'm still pretty much of the opinion the difference between private and public hospitals is private hospitals have carpet in the hallways. Most of the doctors I work with work both in public and private forums, and enjoy each equally for different reasons. Doctors wholly within the public sector still get paid enough for it to be an incentive, and the private and public sectors work very well together.

Call 000 with a burst appendix, and get taken to a hospital, you'll be operated on immediately by someone who probably works in the private sector half the time anyway. The absolute worst that's happened to me after an ambulance call was that when I was discharged from emergency, I had to get a bed in surgical outpatients because I could get my own room there. Then if you have private insurance, and decide you want carpet in the hallway outside or a better view, tell them and they'll take you elsewhere.

Complaints: dental isn't covered for people without health care cards (that's most people), the hospital system is managed by each state, which facilitates the blame game, and not many people like working in the country.

Oh, wait. I have another complaint. Apparently Australia is such a popular place for doctors that the cutoffs for my school of medicine have just jumped nearly ten points on the entry test. FYI, the students taking up these places in 2010 are mostly American.

[/color][/font]

[James]

[quote]A guarantee of service is nice, but that doesn't mean it'll be good service. Or timely service. So it's like having a car that runs one day out of the week. I'm sure the health care will be good for yearly checkups, I'm not so sure I want the health care for when I have a ruptured appendix. Or a rare form of cancer whose treatments are still in the experimental stage.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure why you assume it'll automatically be bad or untimely service. That entirely depends on how the service is structured and funded, rather than whether it's public or private.

At least in a public system, it would be possible to place the emphasis on a) service delivery targets and b) to have a bias [i]for[/i] patient recovery rather than denial of service.

In the end, the bias is in favor of a basic public system anyway. The studies and comparisons between America versus other developed nations are stark. Even if you argue on an ideological basis, it's difficult to argue on a service delivery or satisfactory outcome basis.

In terms of your last sentence, this is precisely why a public system shouldn't attempt to be all things for all people. The most fundamental/critical healthcare should at least be covered by a public option, but I wouldn't expect a public system to pay for some radical experimental cancer treatment - in other words, it doesn't have to be-all and end-all; there's plenty of room to create a clear dichotomy between public and private if that is deemed necessary.[/font]

[quote]Although on the plus side, it will be easier to abuse pain medication now... [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]On what basis?[/font]

[quote]I can't imagine this not going to the post office. Or the DMV. Unless you saw a health problem coming two months in advance, you didn't make an appointment and you wait half the day, week, month? to see the doctor. Doctors I see are overloaded with patients now, and I've seen everything from the rich doctors in Orange County to the extremely poor ones in rural San Bernardino county. I'm not sure the government has figured out the answer to how to come up enough doctors to treat everyone under their plan.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Why on earth would this go to the post office or the DMV? Why is that the logical conclusion?

Besides, this in itself is almost a side issue. Coming up with enough doctors is a separate problem to the idea that people should be able to have public health access - at least on a basic level.

In Australia we've had problems with nurse shortages, but this has nothing to do with the private/public issue (in fact, nurses are generally paid higher in public settings)...it has everything to do with not enough people commencing nursing degrees.

So I think unfortunately this keeps coming back to public = bad, private = good. It's just not that simple.

[b]Edit:[/b] See Ravenstorture's post. Again the issue is [i]not[/i] about public/private, but how the system itself is designed.[/font]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]I actually disagree, James. I believe that the design of the current healthcare system is actually decent, but it's the [I]practice[/I], the [I]execution[/I] of the plan where the system falls short.

See, even with the Federal healthcare plan, the potential still exists for the money to be fiddled with at the top, as well as the potential for the incentives to deny coverage that you mentioned with our current system, which I am in no hurry to sidestep. Like what happened with our Social Security situation; the collected money got irresponsibly used and the system got put into a bit of a bind.

