SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
Listed in the Politics category.
Terms Of Use | Code Of Conduct | Site Map | Staff & Volunteers | Donate | Contact Us
Licensed by ASCAP, BMI & The MCPS-PRS Alliance
© 2009 SingSnap
Terms Of Use | Code Of Conduct | Site Map | Staff & Volunteers | Donate | Contact Us
Licensed by ASCAP, BMI & The MCPS-PRS Alliance
© 2009 SingSnap
Posted by Arizonagal on February 22, 2009 at 8:22 PM
When I was working with the Arizona State Legislature, it was quite commonplace that legislators passed bills which were never read beforehand.
-------------------------------------------------
OBAMA GIVES WHAT THE DOCTOR DID NOT ORDER
by Phyllis Schlafly February 20, 2009
Barack Obama forced a bitter pill down the throats of Americans which the doctor did not order and patients do not want. Obama snuck into the stimulus bill a new system for rationing medical care, and he got Congress to ram it through the House and Senate without reading it.
Maybe Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi thought no one would notice what they slipped into H.R.1 since rationing medical care has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. But the former New York lieutenant governor, Betsy McCaughey, sounded the alarm in her Bloomberg.com article aptly entitled "Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan."
She described how stealth provisions provide massive new funding of billions of dollars to an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to monitor treatments and decide which are cost-effective and which will be permitted or denied. Currently, patients make that decision without government interference as long as the care is safe and effective.
Congress thus legislated a fundamental shift away from the "safe and effective" standard and replaced it with what a bureaucrat thinks is cost-effective or has "clinical effectiveness."
Americans are waking up from their political anesthesia to realize that Obama's "change" really means government control over access to medical treatments for our illnesses.
Liberals love to control and ration as much as they love to tax and spend. Al Gore has spent nearly a decade spewing the nonsense of "global warming," which is a device for government to control and ration energy.
Team Obama may have overplayed its hand in bringing control-and-ration to medical care. The news has spread like wildfire on the internet and talk radio, and nonpolitical patients in doctors' waiting rooms can be heard talking about it.
The United States is different from Canada and England in an essential respect: here a patient can get a diagnosis and life-saving treatment within days, if not hours. Ted Kennedy (age 76) received immediate surgery for his otherwise inoperable brain cancer, a use of scarce medical resources that rationing would not allow for an ordinary patient.
American patients who have cancer or other life-threatening problems need and get prompt care, and we don't want that to "change." In Canada, England and elsewhere, patients are deemed by the government to be unworthy of treatment due to age or severity of illness, and they die while sitting on waiting lists for rationed care.
There is more funding for this new Big Brother bureaucracy in the stimulus bill than for all the armed forces combined. Wasteful pork includes billions to pay for the U.S. Census (which Team Obama is already planning to manipulate), and silly carbon-capture demonstrations (to appease the global warming lobby).
Meanwhile, the stimulus bill lays the foundation for new federal surveillance over electronic medical records, with an online medical record for each and every American. The bill establishes a massive new "federal coordinating council for comparative clinical effectiveness research" to devise ways to ration care based on the bureaucrats' review of patient data.
There can be no patient privacy in a national database of medical records because government, insurers, employers, ex-spouses and hackers will find ways to access it. Doctors will spend more time surfing the internet and typing in data than listening to patients, and of course there will be inevitable computer mistakes.
The declining American Medical Association (AMA), which is increasingly a shill for leftwing advocacy, tried to downplay the outrage of giving a government bureaucracy access to everyone's medical records and punishing doctors who don't treat as the government wants. But there is no denying the harm of this new system that facilitates government oversight of an electronic database and gives bureaucrats (who never went to medical school) the power to punish doctors who provide "too much" care.
Doctors who resist the government's guidelines will be controlled by slashing their fees. Doctors will lose their autonomy, just as Tom Daschle sought, and some patients will be left with nowhere to turn for their illnesses.
Our medical system has long been the envy of the world. That's why foreigners come to the United States for our superb medical care, spending more than a billion dollars a year here.
A true stimulus bill would seek to multiply that revenue by encouraging more private enterprise in medicine rather than installing a new bureaucracy to build and oversee electronic medical records, control doctors' decisions, and ration care.
In 1993, Hillary and Bill Clinton tried with all their might to impose a government takeover of all health care, and the 1994 midterm elections repudiated their efforts. The midterm elections of 2010 could be just what the doctor ordered.
