Was Canada's health care the problem?

[travelinman67]

That is EXACTLY the case - both federally and state wide.

And local, J, with school districts, community hospitals, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Conks set the downfall of our country into motion in January of 1981. It is now nearly complete.

Learn Chinese and Russian, people. Learn it fast.

But for Reagan, you'd already be speaking Russian, Mort.

"There now, little Democrat. I'm sorry about Darwin. Maybe you'll make it in another life."

[OL FU]

There certainly are many republicans that feel that way as there are many democrats that think every dollar generated belongs to the goverment to take care of the ills of society. Both positions are wrong. But anytime you have this discussion it can't be had in the context of a single issue. Lots of priorites lots of issues to take care of. D1B's comment was actually the issue and I suppose I chose you since you agreed. Political smack is like Football smack except that football smack is more entertaining.

Hey, Wilford Brimley, sorry bout the sucker punch, but it's true.

So what do we do? Nothing. Healthcare is good place to start as it has profound effects on quality of life and the viabiliy of business and industry especially in a global market.

Crap, I just typed a bunch of words and the site blipped out or maybe my computer did so I will simply get to the most important part of what I typed


Who is Wilford Brimley

[Cap'n Cat]

And local, J, with school districts, community hospitals, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Conks set the downfall of our country into motion in January of 1981. It is now nearly complete.

Learn Chinese and Russian, people. Learn it fast.

But for Reagan, you'd already be speaking Russian, Mort.

"There now, little Democrat. I'm sorry about Darwin. Maybe you'll make it in another life."

Red X'd pic on this end.

Learn Chinese, T. It may save your ass.

[Cap'n Cat]

Hey, Wilford Brimley, sorry bout the sucker punch, but it's true.

So what do we do? Nothing. Healthcare is good place to start as it has profound effects on quality of life and the viabiliy of business and industry especially in a global market.

Crap, I just typed a bunch of words and the site blipped out or maybe my computer did so I will simply get to the most important part of what I typed


Who is Wilford Brimley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilford_Brimley

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I like a hybrid system favored by Canadian Torries.

a single-payer system with the option of purchasing supplemental coverage.

this ensures a basic level of coverage for all citizens, takes the burden off employers, and improves public health by enabling preventative measures, but allows citizens who who can afford a premium package to buy additional coverage that will get them access to specialists. While ideally, we would all have this access... at this point it's impractical... and overly expensive... I think we need to arrive at a basic level of care for all citizens, and I think it needs to be a national priority for the sake of our economy.

[Gil Dobie]

I like a hybrid system favored by Canadian Torries.

a single-payer system with the option of purchasing supplemental coverage.

this ensures a basic level of coverage for all citizens, takes the burden off employers, and improves public health by enabling preventative measures, but allows citizens who who can afford a premium package to buy additional coverage that will get them access to specialists. While ideally, we would all have this access... at this point it's impractical... and overly expensive... I think we need to arrive at a basic level of care for all citizens, and I think it needs to be a national priority for the sake of our economy.

I like the hybrid idea, just think the ones that can afford insurance should still pay for the entire package, not just the premium level.

[Cap'n Cat]

I like a hybrid system favored by Canadian Torries.

a single-payer system with the option of purchasing supplemental coverage.

this ensures a basic level of coverage for all citizens, takes the burden off employers, and improves public health by enabling preventative measures, but allows citizens who who can afford a premium package to buy additional coverage that will get them access to specialists. While ideally, we would all have this access... at this point it's impractical... and overly expensive... I think we need to arrive at a basic level of care for all citizens, and I think it needs to be a national priority for the sake of our economy.

I like the hybrid idea, just think the ones that can afford insurance should still pay for the entire package, not just the premium level.

Gil,
Waht's the latest on the Coleman/Franken deal?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I like a hybrid system favored by Canadian Torries.

a single-payer system with the option of purchasing supplemental coverage.

this ensures a basic level of coverage for all citizens, takes the burden off employers, and improves public health by enabling preventative measures, but allows citizens who who can afford a premium package to buy additional coverage that will get them access to specialists. While ideally, we would all have this access... at this point it's impractical... and overly expensive... I think we need to arrive at a basic level of care for all citizens, and I think it needs to be a national priority for the sake of our economy.