It's not so much that I'm a complete cynical pessimist and believe that as soon as the system is implemented it will go stupid. I mean, the Federal system would have the clear means to get needed funds to the right people, regardless of region. I just happen to see a huge impersonal gap between the Federal system and the individual who needs aid, and with that gap comes a higher difficulty to discern who needs the money and who wants to ride the system for as long as they can.

The key point to this whole issue is taking care of the needy. With the current system, they aren't getting care. With the proposed system, the chance for them to melt in with the people who look like they need care but don't rises (although I admit it's not immediately clear to me how abuse of the health insurance system happens apart from hypochondriacs, so that's a weak argument right there). But we're almost ignoring the potential for local efforts, which to me may not have the best means for moving funds around indiscriminately but at least can relate to those in need on a personal level.

The Federal system will require a hike in taxes. It comes with the territory, so I'm not bothered by that. But the more the Federal system is forced to siphon off to offer its services, the less the communities have spare to help the people around them. And really, it's a lot easier to feel compassion for the people in your own city than the people a mere state over whom you'll never know.

But that's really an opinion, and not much of an argument. I don't expect it to hold water with many people.[/FONT]

[James]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]I actually disagree, James. I believe that the design of the current healthcare system is actually decent, but it's the [I]practice[/I], the [I]execution[/I] of the plan where the system falls short.

See, even with the Federal healthcare plan, the potential still exists for the money to be fiddled with at the top, as well as the potential for the incentives to deny coverage that you mentioned with our current system, which I am in no hurry to sidestep. Like what happened with our Social Security situation; the collected money got irresponsibly used and the system got put into a bit of a bind.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think the design of the current system is fundamentally flawed, based on the contradictions you pointed out earlier. My feeling is that if it works at all, it is working [i]despite[/i] the design rather than because of it (at least in many cases this seems to be true).

You are completely right in saying that a federal system still has the potential for money issues, but as I mentioned earlier, at least governments are responsible to the people (rather than to shareholders). For this reason, there should be no encouragement to deny coverage - unless, of course, the system has limited coverage for financial sustainability reasons (like not including optional surgeries or whatever).

If you take the insurance industry out of the equation - at least for basic level public care - you are able to have care-based incentives without being impeded by the need to generate profit or dividends.

Having said all of that, I agree with the basic premise you're making. All I'm really pointing out is that a system can be flawed no matter whether it's public or private. The problem I see is that many people have a paranoia of anything public simply [i]because[/i] it's public.[/font]

[Allamorph]

All I'm really pointing out is that a system can be flawed no matter whether it's public or private.

Right. And even a system designed to eliminate any such flaws can be perfect in theory and flawed in implementation simply because of human nature.

The problem I see is that many people have a paranoia of anything public simply because it's public.

Hmm. I think what you mean is that people are acting paranoid about a Federal system because it's Federal. Which would be right. (I say this because as far as I understand, the current health insurance agencies are public companies. But that's semantics.)

Our nation's history of policies has been a continual balancing act between power of the Central government and power of the Individual governments. Give too much power to the individuals and the union dissolves into petty squabbling. Give too much power to the central and the union strains and fractures under the dissent.

About the only other concept I could compare us to would be the European Union in that it is composed of numerous autonomous countries who decided to band together. We here call ourselves one country, but really we are also fifty-odd separate countries gathered under the same banner, and the interests of those in Oregon are going to differ as wildly from those in Alabama as the interests of those in Britain will from those in the Czech Republic. (Speaking in an analogy, obviously.)

So having a Federal system means constantly balancing it against the interests of everyone nationwide, and that's not an easy thing to do. So it becomes an issue of "yes, Big Government has the ability to do this a lot better and more fairly, but can they do it without everyone getting ticked off at everyone else", and that's where a lot of Republicans get their local/personal responsibility thing.

