Healthcare in America - Myths Refuted

Diuretic said:
Good question. I'm not evading your question because as I said, it's interesting. I've asked myself that same question and I keep going back to look at another question. Why are health care costs increasing? And frankly I don't know why they're increasing. I suppose I could, given a bit of time, come up with an educated guess. Getting the answer to why costs are increasing will lead to a solution that deals with increasing costs.

I know the medical profession here has discussed the ethical issues of providing or denying health care to individuals. And that's related to costs and of course to resources. I can see a time in the future when older people will be allowed to die (one would hope painlessly) because the judgement of the medical profession would be that to continue to treat them would be a waste of resouces that could be best used elsewhere.
Click to expand...

In a socialzed system, one reason costs more than like rise is probably due to the fact that there is one consumer - the government , who buys on our behalf. NOte, I didn't say main reason, just one big one.

In a socialzed system such as yours, what happens when costs increase in one part of the country and not another - do all have to pay in one way or another? Does Australia have regional migration problems based on regional economies? If so, how do city facilities handle these problems?
 
Said1 said:
In a socialzed system, one reason costs more than like rise is probably due to the fact that there is one consumer - the government , who buys on our behalf. NOte, I didn't say main reason, just one big one.
Click to expand...

Except that costs probably aren't influenced by a monopoly consumer. I think it might be the case that if there was only one consumer then that consumer use its monopoly purchasing power to drive prices down. Cost and price are two different things.

Said1: said:
In a socialzed system such as yours, what happens when costs increase in one part of the country and not another - do all have to pay in one way or another? Does Australia have regional migration problems based on regional economies? If so, how do city facilities handle these problems?
Click to expand...

We don't have a "socialised" system. Our current conservative government (I'm careful to use general terms here because our conservative government is composed of the Liberal Party and the National Party in coalition, our Liberals aren't the Dion type, instead think of folks further to the right of Harper with half his charisma and you've got them down pat), is supportive of our two-tier health care system. No government of any political persuasion could dismantle it and expect to stay in office over the weekend.

what happens when costs increase in one part of the country and not another - do all have to pay in one way or another?

It's pretty complex but because it's a national system (I think Canada's is organised on a provincial level) costs and prices are evened out.

This is a bit of a long read but it's a very good description of how it works here - http://tinyurl.com/3ch6b8

Does Australia have regional migration problems based on regional economies?

Yes, but not as dramatic as in Canada. Western Australia is the strongest state economy at the moment, due to us digging up everything and flogging it to China as hard as we can go. Queensland, another resource-based economy, is also doing well. But both states have found that brings problems as people rush to those states from others. Just on that I thought you might find this of interest - http://tinyurl.com/23g6uw

how do city facilities handle these problems? With great difficulty. That difficulty is due to several factors, all political. There is an agreement between the federal and the state/territory governments on funding healthcare. Our federal government in its 11 years in office has consistently cut back on funding to the states and consistently shifted the cost-burden to the states. This has been done to create budget surpluses which are then announced just before federal elections. So far our electorate has been sucked in by this. We are now seeing what happens when a health care system is deliberately underfunded for political gain and we are getting read to boot out the federal government on 24 November.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

The former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Denis Healey, once remarked that being attacked by his opposite number in the British parliament was like being mauled by a dead sheep. Your continual bleating, AHZ, reminds me that even being mauled by a live sheep is no big deal.
 
RStringfield said:
How will the government control costs. Many are now pointing to France's system as a model (btw, I would not call France's system socialized medicine, they socialized insurance mostly). But France is facing the same sort of issues we are, skyrocketing costs. They are going to have to stop being so generous and that means they will have to start taking measures to control costs, which is likely to lead to denial of certain medical services.
Click to expand...

By raising taxes more, and hiring cheap labor to cut expenses. How else?
Do we actually have a real person from France here that is warning us about the costs of a socialized medical system that welfare wanters here think is so great? We have a tiny bit bigger and more expensive, inefeicient government than any one in the world--and insane by not realizing no government can beat a free market system. You Lib people in the USA think the citizans here can afford national health care.

Lets make a deal with the goofy libs. Let divide the country right down the middle. The left can have--the left side. They can socialize all they want--bring in as many illegal aliens they want--what ever their little welfare hearts desire for the power of their leaders. Support all the people with all the welfare they think they need.

The Right side--tried and proven technique---the free market guys will start from scratch and build the most free market society in the world today. We will start with nothing--and build it ourselfs, based on the US constitution, and eliminating corruption as much as possible.

We will see who's people are doing better in 50 years. We will see whos children are doing better in 50 years. USA was a successfull experiment, and the rest of the world would do good to emulate us--not us emulate them.

You socialists are insane, and the first 150 years of the government USA had, that made us the most prosperous country in the world prove it. Our founding fathers left people like you to start this country. We can start from scratch, and kick your snobby rich economic butts with ease----because your insane, and the people can not afford your philosphies. Our government is too fat, and many people can't afford it now. Big government cost the people all of their extra money--and ours does not know the meaning of the word 'frugal".
 
Last edited:
Diuretic said:
The former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Denis Healey, once remarked that being attacked by his opposite number in the British parliament was like being mauled by a dead sheep. Your continual bleating, AHZ, reminds me that even being mauled by a live sheep is no big deal.
Click to expand...


But I don't bleat. I pound your assinine arguments straight back up your own ass.