____________________________________________________
Reply by Arizonagal on February 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM
"THE DOCTOR WILL SEE ALL OF YOU NOW"
December 12, 2008
by Phyllis Schlafly December 12, 2008
You are sitting in a doctor's waiting room with eight other sick patients and the nurse announces: The doctor will see all of you now — at the same time. That's how the Boston Globe recently described shared visits that are being used to cope with the long waits now customary in Massachusetts.
Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama are planning that the new Democratic Congress's first order of business will be to extend the Massachusetts health-care mistake to all 50 states. Like other legislative rush-acts (i.e., the 2007 amnesty bill and the 2008 bailouts), details are currently withheld to avoid giving members of Congress and the public adequate time to analyze the bill before the vote is called.
If Kennedy succeeds in his goal of using the Massachusetts plan as a model for national health care, average Americans will no longer get immediate access to medical care. They will have the long waits and massive new taxpayer costs which the Massachusetts plan has produced.
Defending the practice of group visits, one doctor told the Boston Globe, "people came to me with similar complaints and I had these canned speeches." The doctor does not ask the patients to take off their clothes in front of the group; he makes do with less effective, fully-clothed examinations.
The group session consists mostly of hearing other people's complaints, while the doctor dishes out advice in front of all the patients. Privacy and modesty are gone, but you can pick up the germs of the other sick patients in the room with you.
One doctor observed that "this is not the type of medical care anyone with a modicum of intelligence would want." Is this the change Obama promised?
At Holyoke Health Center in Boston, patients wait four months simply to get an appointment. This causes some patients to go to costly emergency rooms for routine visits.
While emergency rooms are handling routine matters and taking medical histories, people who need urgent attention wait in line. In parts of western Massachusetts, which is non-urban like most of the United States, the wait has grown longer than one year just to get a physical.
The Massachusetts health-care plan is universal and mandatory. The Massachusetts plan also introduces other words into the health-care vocabulary such as group diagnosis, long waits, rationing, forced taxes, and high costs.
The Massachusetts plan forces people to buy insurance they do not want or need. Once they are compelled to pay for it, they naturally want something for their money, and that crowds out people who really need medical care.
The Massachusetts plan is a fiscal disaster, costing far more than estimated, with no end in sight. Massachusetts is wealthier than most states, but this plan threatens to bankrupt even it.
The Massachusetts plan forces people to buy insurance under threat of having to pay a penalty on their income tax return. Kennedy's staff has been quietly meeting with the insurance industry to make sure it will be just as happy with a national version of mandatory insurance as it is in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts politicians had promised voters not to worry about costs because the state would collect $95 million in fees in the first year from small businesses that do not insure their employees. But those fees were never collected because small businesses cannot afford this, and taxpayers are forced to ante up that shortfall.
Massachusetts taxpayers were not told that this plan forces public funding for abortion by anyone who wants one, not only the poor. Kennedy's plan will likely try to force Americans nationwide to pay for all abortions as the Massachusetts plan does, perhaps by regulations if not by statute.
Massachusetts medical care is beginning to look like Canada, where waiting lists, rationing, and travel to foreign countries for care have become the norm. Meanwhile, Members of Congress continue to enjoy special gold-plated health care not available to most Americans.
Former Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, who is a high-paid health-care consultant for a lobbying firm, is expected to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services. He is holding town hall meetings this month to create the illusion of public support for the Kennedy plan.
As HHS Secretary, Daschle will write the regulatory details that Congress doesn't dare to put in the proposed statute. So much for Obama's promise to change Washington, eliminate the influence of lobbyists, and avoid conflicts of interest!
Obama is planning to use his giant campaign database to pressure Congress into speedy action. Americans will have to protest quickly if they want to prevent the mandatory and expensive Massachusetts plan from being forced on the country.
____________________________________________
Permalink
Reply by ron_am on February 25, 2009 at 12:30 AM
How about that?
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Permalink
Reply by ron_am on February 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I found that quite interesting, I hope you do too. I just wanted to share.
Permalink
Reply by ron_am on February 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/08/frances-model-h.html
Permalink
Reply by Arizonagal on February 25, 2009 at 2:26 AM
That is interesting, thanks for sharing.
