Rationing and long lines

[DamnYankee]

What's pathetic is that after I've made a complete fool of you on several occasions, you try to piggy back on someone else's post to spew your frustration....and as usual, when you can't logically or factually prove your assertions, you just shrug like an idiot. That may go over big in your home town, but on these boards it just makes you look foolish. Carry on.

You completed the pattern just as predicted. *shrug*

 

[Damocles]

All you've done here is just parrot GL's post. BFD, you make the same errors he did, which I addressed. Essentially, you just wasted space.

Jesus, dude. I don't have to "parrot" anything. I read your links, GL is right. Your information is unrelated to the topic at hand and does not prove your point it cannot because it is unrelated. I even gave a specific example. If you are trying to prove that salaries take up most (more than 50%) of the budget, surely you can link to a research budget that shows that. There really is nothing more to say. We point out the obvious and you continue to insist you see the ghosts. Repeating that somebody abusing government authority proves that research money is mostly spent on salaries seems to be your only argument, it's tired, it's been exposed, and it's boring.

Now, you can find more actual evidence that supports your theory, or you can post the same unrelated rubbish and insist that everybody else who read it is wrong.

Personally I'd like Thorn to chime in, she'd be the one to know if research dollars are spent "mostly" on salaries and wouldn't use the CDC dude abusing his authority as an "example" of that.

 

[Good Luck]

Let's address the "resources" argument. It's no different than the old argument about housing the poor. "We don't have the resources" was the excuse. Of course, when the Real Estate boom was going full swing houses and condos were being built quicker than one could blink. Where did all these plumbers and electricians and brick layers and carpenters come from? Where did all the materials come from?

The same applies to feeding the poor. There is plenty of food. From machinery to bio-technology there is no legitimate reason for anyone to go hungry.

As to sufficient medical personnel most universal plans require patients to go through referral steps. The reason being it prevents a person from picking up the phone and making an appointment with a specialized surgeon when they've confused a wart with a tumor!

Patients are screened. First a visit to a general practitioner. If the GP doesn't know what the problem is or can't fix it they refer the patient to a specialist. This way the specialist's time is not wasted dealing with common problems.

In a "Pay or Suffer" system it doesn't make any difference to the specialist who visits him/her. The guy with the wart will pay the same price for a visit as someone with a tumor. The problem is the specialist's time is not put to good use. It makes as much sense as having a VP sweep the factory floor instead of dealing with company business.

If there is a lack of doctors lower the costs for education. Or have the government pay part of the cost and the graduating doctors have to commit so many hours to the universal plan in exchange.

People would jump at the opportunity to get a partially paid education. If they're willing to join the military to get an education I'm sure there are more people willing to donate a few years to the universal plan after getting their doctor's diploma.

Lastly, there are dozens of countries that have universal plans and with all the problems there is not ONE country that wants to change back to the old system of "Pay or Suffer". Not ONE country.

What more proof is needed? Capitalists to communists. Black to white. Rich to poor. Not one country wants to change back.

The bottom line is there isn't any bonafide argument against a universal plan. It's been discussed and experienced by hundreds of millions of people of all ages. Every plan has it's objectors but not one country wants to revert to a "Pay or Suffer" system which shows even the most inefficient plan is preferred to the current one.

The proof is there.

You completely misconstrued my post. I did not condone in any way the current system of pay or suffer.

My point is the universal system being proposed has no provisions in it that account for medical care (as anything else in this world) being a limited resource. If we treat anything, be it transportation fuels, or government spending, or medical care, as if they come from limitless resources, we are looking for trouble.

There is no "proof" as you call it that universal care is the best answer. Of course people who have universal care systems do not want to "go back" because the PTBs have them scared spitless of losing what they have. That in NO WAY "proves" that universal care is the ONLY or even the BEST answer to the problems we face. In fact, it is the typical "give it to the government" lazy man's non-thinking answer.