Putting health insurance in the hands of the Federal government seems like it would do wonders towards getting the people what they need. But that's still a lot of power being given to them if it happens, and the sticking point is whether that power is too much. Edited February 7, 2015 by Allamorph

[SunfallE]

[FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial']Putting health insurance in the hands of the Federal government seems like it would do wonders towards getting the people what they need. But that's still a lot of power being given to them if it happens, and the sticking point is whether that power is too much.[/FONT][/quote]I know this is just semantics, but they're not just putting it in the hands of the Federal government. This isn't replacing the current insurance system, it will be one of the choices. If this was handing it solely over to the government, then I might be more concerned, but it's not. Our government already has a lot of power, so where do you draw the line on what you won't let them do? Our current system is broken. So clearly reform is needed. Though whether or not this is the right reform, remains to be seen. Anyway, I'd go into more depth, but James has already covered most of what I would touch on. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[spy46]

Ok being some one that is from a country that has that kind of a health system, granted i dont know it 100% but i have a good idea of what it is.

depending on how your government sets it all up will of course depend on how well it works and every thing.

here in Canada EVERY one gets covered under the government plan, every one from the oldest homeless person to some one that is rich like billgates, but that system only covers things like your over all health, a broken bone, a heart condition etc etc, but when your treated for what you have and your healthy again its time to leave.

we can also pay actual health insurance companies to give us extra coverage, to stay that extra day or 10 in the hospital or what ever it is and if we went to another country and some thing happened there.

our system is set so that every one is treated fairly, it is funded by taxes that every one pays, just like with the police and fire department, all funded by taxes, so how would that system run out of money?

now again depending on how your system is set up would depend on what would happen in general, but if you guys did have it, it would mean that ALONG with what ever company you are dealing with for your health insurance, you would also be covered by the governments plan so if your oh so favorate company said *no were not going to save your life* in what every, the government would be able to.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I realize my response here will only cover a few items, but I see no reason ro repeat what has been covered already. Instead, I'll briefly touch a few reasons why I'm not opposed to the reform.This, a thousand times over. I've lost count of the times that friends, family and even myself have had to FIGHT the insurance companies to get coverage on procedures. Sooner or later, you get exasperated, and give up on fighting it. You still have to pay the bill anyway, regardless of whether or not your insurance will finally pay like they should. Hell, even when my father passed away recently, his insurance attempted to bail on covering nearly $100,000 worth of procedures that were done while he was in the hospital during his final week.I don't see this happening anytime soon either. It takes massive effort and actually suing the insurance companies over not providing coverage to get it changed. No matter how people spin it, denying coverage over preexisting conditions, among other things, needs to end. In my opinion, reform is long overdue.[/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]You bring up an interesting point Aaryanna Mom. My father went through that same crap after his mom died from cancer. Plus I'm sure there's a lot of us who have tried to go through our medical bills and can't figure it out without a map. It's quite aggrivating.

My friend's father is having a current issue with health care because he's on dialisis waiting for a transplant and her family had to fight with insurance for covering everything from hospital stays to over sixty grand in medications.Luckily they got things to work out for them, but it was a battle that no one should have to go through.

Anyways something else no one has brought up yet; I work in a nursing home (I used to work in assisted living- actually I still do that per diem) and it costs at least twenty grand a year or more to live in one of the good nursing homes for the rest of your golden years if you have to be put in one. And trust me- you don't want to be in one of those cheap fifteen grand a year deals- they look like institutions. Medicaid helps to cover it, but you have to sell everything and hope that you don't live too long unless you made a lot of money when you were working or your kids help you out. With National health care if it's a government run nursing home the national health care will pay for your nursing home but if it's private they'll still helpbut not as much.

Now to Raiha, National health care isn't like a car that works every other day- that's what we have right now here in the States. We've expensive private pay insurance that takes a big bite out of your check. And heaven help you if you suddenly decide to go back to school full time and want to just work part time. I have to put off my LPN until I marry my boyfriend so I can be on his insurance and afford to go to school. And I'm constantly worried that I'll be turned down because I do have a pre existing condition. National Health care works in Europe and in Canada and it's about time that we as Americans realize that we deserve the same health care as everyone else in developed nations.