Permalink
Reply by jardinieraGOLD on March 2, 2009 at 4:22 PM
While I'm not saying I'm either for or against the shared medical visit model, instead of posting an article that merely refers to the original, leaving quite a bit of information out, why not just post the original, which has actual video and patient feedback? Here's the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/30/the_doctor_will_see_all_of_you_now/
Fact: The United States spends more per person on healthcare than any other country in the world, yet ranks 37th overall.
Also, because of how inefficiently medicare is run (it caters to private drug companies by paying them millions of dollars more than the actual costs for prescription drugs, resulting in huge profits for them), the U.S. actually spends more publicly than all other nations except for Luxembourg, Norway and Iceland. That's because the U.S. healthcare system, even the publicly-funded parts, is built entirely around catering to business interests, instead of helping people. One of the largest benefits of Universal Healthcare is not just that it makes the system more efficient (although it in fact does), but that it makes people think about healthcare as a right and not a privilege. This in turn eliminates profit from the equation and allows people to better focus on what the end-goal of healthcare should be, which is saving people, rather than profiting off of people's lives.
Until the profit motive is completely removed from our healthcare system, it won't function properly. Switching over to some sort of universal healthcare system, as so many other countries have done, will not only fix a tremendous amount of problems with our country, it will also put more money in the pockets of our citizens, which is something we just might want right now given our present economic situation.
So Ari, you post a lot of articles that complain about what Obama may do to our healthcare system. If you're so concerned, what are some ideas you have to overhaul the system? Or do you think it's just fine the way it is?
Permalink
Reply by jardinieraGOLD on March 2, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Prescription for Disaster: A Documentary
Prescription for Disaster is an in-depth investigation into the symbiotic relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, ... all » lobbyists, lawmakers, medical schools, and researchers, and the impact this has on consumers and their health care. During this thorough investigation, we take a close look at patented drugs, why they are so readily prescribed by doctors, the role insurance companies and HMO's play in promoting compliance, and the problem of rising health care costs. We examine the marketing and public relations efforts on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, including sales reps, medical journals and conferences. Further, we look at alternatives to traditional pharmacology and drug therapy, such as vitamins and nutritional supplements, and why they are often perceived as a competitive threat to the drug manufacturers. Alternative therapies also include diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle. Prescription for Disaster takes you on a journey through the tangled web of big business, the way disease is treated today, and the consequences we suffer as a society.
You can watch it here:
http://freedocumentaries.net/media/30/Prescription_for_Disaster/
Permalink
offline
Reply by WiccabasketGOLD on March 2, 2009 at 5:06 PM
*applause*
Thanks Jardiniera :)
Permalink
Reply by jardinieraGOLD on March 2, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Thanks Wicca. It will be interesting to see whether the original poster can intelligently debate this subject. Or not....
Permalink
Reply by Spawn_Of_KyaGOLD on March 2, 2009 at 6:12 PM
I live in Canada.. We do have socialized medicine and I am so thankful that I don't have to worry about bringing a cheque book when i go to the emergency room. If I need a transplant... I don't have to pay for it.. If I need a surgery I can get it if I need to see my family doctor I don't have to pay a fee... I thank god every day that I live in a country where Health care is accessible to all
Permalink
Reply by jardinieraGOLD on March 2, 2009 at 6:31 PM
You are very fortunate indeed....it's too bad that there are so many myths floating around the U.S. in regards to universal healthcare, and that pharmaceutical and insurance companies have been allowed to gouge the pockets of Americans for so long...it's amazing how many people have gone bankrupt here because of medical bills they couldn't pay. I'd gladly pay more taxes for universal healthcare - it would still cost less than what I pay out of pocket now!
Permalink
Reply by Spawn_Of_KyaGOLD on March 2, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Yep.. Saw the movie sicko and felt so bad for those people who couldn't get health care or how to sew on one finger would cost more than another finger on the same hand or how they were providing free health care to the detainees in gitmo yet refuse to take care of their own people.. Made me sick...
Even with Cuba being a communist country they have better health care than the U.S in regards to how they run it..