There are numerous problems to the universal care answer, among them lack of motivation for improvement of care, advancement in technology, etc. Like I said, you show me ONE country with universal care that matches our system for innovation and advancement of medical technology, ability to treat prevuiously "incurable" diseases, etc. then you MAY have a point. But as I said before, there is FAR more involved in the question of health care than just whether Joe Average can afford it. That is but ONE small piece of a very large puzzle. Yet advancement of universal care affects all aspects of health care, not just who can afford what. Universal care vastly increases demand for health services. What plans are there to adjust the health care field to meet the increased demand? You mention "government paying" again and again and again Health care facilities, health care education, health care training, etc. etc. etc. WHERE DOES IT STOP?!?!?!? Like health care, government finances are NOT a limitless resource!

Universal care will diminish profit motive for development of new medical technologies. For every dollar spent by the government on health care research, there are 100 or more private dollars (as in corporate dollars seeking new products to sell) What plans are there to continue the search for new, better treatments for diseases like cancer, neuromuscular degenerative diseases, aids, etc? In the past 100 years, how many medical advancements have come out of government sponsored research compared to advancements that have come from private research? For practical purposes, there is no comparison. Even if a government sponsored research avenue brings out a lead, invariably it has been private research that has made that lead into something that can be used to treat people.

I do not think there is anyone in this discussion who does not want to see people, especcially the poor, have better access to health care. However, the dispute is how to achieve that without negatively affecting the rest of the health care environment. Universal care is NOT the only possible solution. We need a REAL solution, not just the popular one.

 

[DamnYankee]

Jesus, dude. I don't have to "parrot" anything. I read your links, GL is right. Your information is unrelated to the topic at hand and does not prove your point it cannot because it is unrelated. I even gave a specific example. If you are trying to prove that salaries take up most (more than 50%) of the budget, surely you can link to a research budget that shows that. There really is nothing more to say. We point out the obvious and you continue to insist you see the ghosts. Repeating that somebody abusing government authority proves that research money is mostly spent on salaries seems to be your only argument, it's tired, it's been exposed, and it's boring.

Now, you can find more actual evidence that supports your theory, or you can post the same unrelated rubbish and insist that everybody else who read it is wrong.

Personally I'd like Thorn to chime in, she'd be the one to know if research dollars are spent "mostly" on salaries and wouldn't use the CDC dude abusing his authority as an "example" of that.

Next you get called neocon and dismissed LOL.

 

[belme1201]

Ugh... you keep saying that "no nation is working to return"... while ignoring that many of the nations that adopted these plans are actually beginning to return to more private practice. In Canada these clinics began to appear years ago, while of questionable legality, they are a beginning to alleviating the overcrowded national system...

As we start driving towards nationalized health care in many places where there is nationalized health care they have begun driving towards more private care.

Are there issues with the costs of health care? Yes. There are.

This does not mean we should willingly jump into "solutions" that do not resolve those issues.

For instance, in Florida one simple step allowing people to seek out price differences in pharmacies on the internet and shop for savings saves a ton of cash for both government and private insurance as well as people simply purchasing the necessary drugs directly. This didn't make pharmacies that had low prices raise theirs, it caused (because of competition) lowering in the cost of many drugs at the pharmacies that had higher prices...

Safeway, a local Supermarket chain, gave direct control over health insurance by creating a system whereby a certain amount is set aside for it, and the employee selects how to spend it. What isn't used at the end of the year is kept by the employee. While everybody gets care, there again was shown to be a huge savings as people were able to select care levels. All the employees also have catastrophic coverage for the terminal or chronic, or disabilities...

They get covered but it costs them and the employer less...

But we are supposed to applaud ANY program and never look at any solution that may be found to actually rude costs because nobody in Canada wants the system to go away, even though they are paying an illegal private clinic directly so they can get treated...