As for running out of money, it's paid for by your taxes which means that as long as everyone keeps paying their state and federal taxes the government won't run out of money for health care. The states haven't run out of money for fire departments or the police. And the government sure hasn't run out of any money for the DOD. So I doubt funding it's citizen's health will be a problem.

[quote name='Raiha]']Although on the plus side, it will be easier to abuse pain medication now...[/quote]

As opposed to what? How easy it is to abuse pain meds when you're a wealthy conservative talk show host? Get real, people will abuse medications with or without health care as long as they know where to get them. Don't blame health insurance for people's issues.[/color][/font][/size]

[James]

[quote]So having a Federal system means constantly balancing it against the interests of everyone nationwide, and that's not an easy thing to do. So it becomes an issue of "yes, Big Government has the ability to do this a lot better and more fairly, but can they do it without everyone getting ticked off at everyone else", and that's where a lot of Republicans get their local/personal responsibility thing.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This argument makes a [i]lot[/i] more sense to me. I think you've framed this in a way that many people just aren't articulating.

So far, most of the objections I've seen relate simply to the idea of a "public system" (my use of the term public being a synonym for something funded largely via the public tax system).

On that raw basis, these arguments consistently fall flat on their faces - particularly those that seek to compare public healthcare to "socialized healthcare". I doubt that many of the people who put forward such arguments even have a genuine understanding of what socialism means.

But the way you've described it here not only makes more sense, but raises even more fundamental questions.

If one state already has a great healthcare system and its neighbouring states don't, then I can understand being nervous about a federal mandate - especially if this means you are actually moving to an inferior model.

Having said that, I think it's also clear that the division of powers on a single portfolio is difficult. Either the individual states are entirely responsible for health [i]or[/i] health becomes a federal responsibility.

The only alternative I can think of is if the federal system simply provides that [i]basic[/i] universal healthcare and the states can choose to go further if they like (and of course, private entities could offer whatever services they wish).

We are having a similar problem in Australia, whereby health responsibilities are divided between federal and state governments. It's not nearly as messy as America, but it means that if something goes wrong, it's easy for blame to jump back and forth between the state and federal levels.

Right now there is growing momentum in support of the Commonwealth Government (federal) taking full control of the entire health system, so that it can iron out inconsistencies and inefficiencies where they appear.

Anyway, as I said, you made a very compelling point. It would be great to see that level of consideration from Republican politicans, rather than their constant bleating about socialism.[/font]

[Allamorph]

I know this is just semantics, but they're not just putting it in the hands of the Federal government. This isn't replacing the current insurance system, it will be one of the choices.

Right. But remember, I'm speaking from a general side standpoint there. Most of the resistance to the proposal comes from people looking solely at the Federal angle itself, instead of how it filters into the whole scene.

Well. That, and our representatives not even having read it themselves while they attempt to sell it to us. That kind of hurts believability in my eyes, don't'cha know.

This argument makes a lot more sense to me. I think you've framed this in a way that many people just aren't articulating.

There's a lot to be said for talking from the basics. Even if I run the risk of telling you something you already know, you at least tell me you already understand it and then I have that much more to go on; whereas if I start by assuming you know what's going on and it turns out you don't, we get stuck at loggerheads very quickly.

I'm afraid that a lot of laypersons will argue this subject based on what they've heard from their politicians and from talk radio, and politicians and talk radio are going to be predominantly concerned with their main audience who in both cases are "supposed to" know the basic differences already. Audiences who agree with one side or the other will often use arguments they have heard others say without trying to understand any of the argument beyond the surface details.

Additionally, you have to factor in the downside of relying on the media. Reading about or hearing or seeing a bunch of people discuss intelligently without much conflict is ultimately kind of boring, and it's impossible to spin to the station's or paper's own agenda�and unfortunately, every television and radio news station and every newspaper is going to have their own ideas on how topics should be presented. The people you are going to hear the most on talk radio and on the news are the people with clearly opposing viewpoints, and these people put in the same room are not likely to reconcile and talk so that other people can understand them.