Edited on March 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM Permalink
Reply by tomac626 on March 2, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Tell me I'm wrong Ari and have the guts to be specific. (Not holding my breath)
Edited on March 2, 2009 at 7:11 PM Permalink
Reply by Ebony_and_IvoryGOLD on March 2, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Heck Know Tom don't hold your breath lol. You may be 80 and in a nursing home, if you have the money to stay in one. Wonder what will become of our seniors, that don't have money to pay for seeing their dr's and can't pay for care. Of coarse why would Ari care about that? Or what about that person that has a grandchild and the grandchild has something serious wrong with them? But the parents can't efford the medical procedures and care. Oh don't matter i guess. Guess these folks don't count? What a shame , some only think of themselves and their own, the hell with everyone else that is less fortunate. I just hope this don't fall back on the doorsteps of those that are against everything and don't give a shit for their fellow man. pffffffffffft insanity
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 6:45 AM
You know....it really gets old hearing some of you talk about conservatives as being uncaring people when it's actually right the opposite. You always manage to come across with anger and hatred every time an issue is discussed. There is not a conservative alive that doesn't think affordable healthcare should not be available to all. We just don't think politicians should be calling the shots on what treatments we receive. This should be left up to the people who have training in the medical field. There are many risks with socialized healthcare and if the people who live in these countries who have it would be honest it would be very clear. I have friends in England who have told me a whole different side to their healthcare and I've also heard some Canadians tell their horror stories. Under socialized healthcare, just because you need a procedure or treatment, doesn't mean you will get it. One of my friends in England was turned down for treatment that he needed badly and ended up having to go out on his own to get this treatment and it costs him plenty. Thank goodness he could afford it. Canadians cross the border all the time for medical services in U.S. even though they have government funded healthcare in their country. Not one conservative wants to see a person die because they can't get medical care. There just has to be a better way than putting it under government control. I had much rather see some sort of price regulation with the medical community because as we all know some of the prices are outrageous.
And for the record...As a conservative, I do agree that there should be programs for people who can't help themselves such as our elderly, disabled and children and I pay my taxes gladly for those types of programs. I even agree with programs to help people who have fallen on hard times due to being laid off work and through no fault of their own but this help should be temporary and be programs to help these people get back on their feet. I do have a problem having to pay for people who are too lazy to get off their behind and get out there and work like the rest of us and think it's the hard working taxpayers of this country who should take care of them. Anyone who works and struggles to provide for their family doesn't owe lazy people one dime. I have never seen so many people wanting other people to take care of them in all of my life!
Permalink
Reply by Jumpin-Jack-Flash on March 3, 2009 at 6:51 AM
Although not everything is covered with some universal health care (you have to pay some of the costs for prescriptions(unless they're absolutely needed to live)) and the wait times are longer, at least everyone gets the ability to see a doctor, they don't have to pay for non-cosmetic surgery and they don't have to make drastic choices or worry about affording things near as much.
One thing that I find absolutely pitiful is the fact that the U.S. government providing this to Criminals or Suspected Criminals with in your prisons, or even Gitmo. Pretty sick and pathetic a government would provide such services to these people and not even their own.
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 6:57 AM
There is no doubt there are many flaws with our healthcare at present but I just don't believe Government run healthcare is the answer. If the Democrats and Republicans could get their heads out of their "you know what's" for awhile and work with people in the medical field I believe they could come up with a better solution.
Permalink
Reply by Jumpin-Jack-Flash on March 3, 2009 at 7:03 AM
Just to clear up a few things for you and for others;
In Canada if you need a treatment you get it! There's no maybe about it.
There's one horror story about Canadian health care, its called waiting times. However this can't be blamed on the health care system. We cannot force people to become doctors, and a doctor can see only so many people in a day. Since older generations of doctors are beginning to retire and there isn't as many to take their place there are longer waiting times. Again though, an individuals decision to become a doctor or not for their profession is not something that the health care system controls.
Finally Canadians do cross the border to get health care. Why? Because they don't want to wait, thankfully though the universal health care system we have covers are expenses down their for us too. In fact if there's a Canadian has a far better chance getting seen in the U.S. then their own citizens because the hospitals know they don't have to worry about money at all.
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:04 AM
Every emergency room in my area (that I know of) has a sign right in the lobby saying that no one will be refused medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay for treatment.
Permalink
Reply by Jumpin-Jack-Flash on March 3, 2009 at 7:07 AM
You're missing the point though. Not all universal healthcare systems have the procedures controlled by the government. For example the Canadian government, all procedures are covered except non-cosmetic. However if you've been in a really bad physically altering accident, then cosmetic surgery is provided.
In France, EVERYTHING is taken care of for you.
Just because its a government funded system doesn't mean they will control what you do or do not get.