DIURETIC THINK: Government is bad, but since we have it, we should use for everything while we have it.
??????????????????

You're an ignoramus
 
I watched a show on PBS Friday night about the SCHIP program not accepting new children in several states because of federal funding issues. this is for the existing SCHIP not the expanded ones the Cons whine about.....
A poor kid with diabetes...father got laid off, 2 months wait for medicaid, SCHIP enrollemnt frozen in GA, what to do with the $900 per month costs for the child.....

I guess the kid just dies....
 
uscitizen said:
I watched a show on PBS Friday night about the SCHIP program not accepting new children in several states because of federal funding issues. this is for the existing SCHIP not the expanded ones the Cons whine about.....
A poor kid with diabetes...father got laid off, 2 months wait for medicaid, SCHIP enrollemnt frozen in GA, what to do with the $900 per month costs for the child.....

I guess the kid just dies....
Click to expand...


SO you're saying government programs suck.
 
theMAJORITY said:
By raising taxes more, and hiring cheap labor to cut expenses. How else?
Do we actually have a real person from France here that is warning us about the costs of a socialized medical system that welfare wanters here think is so great? We have a tiny bit bigger and more expensive, inefeicient government than any one in the world--and insane by not realizing no government can beat a free market system. You Lib people in the USA think the citizans here can afford national health care.

Lets make a deal with the goofy libs. Let divide the country right down the middle. The left can have--the left side. They can socialize all they want--bring in as many illegal aliens they want--what ever their little welfare hearts desire for the power of their leaders. Support all the people with all the welfare they think they need.

The Right side--tried and proven technique---the free market guys will start from scratch and build the most free market society in the world today. We will start with nothing--and build it ourselfs, based on the US constitution, and eliminating corruption as much as possible.

We will see who's people are doing better in 50 years. We will see whos children are doing better in 50 years. USA was a successfull experiment, and the rest of the world would do good to emulate us--not us emulate them.

You socialists are insane, and the first 150 years of the government USA had, that made us the most prosperous country in the world prove it. Our founding fathers left people like you to start this country. We can start from scratch, and kick your snobby rich economic butts with ease----because your insane, and the people can not afford your philosphies. Our government is too fat, and many people can't afford it now. Big government cost the people all of their extra money--and ours does not know the meaning of the word 'frugal".
Click to expand...

The good news is that you don't speak for the MAJORITY, most of whom want nationalized heathcare and who now recognize there is a better way to address the problems of healthcare that face this nation.

Americans pay some of the lowest income taxes in the world, yet we still get this constant bellyaching and whining from the right.

Personally, I wish the hell that bellyaching whiners on the right could indeed go away and form their own government somewhere else. You'd all be dead and broke in 10 years from war.
 
uscitizen said:
I am saying that all the whine about 60K families getting SCHIP is just a whiney smoke screen to confuse the issues on existing SCHIP problems.
Click to expand...

Government solutions are the wrong solution. They only provide a government created cartel for the chosen coporations. TOo corrupt.
 
So the government shoudl not exist ? If they are not there to solve problems, then what are they there for ?
 
uscitizen said:
So the government shoudl not exist ? If they are not there to solve problems, then what are they there for ?
Click to expand...

According to diuretic, yes the government should not exist. I think it should exist, but should not handle healthcare. Just because it's there doesn't mean it should handle every facet of life. It ain't yer mama.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But I don't bleat. I pound your assinine arguments straight back up your own ass.

DIURETIC THINK: Government is bad, but since we have it, we should use for everything while we have it.
??????????????????

You're an ignoramus
Click to expand...

And you're now mildly amusing.
 
AssHatZombie said:
According to diuretic, yes the government should not exist. I think it should exist, but should not handle healthcare. Just because it's there doesn't mean it should handle every facet of life. It ain't yer mama.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me profoundly. But that's okay, you're a bit ignorant so I'll explain.

Government will eventually not be necessary. At the moment we need government and while we need government it should be effective and efficient and if it's going to be there then it should damn well take care of things, such as health care. When government withers away it won't be missed, it will have done its job (albeit causing a lot of harm along the way).

Now don't go off your tree AHZ, just sit in it and think for a while.
 
uscitizen said:
But we are handiling health care and have been for many years....
Just try turning that off....
Click to expand...

I was misrepresented. I favour nationalisation of health care and that requires government, real government, not a pale imitation such as the "small government" lunatics want.
 
I applaud black for being the only universal healthcare cheerleader with the balls to call it what it is: Nationalization.
 
Warren said:
I applaud black for being the only universal healthcare cheerleader with the balls to call it what it is: Nationalization.
Click to expand...

There are different forms of universal healthcare. Even nationalisation of health care can take different forms. I wouldn't support the prohibition of private health care, as is, I believe, the case in Canada because allowing those who can afford it to purchase their own health care takes the burden off the public system in terms of costs and use of resources. For example, in the UK, the NHS exists but so does a healthy private sector in health care provision.
 
Warren said:
I applaud black for being the only universal healthcare cheerleader with the balls to call it what it is: Nationalization.
Click to expand...

Nationalization of the insurance industry at most, yes. Individuals should have complete freedom as to the doctors they choose, and doctors should be able to recommend any regular procedure they feel necessary. And the government should pay for it. No mountainous, innefecient beaurocracy. An individual comes up with their drivers license, proves they're a US citizen, and the doctor is reimbursed for the consultation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top