When wasn't it legal in Florida or anywhere else to shop for better drug prices on the internet? If you are referring to overseas shopping, the GOP made that illegal in Medicare Part D, along with forbidding price negotiation by Medicare, and I don't believe state laws can overturn fed laws.
Regarding Canada and most of the "civilized" world, no-one leaves a hospital or doctor worrying if he can feed the kids, make the house payment, pay for medicine, or whether he will be forced to declare bankruptcy. That seems to be a purely American phenomenon as the result of a for-profit healthcare system. If the more well-to-do prefer to carry supplemental private insurance just as Medicare patients also do, the fact remains that, financially, all are safe from the system, rich or poor, unlike here. In addition, all statistics point to the fact that the US system ranks rather low in results compared to all other industrial nations.
Is there a reason why, when asked for sources regarding the supposed problems with those systems, the posters remain, not so surprisingly, silent? Could they be from GOP talking points, or, maybe just picked out of the sky?

 

[Damocles]

When wasn't it legal in Florida or anywhere else to shop for better drug prices on the internet? If you are referring to overseas shopping, the GOP made that illegal in Medicare Part D, along with forbidding price negotiation by Medicare, and I don't believe state laws can overturn fed laws.
Regarding Canada and most of the "civilized" world, no-one leaves a hospital or doctor worrying if he can feed the kids, make the house payment, pay for medicine, or whether he will be forced to declare bankruptcy. That seems to be a purely American phenomenon as the result of a for-profit healthcare system. If the more well-to-do prefer to carry supplemental private insurance just as Medicare patients also do, the fact remains that, financially, all are safe from the system, rich or poor, unlike here. In addition, all statistics point to the fact that the US system ranks rather low in results compared to all other industrial nations.
Is there a reason why, when asked for sources regarding the supposed problems with those systems, the posters remain, not so surprisingly, silent? Could they be from GOP talking points, or, maybe just picked out of the sky?

When? Until recently. Why? Probably lobbyists. The disparity of the pricing was not evident as pharmacies didn't post pricing, the law made it so you could compare the prices easily on the same drug. You would be surprised at the differences in prices in an industry where they don't openly post pricing. And I am referring to a State law, not overseas pricing. It was very effective.

The real question is, 'When we find something that works that well why aren't other places emulating it?'

I refuse to accept a vague unoutlined "plan". At this point it does not appear as if we'll even attempt to do anything about the actual costs, we'll just cover it. If we don't this program will go down the tubes quickly it will collapse on itself.

 

[Cypress]

Once again we see the black hearts of Cons on display.

They’ve been told before, that the “wait times” in Canada, are for non-emergency or elective surgery. Nobody with a medical emergency is put on a wait list.

And what the f*ck, 50 million people in this country can’t even get an MRI. Somebody tell me why the eff Cons are whining about a three month wait for an elective, non-emergency medical procedure?




That’s not too fucking bad. It could be better. It could be as good as France or Germany. Maybe France is who we should emulate. But that would make Sean Hannity’s head explode.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Jesus, dude. I don't have to "parrot" anything. You just did.....you wasted a lot space to put into your own words essentially what GL stated, and I proved wrong. I read your links, GL is right. Your information is unrelated to the topic at hand and does not prove your point it cannot because it is unrelated. I even gave a specific example. No you didn't, you gave the exact same reasoning that GL did, which I addressed. That you phrased it differently but with the same conclusion is no big whoop. If you are trying to prove that salaries take up most (more than 50%) of the budget, surely you can link to a research budget that shows that. There really is nothing more to say. We point out the obvious and you continue to insist you see the ghosts. Repeating that somebody abusing government authority proves that research money is mostly spent on salaries seems to be your only argument, it's tired, it's been exposed, and it's boring.

Translation: GL and Damo can generalize and use their supposition and conjecture as fact...but I cannot use logic and reasoning to demonstrate how information on the same subject is related. Interesting, maybe this will help, but I doubt it because neither you or GL will READ carefully what is written, then compare it to the other information I gave http://www.state.nj.us/health/ccr/ccrgrant.htm

If you don't get it by this time, then there is nothing more to say because you have blinders on.

Now, you can find more actual evidence that supports your theory, or you can post the same unrelated rubbish and insist that everybody else who read it is wrong. No, I just point out how you REFUSE to acknowledge that all the information is related to the topic at hand and to THINK outside your preconceived notions. See above.