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:10 AM
Thanks for clearing that up on the Canadians crossing the border. I didn't realize that your country paid for services here also.
I like the fact that I can call my doctor this morning and if I'm really sick, running a fever or hurting then he will work me in to his schedule today. I did this a couple of weeks ago and he took me right in. An appointment was made through him to see a specialist in less than two weeks.
Permalink
Reply by Jumpin-Jack-Flash on March 3, 2009 at 7:11 AM
Well to avoid a lawsuit they would technically have to provide that. If they didn't people could sue for failure to up hold the Hippocratic Oath.
However what happens when they can't pay the bill? What happens when they can't afford the prescriptions they need? I could see bills starting to get quite high especially once the interest starts to add up.
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:12 AM
Are you saying your government doesn't have this "rationed" healthcare that our government seems to wanting? That's a real question...because I don't know.
Permalink
Reply by jardinieraGOLD on March 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM
Can you please tell me where I am coming across with anger and hatred here?
I posted as a medical professional who has worked in the industry for well over a decade, and I couldn't disagree with you more. I also have a hard time believing your friends' horror stories, as I work on the front lines in the U.S. with sick people and see horror stories happening right here in the U.S. almost daily. And it doesn't always have to do with money. I'm talking about the quality of care given even to those who have money. It's subpar - hospitals are pushing patients out of hospitals before they're ready more and more. I visit patients in their homes and they are needlessly dying or have to be readmitted. Doctors are prescribing expensive new medicines patients don't need because they get kickbacks from the drug companies. They are misdiagnosing patients or failing to catch ailments and by the time they are discovered the patient is much sicker or has died. This costs the system a lot more money and in many cases could have been avoided if the system wasn't profit driven to begin with.
The guy who cuts my hair is from Brazil and he got sick and almost died here, he went back to his country to get treatment because he told me nobody would help him here. He had cellulitis in his legs and by the time he was treated the infection had entered his bloodstream. One more week and he would have been dead. He's back here on a work visa but he hasn't been able to get any insurance. He's not a citizen, but he is working and paying taxes.
I work in Palm Beach, so we have plenty of Canadians who come here and stay for the entire winter. And I've never met one who has opted to stay if they needed surgery or extended medical care. The bills would just be too high and I've talked to dozens who have told me a lot of the stories going around the U.S. about waiting months to be seen by a doctor are false. Wicca herself has said the same thing, and that she's satisfied with the healthcare system in the U.K. I'm sure it's not perfect, but having experienced what goes on in the U.S. as both a recipient and an employee, I cannot say with any confidence that our system has "great" or even "good" care. And people here are finding, more and more, that they must wait weeks or months to see specialists, and once they get there they must wait hours in the office to see the doctor. I know I have. People often find themselves waiting an unheard of amount of time in the E.R. as well.
And laziness has nothing to do with it. I myself have worked as an independent contractor in the past and didn't have the money for insurance. I've paid as much as $300 to treat a simple urinary tract infection. Most of the cost was for the medicine. 10 day's worth that would have cost 50 cents in other countries. As a healthcare worker who takes care of American citizens, why shouldn't I be able to have healthcare that is affordable and of good quality so I can stay well, which would in turn would continue to enable me to take care for others?
Permalink
Reply by sawheadPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:14 AM
Proponents of the Canadian model praise its universal coverage and its apparent low cost. Total (private and public) health expenditures are only 10% of gross domestic product in Canada, compared to 14% in the U.S. A study published last August in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed that a third of this difference is explained by lower administrative costs in the Canadian system. But, among its other faults, this accounting ignores the hidden economic costs of Canadian health care.
The Canadian system is built around a compulsory public-insurance regime that provides most medical and hospital services free. Of course, it is not free for the taxpayer, who finances the system at a rate of 22% of all taxes raised in Canada. The Canadian government pays about 71% of total Canadian health care expenditures, compared to 44% paid by the government in the U.S. This translates into public health expenditures of 7% of GDP in Canada and 6% in the U.S.—a rather small difference. The difference in total expenditures is due to higher private expenditures in the U.S. Why are private health expenditures so low in Canada? The main reason is that they are illegal, which gets us to the heart of the system’s hidden costs.
Permalink
Reply by jardinieraGOLD on March 3, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Taxpayers wind up paying for that. The hospitals absorb the cost and pass it on to people like you and I in the form of higher medical costs overall. That's why they're spiraling out of control.