I like the hybrid idea, just think the ones that can afford insurance should still pay for the entire package, not just the premium level.

It's a question then of "who can afford" it. i know a lot of young people who opt not to get coverage owing to a financial situation, probably "could" afford it, but don't get it. Mandating coverage, which seems like it's gaining support among some pols... is gonna piss a lot of people off...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I like the hybrid idea, just think the ones that can afford insurance should still pay for the entire package, not just the premium level.

Gil,
Waht's the latest on the Coleman/Franken deal?

It's over... but Coleman refuses to concede... not because he even thinks he has a chance... but because the national GOP is trying to keep the 59th dem out of the senate.

several of their own members have admitted this.

[Cap'n Cat]

Gil,
Waht's the latest on the Coleman/Franken deal?

It's over... but Coleman refuses to concede... not because he even thinks he has a chance... but because the national GOP is trying to keep the 59th dem out of the senate.

several of their own members have admitted this.

Conk jackoffs. Fvckin' children.

[Gil Dobie]

It's a question then of "who can afford" it. i know a lot of young people who opt not to get coverage owing to a financial situation, probably "could" afford it, but don't get it. Mandating coverage, which seems like it's gaining support among some pols... is gonna piss a lot of people off...

I don't like the mandated coverage either, but maybe mandated healthcare service when needed, and charge a certain percentage of income only if the service is used for those bypassing the insurance up front.

[Gil Dobie]

It's over... but Coleman refuses to concede... not because he even thinks he has a chance... but because the national GOP is trying to keep the 59th dem out of the senate.

several of their own members have admitted this.

It was over once the recount started.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

It's a question then of "who can afford" it. i know a lot of young people who opt not to get coverage owing to a financial situation, probably "could" afford it, but don't get it. Mandating coverage, which seems like it's gaining support among some pols... is gonna piss a lot of people off...

I don't like the mandated coverage either, but maybe mandated healthcare service when needed, and charge a certain percentage of income only if the service is used for those bypassing the insurance up front.

I'm intrigued by your theory and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[UNI88]

I like a hybrid system favored by Canadian Torries.

a single-payer system with the option of purchasing supplemental coverage.

this ensures a basic level of coverage for all citizens, takes the burden off employers, and improves public health by enabling preventative measures, but allows citizens who who can afford a premium package to buy additional coverage that will get them access to specialists. While ideally, we would all have this access... at this point it's impractical... and overly expensive... I think we need to arrive at a basic level of care for all citizens, and I think it needs to be a national priority for the sake of our economy.

I like the hybrid idea, just think the ones that can afford insurance should still pay for the entire package, not just the premium level.

Isn't that really just another tax? If someone is doing well financially, part of their taxes go to help provide health care for those who aren't doing as well. Because they're doing well they don't qualify for health care. So they're not just paying x% in taxes, they're also paying for health care which others don't have to pay for. The only way I wouldn't look at that as an additional tax is if the health care provided is so crappy that I wouldn't want it which kind of defeats the purpose in the first place.

[Gil Dobie]

Isn't that really just another tax? If someone is doing well financially, part of their taxes go to help provide health care for those who aren't doing as well. Because they're doing well they don't qualify for health care. So they're not just paying x% in taxes, they're also paying for health care which others don't have to pay for. The only way I wouldn't look at that as an additional tax is if the health care provided is so crappy that I wouldn't want it which kind of defeats the purpose in the first place.

I'd like to see a way to help the ones that are less fortunate without increasing the taxes too much. Maybe if the government only pays the healthcare provider for service rendered, instead of paying the insurance premiums.

[UNI88]

I like a hybrid system favored by Canadian Torries.

a single-payer system with the option of purchasing supplemental coverage.

this ensures a basic level of coverage for all citizens, takes the burden off employers, and improves public health by enabling preventative measures, but allows citizens who who can afford a premium package to buy additional coverage that will get them access to specialists. While ideally, we would all have this access... at this point it's impractical... and overly expensive... I think we need to arrive at a basic level of care for all citizens, and I think it needs to be a national priority for the sake of our economy.

I like the hybrid idea, just think the ones that can afford insurance should still pay for the entire package, not just the premium level.