Personally I'd like Thorn to chime in, she'd be the one to know if research dollars are spent "mostly" on salaries and wouldn't use the CDC dude abusing his authority as an "example" of that.

Works for me.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Next you get called neocon and dismissed LOL.

No chuckles, I reserve that for fools who think a shrug is a definitive answer for everything.

 

[DamnYankee]

No chuckles, I reserve that for fools who think a shrug is a definitive answer for everything.

LOL really funny how you respond to a non shrug post and my new posting style that I borrowed from a poster that I now pwn with a complaint that I have shrugged.

 

[belme1201]

When? Until recently. Why? Probably lobbyists. The disparity of the pricing was not evident as pharmacies didn't post pricing, the law made it so you could compare the prices easily on the same drug. You would be surprised at the differences in prices in an industry where they don't openly post pricing. And I am referring to a State law, not overseas pricing. It was very effective.

The real question is, 'When we find something that works that well why aren't other places emulating it?'

I refuse to accept a vague unoutlined "plan". At this point it does not appear as if we'll even attempt to do anything about the actual costs, we'll just cover it. If we don't this program will go down the tubes quickly it will collapse on itself.

For as long as I've had a phone and ultimately the internet, I could get information on the price of any prescription given me by doctor. I live in Florida and have seen no change, brought about by a new law, in the way I shop for pharmaceuticals.
Since our system is the most expensive with poor ultimate results, there's not much chance we can make it worse, particularly for those who have been devastated by the cost of ill health. Why would anybody emulate the system we have? You can bet that, in other countries, there are no med company execs taking home multi-millions and sometimes billions while ill health is the No. 1 cause for personal bankruptcy.
Columbia/HCA defrauded the government and was fined $1.7 billion, no(highly politically connected) executive was punished. Just a few years after it was taken private, it sold for somewhere between 25 and 30 billion dollars at a profit of 20+ billion to investors. On whose back was that profit derived? It pays to screw the gov and the people!
Ours is a system without a heart, the time for change is now, waiting is extending the same failed system. Maybe mistakes will be made, but our system as it exists is, in itself, a mistake. What would this country be if nobody ever took a chance?
A question, how does a manufacturing company compete overseas with the cost of employee health added into every product? Is it possible that the intent of the global corporations is to drive all such jobs overseas? Fifty cents an hour in China/India must look pretty good to a company paying $10 plus healthcare here. Maybe that's the object?

 

[Damocles]

For as long as I've had a phone and ultimately the internet, I could get information on the price of any prescription given me by doctor. I live in Florida and have seen no change, brought about by a new law, in the way I shop for pharmaceuticals.
Since our system is the most expensive with poor ultimate results, there's not much chance we can make it worse, particularly for those who have been devastated by the cost of ill health. Why would anybody emulate the system we have? You can bet that, in other countries, there are no med company execs taking home multi-millions and sometimes billions while ill health is the No. 1 cause for personal bankruptcy.
Columbia/HCA defrauded the government and was fined $1.7 billion, no(highly politically connected) executive was punished. Just a few years after it was taken private, it sold for somewhere between 25 and 30 billion dollars at a profit of 20+ billion to investors. On whose back was that profit derived? It pays to screw the gov and the people!
Ours is a system without a heart, the time for change is now, waiting is extending the same failed system. Maybe mistakes will be made, but our system as it exists is, in itself, a mistake. What would this country be if nobody ever took a chance?
A question, how does a manufacturing company compete overseas with the cost of employee health added into every product? Is it possible that the intent of the global corporations is to drive all such jobs overseas? Fifty cents an hour in China/India must look pretty good to a company paying $10 plus healthcare here. Maybe that's the object?

Were you able to go to a single site that allowed you to compare the pricing on that drug for every pharmacist in a certain area? Price lists like that are unavailable. Did you know the differences in some of the "more expensive" drugs were at times well over $100? The comparison site saved people money and dropped the prices so that those pharmacies could compete with the ones that were getting business now that people had an easy way to compare...

Please. You are out of your league, at least read up on it.