Permalink
Reply by sawheadPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Canadian public health insurance is not only compulsory, it is also monopolistic. The system is administered by provincial governments under strict guidelines imposed by federal law and federal subsidies. Private insurance covering publicly insured services is illegal. Physicians are forbidden to accept private payments above the fees billed to the government. Hospitals are public or non-profit, and tightly regulated. Physicians’ fees are determined—or “negotiated”—by provincial agencies. Prices of drugs are controlled. In short, the public supply of medical services is rationed, and there is little private alternative. Hence the apparent low cost of the system.
Permalink
Reply by Jumpin-Jack-Flash on March 3, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Very Welcome :)
I live 3 hours away from my doctor, if I need to see one badly I go to a clinic, or emergency room (Have a heart condition(Yes I know I'm to young to have one) but I don't like to mess around with it). However if I'm home visiting and want to see my doctor he will do his best to see me. Theres even been the instances where hes come to me on his scheduled days off.
This isn't the case for all doctors but some try. However the most anyone would ever wait is a week. Long but not the months which people like to claim we do.
Another big thing that is effecting the waiting times is the seniors. There are a lot in the hospital because they can't afford to go to a nursing home, so they're taking up much needed hospital beds. However from what I've heard there are some plans in motion to address and help fix this.
Permalink
Reply by Jumpin-Jack-Flash on March 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM
I fail to see how anything is rationed. If you need it you get it. If you need it more then others, you still get it. Its not this is what you get and that it, come back tomorrow or next month.
Then again what do I know, I've only lived and dealt with it my entire life thus far due to my medical issues. I suppose I should go to the US to get a better understanding of how my countries health care system works.
Permalink
Reply by Jumpin-Jack-Flash on March 3, 2009 at 7:28 AM
You do know our health care would cover us their right?
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:31 AM
jardiniera....
I didn't find your post to be with anger or hatred as I did with some of the others. As for you not believing about my friend, that's your right but I lived it with him every day as he struggled with this so I know it's true. And if you read my posts carefully you will see that I said we should have "affordable" healthcare for all. I know we have our own horror stories in this country. My sister is a Director of Nursing down in Mississippi and her husband is a Hospital Administrator. My sister-in-law is a registered nurse in the ER at one of the hospitals in our area and I have several friends who are in different areas of the medical field so I'm no stranger to the happenings. Yes...it needs an overhaul...I never said it should stay the same. And yes...Lazy does have a lot to do with it because if these people had been out working to begin with we may not have seen the type of rise in costs that we have.
Permalink
Reply by starvin_arvins on March 3, 2009 at 7:35 AM
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranks Canada in the bottom third of its 29 member countries for availability of medical technology such as MRI and CT scanners. In fact, there are more MRI scanners in Seattle than in all of British Columbia. And, Canadians are not getting this poor access to care at a discount. The OECD ranked Canada fifth (out of 29 member countries) in national health expenditures in 1997.
-Dr. Lee Hieb.
Just wondering...is medical care an inalienable RIGHT?
I guess Tom and the boys accidentally left that one out of the Constitution.
Permalink
Reply by NovellaPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:38 AM
Novella has updated her profile a bit.If you're going to spew internet articles, at least quote the source:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1292
Permalink
Reply by NovellaPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Novella has updated her profile a bit.I think it's quite interesting that people are so quick to knock or judge something that they clearly know nothing about. I'm Canadian and when I need to see a doctor, I get in within the hour usually. They have clinics so you can avoid the ER unless it's serious.
Yes, there are sometimes long wait-times but no one is ever denied and if people wouldn't run to the doctor for every little sniffle, they'd be a lot shorter! ;) However, unlike other countries, it doesn't cost anything to go see a doctor - so people are more inclined.
I had to see a specialist a couple of times. Once for my ears, I got in to see him the same afternoon. Another time, by the time I got home from my doctor's office, I had an appointment for the following week.
Every single country has 'horror stories' and it would be much appreciated if you wouldn't form an absolute opinion on something based on just a couple. I have a ton of success stories but I suppose when someone is determined to find the negative the success-side of things isn't required.
Bottom line is: Yeah, we pay taxes that afford us to care for everyone, not just ourselves. 'Affordable' to one person may not be so affordable to another. But when it's free - there's no lines or boundaries. Everyone is given the same opportunity to receive great medical care. What is so BAD about that? I'll never understand it.