On television stations especially I expect it's common to have people on a show simply to make points instead of discuss them. Listen to any news station for longer than two hours and I guarantee you will hear slight variations of the exact same lines over and over again, and nothing new will be revealed. It seems to me, after observing that phenomenon on several occasions, that the people who are discussing aren't actually making their own arguments but are reciting prepared arguments without taking the time to think through them, aside from figuring out how to say them.

It would be great to see that level of consideration from Republican politicans, rather than their constant bleating about socialism.

I think the whole socialism kick is a byproduct of the entire recent election as well as the past sixteen years of white house residents, as (so far as I understand it, since I've been pretty ignorant of most large-scale workings until recently) our government system has drifted more and more towards a Federal-dominant system.

That, and combine it with the Federal bailouts (which carry the potential implication of being on the Federal payroll), and the possibility that we may have a president who is not a natural born citizen (I make no statement one way or the other on that count, so all you reactionaries take it easy), and it becomes easy to see why a large number of people are beginning to get suspicious about the influx of socialism.

I mean, it's quite obvious to me that our entire economic situation at the present, along with the healthcare situation, is a result of the capitalism system becoming corrupted and institutions that should be client-focused are now money-focused, and the primary reason for this decay is one that I'll get crucified for if I bring it up, hint hint, but the problem with socialism even looking like it's rearing its head is that with socialism comes corruption and easy power abuse. At least with corrupt businesses the people still have the government to fight for them, but when the government gets funky ain't nothing pretty.

It is literally a DO NOT WANT reaction in that regard.

I can't figure out how to end this post decently. So I'll just end it.

End. Edited February 7, 2015 by Allamorph

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"][URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul"]This Just In: White House Buckles Under Pressure[/URL]

I wonder exactly what it was that made Obama suddenly decide to change his rhetoric from "We are going to have a public option and you are going to LIKE it" to

[indent]"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform[...]"[/indent]

Perhaps it's the number of e-mails that nearly overloaded the servers, or perhaps it's the representatives coming home to a bunch of jumping ugly constituents who were extremely irritated at one Senator's assertion that reading the bill before passing it was crazytalk. Either way I find myself somewhat amused at this turn of events, because when it all began, everyone was convinced that Obama's proposed bill was a slam dunk.

However there is the problem that I was reading a great deal in past news articles. Obama would say to Congress that he wanted A B and C in his bill, but he wouldn't go into the specifics of how it would work, or give them somewhat more clarified directions when they asked. Because the article had to be vague, I don't have any really really good specifics to cite here, but as I understand it Obama had a good big picture idea [to him] and no real plans for the explaining the execution bit. I agree, reform is needed, just not the reform Obama was sure we needed. Now that he, and all of Congress that was behind this thing, being pushed backwards by a public they did very little to reassure.

Instead they told the public to report anything "fishy" being said about their proposed health care reforms and decided the best way to get back at the latest version of community organization [town hall meetings] was to insult the intelligence and arguments of the people attending. Calling them the 'teabaggers' from the Tea Parties for Tax Reform. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Korey]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Navy"][SIZE="1"]I find the idea of a co-operative effort by the insurance agencies to be a little bit intriguing. It's a consumer-owned buisness that is supposed to be competitive with insurance agencies, but I wonder how their presence is really going to affect the insurance giants when they can simply offer a nice amount of "perks" to their coverage without really making prices more affordable to Americans. Economics 101 would state that if their is competition, that prices would go down. But Senator Kent Conrad's propsoal comes from his view as a democrat from a rural state. Now, in states like his, that makes so much sense. Not a lot of population density in those states, but what about populous states (California, New York). Can the presence of consumer-owned co-ops really have an affect on a population that is concentrated in an urban environment?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"]Just to offer another side of the story since it seems like it's being overlooked a bit:

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/"][U]Commentary: How insurance firms drive debate[/U][/URL]

The key point is summed up at the end:[quote][FONT="Arial"]The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. I know from having served on numerous trade group committees and industry-funded front groups, however, that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with insurers' ability to increase profits.