The other aspect of this is how many individuals are making their own decisions regarding coverage? Most people who have insurance get it through their employer and the employer decides what coverage is provided. An employer provides health coverage for several reasons including to make their company more attractive (hiring & retention) and to keep their employees healthy & productive. If the government offered coverage, many employers would be tempted to drop their health coverage so they could save significant amounts of money. If this happened should the individual be responsible for then paying for their coverage? The hybrid system would allow employers to rely on the government for basic coverage but to provide premium coverage for the same reasons they offer coverage today.

Also, how do you keep someone from running to the doctor or emergency room with every little sniffle? These trips drive up costs. Shared risk (such as a high deductible health plan) can be an effective way to get people to think about whether a trip to the doctor/hospital is necessary but isn't nearly as feasible for people with lower incomes.

[OL FU]

Crap, I just typed a bunch of words and the site blipped out or maybe my computer did so I will simply get to the most important part of what I typed


Who is Wilford Brimley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilford_Brimley

Never heard of him

[UNI88]

Never heard of him

Do you remember Cocoon you old codger?

[OL FU]

Never heard of him

Do you remember Cocoon you old codger?

Ooooooooooooooooooooh, I remember.


that's not me. I don't have a mustache

[Wedgebuster]

Anybody who has ever received faulty or negligent care from any other country is a poster child for the non-movement movement of our beleaguered health care system.

On the other hand, nobody ever talks about the quarter million people who die in hospitals because of human error in our own country.

I am not even addressing the problem of 60 million citizens in our country with no health coverage.

Capitalism in health industries is contradictory to patient care!!! What is so damned hard to understand about that FACT. EVERYBODY who is involved in the industry are MAXIMIZING PROFITS!!! Who are these profiteers you ask, doctors and nurses??

What about insurance companies, are they interested in maximizing profits? Remember now, there are two types of insurance companies with their hand in the pie, health insurance companies, and malpractice insurance companies. Do you trust them to make proper health decisions for you??

Lawyers, yes lawyers. Malpractice attorneys, plaintiffs attorneys, defense attorneys. Would you guess they too are in it for the money only??

Pharmaceuticle Companies- In it strictly for profit.

Hospitals- Profit

Clinics- Profit

Now, to pursue these profits, and to continue the political actions to protect their own gold mine, the health industry tells us the constant double digit increase in costs is necessary and justified.

Hell of a wreck awaiting around the corner if this whole system is left to function as it is, and it may be way uglier than totally revamping the industry ahead of the crash.

[D1B]

Anybody who has ever received faulty or negligent care from any other country is a poster child for the non-movement movement of our beleaguered health care system.

On the other hand, nobody ever talks about the quarter million people who die in hospitals because of human error in our own country.

I am not even addressing the problem of 60 million citizens in our country with no health coverage.

Capitalism in health industries is contradictory to patient care!!! What is so damned hard to understand about that FACT. EVERYBODY who is involved in the industry are MAXIMIZING PROFITS!!! Who are these profiteers you ask, doctors and nurses??

What about insurance companies, are they interested in maximizing profits? Remember now, there are two types of insurance companies with their hand in the pie, health insurance companies, and malpractice insurance companies. Do you trust them to make proper health decisions for you??

Lawyers, yes lawyers. Malpractice attorneys, plaintiffs attorneys, defense attorneys. Would you guess they too are in it for the money only??

Pharmaceuticle Companies- In it strictly for profit.

Hospitals- Profit

Clinics- Profit

Now, to pursue these profits, and to continue the political actions to protect their own gold mine, the health industry tells us the constant double digit increase in costs is necessary and justified.

Hell of a wreck awaiting around the corner if this whole system is left to function as it is, and it may be way uglier than totally revamping the industry ahead of the crash.

Game, set and match. Nicely done Bustah! Reps.

[OL FU]

Anybody who has ever received faulty or negligent care from any other country is a poster child for the non-movement movement of our beleaguered health care system.

On the other hand, nobody ever talks about the quarter million people who die in hospitals because of human error in our own country.

I am not even addressing the problem of 60 million citizens in our country with no health coverage.

Capitalism in health industries is contradictory to patient care!!! What is so damned hard to understand about that FACT. EVERYBODY who is involved in the industry are MAXIMIZING PROFITS!!! Who are these profiteers you ask, doctors and nurses??