Is it possible you are talking out your butt because you couldn't actually listen to ideas? So far all you've given me is you support anything at all so long as it is nationalized because people aren't out in the streets protesting for a return to the old system... While ignoring that very often they are going in that direction by simply spending money on private clinics rather than using the system.

What type of program would you like to see? Should we emulate the mistakes of another system or make something unique? If we make something unique should we set up a time limit and directly work to fix the issues that become apparent or should we try to forever patch problems with no permanent fixes? Should we wait until we actually get a plan before we start talking about solutions or should we talk about saving money now?

Just repeating the inane, "They're not going back" when they often are is just not working anymore.

I notice you didn't talk about the unique program that Safeway set up and the amazing savings. It turns out when people have control over their money (incentive to save) the savings is quite impressive all while they still get coverage and care. Another unique part of that particular program is that if other employers emulated it you would no longer be chained to your job by your benefits.

 

[Bonestorm]

Were you able to go to a single site that allowed you to compare the pricing on that drug for every pharmacist in a certain area? Price lists like that are unavailable. Did you know the differences in some of the "more expensive" drugs were at times well over $100? The comparison site saved people money and dropped the prices so that those pharmacies could compete with the ones that were getting business now that people had an easy way to compare...

Please. You are out of your league, at least read up on it.

Is it possible you are talking out your butt because you couldn't actually listen to ideas? So far all you've given me is you support anything at all so long as it is nationalized because people aren't out in the streets protesting for a return to the old system... While ignoring that very often they are going in that direction by simply spending money on private clinics rather than using the system.

What type of program would you like to see? Should we emulate the mistakes of another system or make something unique? If we make something unique should we set up a time limit and directly work to fix the issues that become apparent or should we try to forever patch problems with no permanent fixes? Should we wait until we actually get a plan before we start talking about solutions or should we talk about saving money now?

Just repeating the inane, "They're not going back" when they often are is just not working anymore.

I notice you didn't talk about the unique program that Safeway set up and the amazing savings. It turns out when people have control over their money (incentive to save) the savings is quite impressive all while they still get coverage and care. Another unique part of that particular program is that if other employers emulated it you would no longer be chained to your job by your benefits.

Saying that other heathcare systems are "not working anymore" because rich people with money to burn see private physicians is just plain stupid. It makes about as much sense as claiming the U.S. system is great because there's this website . . . Oh, and Safeway.

 

[blackascoal]

You right-wingers can stop with all the fake angst .. there will be no public option in the Obama healthcare tweaking plan.

 

[Damocles]

Saying that other heathcare systems are "not working anymore" because rich people with money to burn see private physicians is just plain stupid. It makes about as much sense as claiming the U.S. system is great because there's this website . . . Oh, and Safeway.

I didn't say they didn't work anymore, it's a straw man to say I did. I said that the incursion of private systems (in some cases even illegal ones) is alleviating some of the problems and that they are moving in that direction (likely the reason that governments where such private clinics are illegal are looking the other way). Suggesting that because a government system isn't being totally eliminated (like that ever happens) means that it is perfection is just preposterous.

I also never said that the US system was great because of Safeway, that is another disingenuous straw man, I said that we can institute solutions for cost problems so this new program doesn't collapse under its own weight and we'll wind up bailing it out for the next two centuries wondering why just making the "government" pay wasn't a solution.

 

[belme1201]

Were you able to go to a single site that allowed you to compare the pricing on that drug for every pharmacist in a certain area? Price lists like that are unavailable. Did you know the differences in some of the "more expensive" drugs were at times well over $100? The comparison site saved people money and dropped the prices so that those pharmacies could compete with the ones that were getting business now that people had an easy way to compare...

Please. You are out of your league, at least read up on it.

Is it possible you are talking out your butt because you couldn't actually listen to ideas? So far all you've given me is you support anything at all so long as it is nationalized because people aren't out in the streets protesting for a return to the old system... While ignoring that very often they are going in that direction by simply spending money on private clinics rather than using the system.