So the next time you hear someone warning against a "government takeover" of our health care system, or that the creation of a public health insurance option would send us down the "slippery slope toward socialism," know that someone like I used to be wrote those terms, knowing it might turn many of the very people who would benefit most from meaningful reform into unwitting spokespeople for the industry.[/FONT][/quote]I fully agree that people should be concerned, but at the same time, I wonder why they're not[I] more[/I] concerned over the continual rise in prices and increase of people who can't afford insurance at all. There is nothing that bothers me more than seeing someone, when I'm at work, who needs critical care, turn around and refuse it because they have no means to pay for it. [/FONT]

[spy46]

some time ago some *** sent chibbyhorsewoman a not so kind message about this, about her being a RED or comie or what ever.

i didnt see the message but the *** was saying some thing about how that kind of health care is a step toward socialism etc and that she should get out of his country.

but here is some thing funny if you think about it, isnt that the same system that gives us police and fire departments?

no system of ...... well any thing is perfect, system A does X better than system B, but system B does Z better than system A and C.

ive also heard alot of people going on about
*i dont want to pay for some one else health*

but if you were under that system, its not you paying for evrey one, is every one paying for you, yeah thats more of a how you look at it thing but its true.

whats more importaint, some ones life or money?

[Retribution]

[font=Arial]James, is there any way you could post a link or two to sources describing the differences in health care between the US and nations with a public option? I hear quite a bit of anecdotal evidence in favor of public health care, but have yet to run across figures to substantiate these claims.

To be honest, I want some talking points for my Republican friend. We always grill each other, and more information is always a plus.[/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]James, is there any way you could post a link or two to sources describing the differences in health care between the US and nations with a public option? I hear quite a bit of anecdotal evidence in favor of public health care, but have yet to run across figures to substantiate these claims.

To be honest, I want some talking points for my Republican friend. We always grill each other, and more information is always a plus.[/font][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]Retri, I don't have links, but would what I know do for now?

Canadian citizens were polled recently and asked if they'd be willing to switch their health care to the American system, seventy percent said hell no.

From what I know of National and Provincial from my boyfriend, his family(they live in British Columbia) and my friend in Alberta it's paid for the way the police, fire department and even your DOT is paid for, by your Taxes. My boyfriend's father has a lot of health problems because of the fact that he just smokes like a chimney and he works in manufacturing. He's thrown out his back a few times and was in the hospital for a week- all he ended up paying for was the TV and the food. The room was covered by his provincial insurance.

You are required to have the National insurance and the provincial in Canada. But you're also allowed to choose if you want to take part in your company's private insurance which my friend in Alberta does.

Also, I know that the biggest problem in Canadian health care right now is the lack of doctors and specialists. It is a fact that Canadians do die while on waiting lists, but their insurance will also pay for them to go to the States for care or pay to fly a doctor up to the province and city they live in at no cost to the person.

It's not a perfect system, but then again what system is?[/color][/font][/size]

[Korey]

[quote name='spy46']
whats more importaint, some ones life or money?[/QUOTE]

[FONT= "Franklin Gothic Medium"] [ [SIZE=1][Color="Navy"]In a perfect world, that would be an easy answer[/Color][/SIZE][/FONT]

[spy46]

i know that the sad thing is that people tend to care more aobut money UNLESS the person is right infront of them and you can see that they are hurt and every thing, like pullling over to help an accident victem on the road or what ever.

now i know that alot of people think that its just a bunch of BS, but if you watch the movie Sicko, from what i KNOW to be true, mike more was right about the canadian health system in almost every way that he said it was, cant remember 100% but from what i do, he was right about it.