What about insurance companies, are they interested in maximizing profits? Remember now, there are two types of insurance companies with their hand in the pie, health insurance companies, and malpractice insurance companies. Do you trust them to make proper health decisions for you??

Lawyers, yes lawyers. Malpractice attorneys, plaintiffs attorneys, defense attorneys. Would you guess they too are in it for the money only??

Pharmaceuticle Companies- In it strictly for profit.

Hospitals- Profit

Clinics- Profit

Now, to pursue these profits, and to continue the political actions to protect their own gold mine, the health industry tells us the constant double digit increase in costs is necessary and justified.

Hell of a wreck awaiting around the corner if this whole system is left to function as it is, and it may be way uglier than totally revamping the industry ahead of the crash.

I will be the first to say that I don't know the answer, but to say capitalism doesn't belong in health care is a nice idea but the laws of economics don't stop due to what we think are philanthropic pursuits.

As I said, I don't know the answer (wish I did) but generally nationalized healthcare doesn't mean improved services at a cheaper costs. It typically means price controls and rationed services. So the difference I suppose is that the market rations now and the government will ration in the future.

I wish I knew the answer. There should be a way to let the free market exit in healthcare but provide the safety net for those that can't afford it. I really haven't seen any good ideas. I almost wish that company provided healthcare would stop so that individuals would be responsible for their own choices but I suppose we know how that would work.

Unfortunately our insurance system now seems to have the same built in inefficiencies as the governments will.

Whether I agree or not, nationalized healthcare will be here sooner or later. I suppose my point, without arguing pro-or con, is that economics will play a part healthcare no matter the controlling entities. To think that taking the profit incentive out of healthcare by nationalizing it will correct the healthcare issue is simply not the case. If anyone has dealt with government agencies, (and I am not talking about standing in line to renew a driver's license) that has it's own set of agendas and redtape and rules, understands that many times taking the profit incentive out of an activity only increases its problems and inefficiencies.

Wish I knew the answer

[OL FU]

PS, I know facts don't matter but what the hell. We had a nice long discussion on the other board and it seemed pretty clear that the 60 million needs interpretation. Starting with people who are eligible for government programs and have not signed up, to temporarily uninsured, to illegal aliens, to those who could afford to be insured but choose not to be, the average number of chronically un-insured (and can't afford to be insured) is closer to 10 to 15 million people. Still a big number but much more managable than 60M. Now maybe the conclusions are wrong but the research seemed to bear out a smaller number.


I am sure that number has changed under our current economic problems.

[D1B]

Anybody who has ever received faulty or negligent care from any other country is a poster child for the non-movement movement of our beleaguered health care system.

On the other hand, nobody ever talks about the quarter million people who die in hospitals because of human error in our own country.

I am not even addressing the problem of 60 million citizens in our country with no health coverage.

Capitalism in health industries is contradictory to patient care!!! What is so damned hard to understand about that FACT. EVERYBODY who is involved in the industry are MAXIMIZING PROFITS!!! Who are these profiteers you ask, doctors and nurses??

What about insurance companies, are they interested in maximizing profits? Remember now, there are two types of insurance companies with their hand in the pie, health insurance companies, and malpractice insurance companies. Do you trust them to make proper health decisions for you??

Lawyers, yes lawyers. Malpractice attorneys, plaintiffs attorneys, defense attorneys. Would you guess they too are in it for the money only??

Pharmaceuticle Companies- In it strictly for profit.

Hospitals- Profit

Clinics- Profit

Now, to pursue these profits, and to continue the political actions to protect their own gold mine, the health industry tells us the constant double digit increase in costs is necessary and justified.

Hell of a wreck awaiting around the corner if this whole system is left to function as it is, and it may be way uglier than totally revamping the industry ahead of the crash.

I will be the first to say that I don't know the answer, but to say capitalism doesn't belong in health care is a nice idea but the laws of economics don't stop due to what we think are philanthropic pursuits.

As I said, I don't know the answer (wish I did) but generally nationalized healthcare doesn't mean improved services at a cheaper costs. It typically means price controls and rationed services. So the difference I suppose is that the market rations now and the government will ration in the future.