What type of program would you like to see? Should we emulate the mistakes of another system or make something unique? If we make something unique should we set up a time limit and directly work to fix the issues that become apparent or should we try to forever patch problems with no permanent fixes? Should we wait until we actually get a plan before we start talking about solutions or should we talk about saving money now?

Just repeating the inane, "They're not going back" when they often are is just not working anymore.

I notice you didn't talk about the unique program that Safeway set up and the amazing savings. It turns out when people have control over their money (incentive to save) the savings is quite impressive all while they still get coverage and care. Another unique part of that particular program is that if other employers emulated it you would no longer be chained to your job by your benefits.

Sorry I didn't mention Safeway, I don't even know who they are although I'm sure they're wonderful people. If their plan works and it isn't enriching the executives, I'm for it. Re: Florida? There is nothing in that new law, which is a well kept secret here, which couldn't be acccomplished easily before.

I have told you several times that I prefer the Congressional health program for all, following that, I'll take the UK, Canada, or Germany's. With faults, they're better than ours. I'm being specific, you? Outside of nay, I see you recommending nothing but caution. "Unique" is simple, it means nothing.
By the way, seeing how my non-reply to Safeway bothered you, where have you replied to my comments, among others, about bankruptcy and poverty due to ill health, or my question regarding health costs to American companies trying to compete, sources for negative comments about other systems, etc? Doesn't conversation go 2 ways, or is that except here? I realize this site is yours and you set the rules, obviously courtesy isn't one of them.

 

[Damocles]

Sorry I didn't mention Safeway, I don't even know who they are although I'm sure they're wonderful people. If their plan works and it isn't enriching the executives, I'm for it. Re: Florida? There is nothing in that new law, which is a well kept secret here, which couldn't be acccomplished easily before.

Yet people didn't before. It has saved millions. Simple solutions often work well and can be steps in the right direction.

I have told you several times that I prefer the Congressional health program for all, following that, I'll take the UK, Canada, or Germany's. With faults, they're better than ours. I'm being specific, you? Outside of nay, I see you recommending nothing but caution. "Unique" is simple, it means nothing.
By the way, seeing how my non-reply to Safeway bothered you, where have you replied to my comments, among others, about bankruptcy and poverty due to ill health, or my question regarding health costs to American companies trying to compete, sources for negative comments about other systems, etc? Doesn't conversation go 2 ways, or is that except here? I realize this site is yours and you set the rules, obviously courtesy isn't one of them.

Please. I recommend that we do not go whole hog into something and miss what could be the best because we are short-sighted. Many different ideas are out there that I haven't had, and they might be better than the Congressional Health Program. Your way, we'll never know. We have the absolutely unique opportunity to do something incredible, instead we'll have mediocre patches. Even Obama's program will just be a patch, we'll keep adding them and have an infinitely inadequate program that will always be on the table, glutted and porked up, enriching the few...

 

[apple0154]

Ugh... you keep saying that "no nation is working to return"... while ignoring that many of the nations that adopted these plans are actually beginning to return to more private practice. In Canada these clinics began to appear years ago, while of questionable legality, they are a beginning to alleviating the overcrowded national system...

As we start driving towards nationalized health care in many places where there is nationalized health care they have begun driving towards more private care.

Are there issues with the costs of health care? Yes. There are.

This does not mean we should willingly jump into "solutions" that do not resolve those issues.

For instance, in Florida one simple step allowing people to seek out price differences in pharmacies on the internet and shop for savings saves a ton of cash for both government and private insurance as well as people simply purchasing the necessary drugs directly. This didn't make pharmacies that had low prices raise theirs, it caused (because of competition) lowering in the cost of many drugs at the pharmacies that had higher prices...

Safeway, a local Supermarket chain, gave direct control over health insurance by creating a system whereby a certain amount is set aside for it, and the employee selects how to spend it. What isn't used at the end of the year is kept by the employee. While everybody gets care, there again was shown to be a huge savings as people were able to select care levels. All the employees also have catastrophic coverage for the terminal or chronic, or disabilities...

They get covered but it costs them and the employer less...