if you havent seen the movie, i really recomend that you do see it, it does make you think about it, and another thing, one of my other friends knew some one that would answer the phone for one of the american insurance companies, he hated it becuase so many people would be yelling and what not, eventually he quit, but once he saw sicko, he wished that he had sooner.

but any ways, like i have been saying, depending on HOW your government sets it all up, that health care would be a REALLY good thing to have.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='spy46']

whats more importaint, some ones life or money?[/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]Depends on whose life it is Lee. Especially down here. And sometimes the HMO can decide if the procedure is too costly for them to cover and turn it down. Which reminds me I'm going to have an HMO starting on the first... crap :animeangr[/color][/size][/font]

[James]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]James, is there any way you could post a link or two to sources describing the differences in health care between the US and nations with a public option? I hear quite a bit of anecdotal evidence in favor of public health care, but have yet to run across figures to substantiate these claims.

To be honest, I want some talking points for my Republican friend. We always grill each other, and more information is always a plus.[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think the claims are substantiated by those of us who have experienced these systems, frankly. I mean, when I hear certain American politicians saying stuff about foreign systems... much of it is largely untrue.

I'm not quite sure what would be a good source to adequately explain the contrasts clearly, but I'd start here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia[/url]

The biggest difficulty to overcome is really just ignorance. It's tough to explain the differences when many of the people who complain the loudest simply haven't experienced health care systems in foreign countries.

Unfortunately, despite the figures and structure and evidence, this sort of thing often comes down to physical experience more than anything else.[/font]

[spy46]

i agree with you there, just because some *** on the news or some political jerk goes on about the canadian, brittish or some other system, you have to wonder how much of it they edited and every thing.

i mean sure, if you look hard enough you ARE going to find people in EVERY system that die on the waiting list, but the real question is how and why?

maybe some one on a heart transplant list because there is no match for them, or because of the level of some sickness and they waited too long to get checked out, just saying that some one dies on the list doesnt mean any thing, it happens.

and for the american politics, they like to trash canada because for one thing we are one of thier closest neibors and every thing wiht almost = of every thing in some way or another so instead of fixing the problem they just blame us for the most part.

but then there is also the fact that most of them dont even KNOW what our system is really like, but because its not american made or what ever, ive noticed that most americans wouldnt give a rats arse what so ever.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='spy46']i agree with you there, just because some *** on the news....[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Slightly off topic, but throwing around various expletives goes a long way towards ruining any credibility you have in making an intelligent argument.

I'd feel a whole lot more inclined to listen to what you have to say if the boards weren't autocensoring half your posts.[/FONT]

[spy46]

well we get american news up here and every thing and alot of reporters that tend to compair canada and the states tend to act like we are a 3rd world country or some thing, like when the movie Sicko came out there was a new report about our system from an american reporter giving a real BS story.

he was saying that we have lines and people die while on a waiting list and all that only giving the cons of our system, then even saying a few things that were not true.

yes we do have waiting lines at a hospital or Dr's office, but that depending on how you look at it is a good thing because every one can see a Dr and go to the hospital and every thing.

my dad once when he was in the states X years ago had to go to the hospital, the only thing he had to pay for was watching TV and the food that he DID eat.

the way that the reporter was making the system sound like was that it was worse than the american system, so i called him an A** because of how he was saying it.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Slightly off topic, but throwing around various expletives goes a long way towards ruining any credibility you have in making an intelligent argument.

I'd feel a whole lot more inclined to listen to what you have to say if the boards weren't autocensoring half your posts.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Whoa there, Robocop. The censor is in place to protect your pristine eyes - if you still have a problem with asterisks, we're in trouble...

Re: James,

I'm looking for some sort of way to debate the following arguments usually leveled against public health care:

- Longer waits due to more people "burdening" the system, dying in the waiting room, etc
- Lower quality care
- Leads to massive public debt[/font]