I wish I knew the answer. There should be a way to let the free market exit in healthcare but provide the safety net for those that can't afford it. I really haven't seen any good ideas. I almost wish that company provided healthcare would stop so that individuals would be responsible for their own choices but I suppose we know how that would work.

Unfortunately our insurance system now seems to have the same built in inefficiencies as the governments will.

Whether I agree or not, nationalized healthcare will be here sooner or later. I suppose my point, without arguing pro-or con, is that economics will play a part healthcare no matter the controlling entities. To think that taking the profit incentive out of healthcare by nationalizing it will correct the healthcare issue is simply not the case. If anyone has dealt with government agencies, (and I am not talking about standing in line to renew a driver's license) that has it's own set of agendas and redtape and rules, understands that many times taking the profit incentive out of an activity only increases its problems and inefficiencies.

Wish I knew the answer

Yeah good post OF.

Profits are out of control. 99.9% of people require regular exams and relatively low cost outpatient services and procedures. I don't like the idea of having to pay for the Neotron 6000 Kidney Nephron Accellerator and the 27 nurses and technicians it takes to operate it. Again, most need basic care and that's where government buying power can make a difference.

More insane is our military budget. I would rather have my tax money and government intellectual resourses dedicated to healhcare versus billion dollar bombers and ships.

Our goverment is supposed to do what we tell them to do.

[OL FU]

I will be the first to say that I don't know the answer, but to say capitalism doesn't belong in health care is a nice idea but the laws of economics don't stop due to what we think are philanthropic pursuits.

As I said, I don't know the answer (wish I did) but generally nationalized healthcare doesn't mean improved services at a cheaper costs. It typically means price controls and rationed services. So the difference I suppose is that the market rations now and the government will ration in the future.

I wish I knew the answer. There should be a way to let the free market exit in healthcare but provide the safety net for those that can't afford it. I really haven't seen any good ideas. I almost wish that company provided healthcare would stop so that individuals would be responsible for their own choices but I suppose we know how that would work.

Unfortunately our insurance system now seems to have the same built in inefficiencies as the governments will.

Whether I agree or not, nationalized healthcare will be here sooner or later. I suppose my point, without arguing pro-or con, is that economics will play a part healthcare no matter the controlling entities. To think that taking the profit incentive out of healthcare by nationalizing it will correct the healthcare issue is simply not the case. If anyone has dealt with government agencies, (and I am not talking about standing in line to renew a driver's license) that has it's own set of agendas and redtape and rules, understands that many times taking the profit incentive out of an activity only increases its problems and inefficiencies.

Wish I knew the answer

Yeah good post OF.

Profits are out of control. 99.9% of people require regular exams and relatively low cost outpatient services and procedures. I don't like the idea of having to pay for the Neotron 6000 Kidney Nephron Accellerator and the 27 nurses and technicians it takes to operate it. Again, most need basic care and that's where government buying power can make a difference.

More insane is our military budget. I would rather have my tax money and government intellectual resourses dedicated to healhcare versus billion dollar bombers and ships.

Our goverment is supposed to do what we tell them to do.

One of the reasons that profits are out of control is because typical market forces aren't in play. People pay way to much for insurance and because people pay way too much for insurance they run to the damn doctor every time they scratch a finger ( I exaggerate) because it only cost them the $25 dollar co-pay. Or they run to the emergency room because they have no insurance and no that the emergency room is legally obligated to treat them. I remember when insurace had a real deductible so that I had to think about what I was going to do for the first $500 or $1000 before the insurance was going to kick in anything. Made me think twice about running down to the doctor for scratch.

Once again, stating the obvious I don't have the answer but if real market forces were in play much of the over demand medical services would subside.

Also, we have the real difficult choices of costs versus benefits that no one likes to talk about because you sound like a heartless son of a bitch when you do but at what age and health benefit do you say, you are too old for a heart transplant. A tough thing to talk about when its your relatives.

as far as the military expenditures, I don't disagree. It would be foolish to think that we don't need a strong military and that the dangers of the world are over but I do think it is time for America to realize and tell the world, we aren't the only protectors of your freedoms. you can't simply expect us to defend you while you spend your dollars on healthcare and we spend ours on missles. Of Course, this would also require us to understand the same thing.