But we are supposed to applaud ANY program and never look at any solution that may be found to actually rude costs because nobody in Canada wants the system to go away, even though they are paying an illegal private clinic directly so they can get treated...

I have no problem with private clinics. An analogy could be the toll highway in Toronto or the Sawgrass Expressway in Florida. While people can pay for better service the 401 and the I-95 are still available for those who can't afford to pay.

I'm not suggesting doing away with private clinics, free enterprise or limiting choices in any way. A government run plan could be set into place as is done in Quebec for drugs. The patient co-pays to a certain amount and then the drugs are free. One is free to choose any insurance plan (employer based, private, government run) but they must be enrolled in one.

EXCERPT:
July 11, 2005
Although there are no differences in clinical outcome, the in-hospital cost of coronary bypass surgery in the U.S. is 82.5 percent higher in the U.S. than in Canada, according to a study in the July 11 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.

This cost differential primarily reflects higher resource prices for products and labor and higher overhead costs in the United States resulting from a nonsocialized medical system.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bypass.html

As for nations returning to private practice you summed it up when you wrote, "But we are supposed to applaud ANY program and never look at any solution that may be found to actually rude costs because nobody in Canada wants the system to go away, even though they are paying an illegal private clinic directly so they can get treated.."

Exactly. No one wants to get rid of the system because while the baby boomers have a lot of cash and can afford to spend a few thousand here and there on medical needs they know that the cost of one major illness can completely change their lifestyle. They'll spend 15 or 20 thousand on medical needs and bitch about not wanting to wait but if the bill was 100 thousand they'd shut their mouth and happily wait.

The ones doing the bitching are the ones who can afford private care. Great. Let them use private care.

I was reading an article saying this is the first time in history the successive generation will not do as well as the preceding one. Many boomers have lots of cash. Regarding Canada, now that they have the money and can afford medical care their attitude has changed.

They used the universal system while making their money, while raising their family, while padding their nest egg. Now they have the gall to complain about waiting for a hip operation so they can hit the golf course while some 30 year old is struggling with a mortgage payment and raising two kids.

They'll tell you how they budgeted and did without and scraped together their hard earned money but they won't tell you how many times they took their kids to the doctor and paid nothing.

Know what the problem is? They think of themselves as self-made men but they used the roads and the electricity and all the other conveniences past generations put into place. Self-made, my ass! HAHAHAHAHA

They were fortunate enough to live during boom times just as I was. The majority of people who are against universal care are not that way because of the expected cost or the delays. They think they have enough money to cover any emergency or pay for a private plan so to hell with everyone else. Now that they have their money let everyone else struggle and scrape along. The more difficult it is for the succeeding generation the wealthier the boomers are in comparison.

Now that they have made their money let's cut social services. Nothing better than seeing ones neighbor struggling to make ends meet. Maybe they'll cut my lawn for a few extra bucks while I sit on my ass drinking a beer and make up some bullshit story about how hard I struggled because I couldn't tell them I simply flipped a few revenue buildings.

If countries much poorer than the US can have a universal plan it just doesn't make sense to say the US can not afford one. It's simply a matter of priorities, of allocating the necessary funds.

The quickest way would be to tie medical expenses to ones income. Also, by being able to check on a person's income filings that would go a long way towards detecting illegal aliens as they probably didn't file a tax return.

If someone wants free medical they have to allow the hospital/doctor to check on their income. It's not the perfect way but it's a start. The most needy will receive medical care. Then bicker about the fine points.

(Gets off soap box and heads to kitchen for a coffee.)

 

[apple0154]

I was against all this, at first; but Apple's finally convinced me and I think we should go at it, whole hog.

If you don't have, or can't afford Health Care, then you should expect the Government to step in and give it to you.
If you don't have a job and can't pay your bills, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
If you can't afford a place to live, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
If you can't afford food, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
If you can't afford transportation, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
If you feel bad, because your life style doesn't afford you the things that others have, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
The Government should step in and require everyone to wear the same clothes, decide what everyone is going to eat, where they are going to live, where they should work (if they want to work).

Everyone should depend on the Government supplying everything, for everybody.

This sounds so good, that I see no reason to work or even attempt to work; because this way I and everyone else can have what they feel they need.

Eh, you forgot one thing. If it's Saturday night and you can't find a date the government has a toll-free number to call. ;-)

On a more serious note it's natural for healthy, happy human beings to want to improve their lot in life. If people just wanted to be looked after they'd all try to get in a jail. Room and board. No responsibilities. Guaranteed job. Sounds like the ideal set-up.

Strange world. We encourage kids to get an education. Even after high school we encourage and support our "children" to better themselves and when we see them slipping we ask how we can help.

When it comes to strangers we brand them as lazy and stupid. Are people too dumb to connect the dots?

 

[apple0154]

You completely misconstrued my post. I did not condone in any way the current system of pay or suffer.

My point is the universal system being proposed has no provisions in it that account for medical care (as anything else in this world) being a limited resource. If we treat anything, be it transportation fuels, or government spending, or medical care, as if they come from limitless resources, we are looking for trouble.

There is no "proof" as you call it that universal care is the best answer. Of course people who have universal care systems do not want to "go back" because the PTBs have them scared spitless of losing what they have. That in NO WAY "proves" that universal care is the ONLY or even the BEST answer to the problems we face. In fact, it is the typical "give it to the government" lazy man's non-thinking answer.

There are numerous problems to the universal care answer, among them lack of motivation for improvement of care, advancement in technology, etc. Like I said, you show me ONE country with universal care that matches our system for innovation and advancement of medical technology, ability to treat prevuiously "incurable" diseases, etc. then you MAY have a point. But as I said before, there is FAR more involved in the question of health care than just whether Joe Average can afford it. That is but ONE small piece of a very large puzzle. Yet advancement of universal care affects all aspects of health care, not just who can afford what. Universal care vastly increases demand for health services. What plans are there to adjust the health care field to meet the increased demand? You mention "government paying" again and again and again Health care facilities, health care education, health care training, etc. etc. etc. WHERE DOES IT STOP?!?!?!? Like health care, government finances are NOT a limitless resource!

Universal care will diminish profit motive for development of new medical technologies. For every dollar spent by the government on health care research, there are 100 or more private dollars (as in corporate dollars seeking new products to sell) What plans are there to continue the search for new, better treatments for diseases like cancer, neuromuscular degenerative diseases, aids, etc? In the past 100 years, how many medical advancements have come out of government sponsored research compared to advancements that have come from private research? For practical purposes, there is no comparison. Even if a government sponsored research avenue brings out a lead, invariably it has been private research that has made that lead into something that can be used to treat people.

I do not think there is anyone in this discussion who does not want to see people, especcially the poor, have better access to health care. However, the dispute is how to achieve that without negatively affecting the rest of the health care environment. Universal care is NOT the only possible solution. We need a REAL solution, not just the popular one.

Government health care does not stifle innovation/research. Many times a new drug will hit the market place but government plans do not cover that specific drug. In the meantime doctors can prescribe it and let the patient know the cost for that drug is not covered. So, we're right back where we are without a government plan. Those who can afford it, buy it. Those who can't use an alternative, if there is one, that may be covered by a government plan.

As time passes and the drug is shown to be valuable the government will do a cost analysis. Is it cheaper to cover the price of the drug or is it cheaper to have the patient remain ill, continue hospital and doctor visits, possibly stop work and collect government benefits, etc?

If the drug is a good as advertised the government will negotiate a wholesale price on the drug. While the price may be lower than what it's currently selling for the massive increase in demand will more than make up for the difference in price. Everyone who requires that drug will receive it and it will be paid for by the government. What better motivation for a drug company?

As to unlimited resources a healthy population is a greater asset to government. An ill, unemployed person costs society a lot of money. More than a prescription drug. More than a doctor's visit. More than health education.

It's an investment. Just like an educated population increases the overall wealth of a country. Plus, it's relatively easy to remain healthy here. Sufficient food. Clean water. Access to shelter. Why would we not treat every ill individual?