Edited on March 3, 2009 at 7:45 AM Permalink
Reply by sawheadPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM
If something is rationed then it does not matter how much you are willing to pay for it you can only get what they allow you . That system sounds like rationing to me .
Permalink
Reply by jardinieraGOLD on March 3, 2009 at 7:53 AM
Actually I didn't. Can you elaborate on this?
Edited to say, never mind. I saw your answer above. Very interesting!
Edited on March 3, 2009 at 7:57 AM Permalink
Reply by jardinieraGOLD on March 3, 2009 at 7:54 AM
Thank you Novella.
Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM
When you are someone who has lived in a society all their life that is not dependent on their government for every aspect of their life it's hard to give up the choices we now have. I've got to get to work. See you later!
Permalink
Reply by sawheadPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM
How can you say it's "FREE" if you have to pay for it in higher taxes? What that really means is the cost is spread out among more people . If someone is living a lifestyle that adds up to more health problems then everyone gets to pay for their poor choices.
Permalink
Reply by NovellaPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:58 AM
Novella has updated her profile a bit.Let's talk Population:
3,263,497 - Seattle
3,907,738 - British Columbia
So yeah, they may have more per capita, but it's kinda relevant.
Permalink
Reply by NovellaPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 7:58 AM
Novella has updated her profile a bit.Sometimes the best things in life are 'hard' :) Makes 'em worth it...
Permalink
Reply by NovellaPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 8:00 AM
Novella has updated her profile a bit.It means... I can - at any time, any day and any month - see a doctor. Regardless of my bank account balance.
It means that every single person in my country is given the same opportunities. If I don't have $20 for a doctor's appointment, that's okay - my financial position in life is irrelevant.
Yes, we are quite aware that we pay higher taxes but if it's doing the guy down the street a favour - we don't mind. In fact, MOST are happy to do it.
So while it is deducted each month - it's not something anyone is upset about and when the time comes that someone needs help. The help is available and free - at that time.
Edited on March 3, 2009 at 8:04 AM Permalink
Reply by NovellaPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 8:00 AM
Novella has updated her profile a bit.No, Thank-YOU! :)
Permalink
Reply by NovellaPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Novella has updated her profile a bit.My mother lives in Florida with her husband and my 5 year old sister. My sister was recently diagnosed with Asthma. It took a few test, a few doctor's visits and over $400 to even determine what she needed. Not to mention the medication which will cost them over $100 a month now.
For me, since our government subsidizes stuff - All that would have cost me $2.75 :) (The fee at my Drug store to fill the subscription is ridiculous and my coverage only covers $10.)
Edited on March 3, 2009 at 8:07 AM Permalink
Reply by A10cgirlPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 8:13 AM
Sorry, Novella....but I'm not ready to become a dependent of my government. I think everyone should have a decent place to live also but that doesn't mean we should buy everyone a house. Making things "affordable" and giving people choices and those people accepting responsibility is what I call "fair". Taking care of people who can't help themselves is what I call "fair". Now...I'm really out of here before I'm late.
Permalink
Reply by NovellaPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Novella has updated her profile a bit.You already depend on your government? Quite significantly. Not sure what you mean there but it's irrelevant.
I am simply here, speaking from experience on a subject that people seemingly need to be informed about.
But it's fine. There are clearly different mentalities. It's a life and death situation and I suppose I would rather ensure my neighbour gets a fair shake. But that's just me :)
Enjoy Work!
Permalink
Reply by blazaPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 8:26 AM
I lived in Scotland for many years and thought the socialized medicine deal was amazing. No one went without needed medical treatment. The poor didn't have to worry about not being able to afford proper care and the rich, if they preferred could pay for special treatment. It was fair, right and I believe America should join into the real world and stop paying the drug companies and hospitals and lobbyists outradious amounts of money so they can line their own pockets..
Permalink
Reply by melPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Question:
What is more desireable, a big mansion for myself, surrounded by cardboard houses of the poor, or small houses for everybody?
(assuming both choices cost you the same)
Truth is, one person's gain is another person's loss.
Edited on March 3, 2009 at 9:14 AM Permalink
Reply by tomac626 on March 3, 2009 at 9:22 AM
We've had rationing here for decades saw, and it's based on income level. If there's going to be rationing, it should be shared by all, not just the middle and low-income citizens.
Permalink
Reply by sawheadPATRON on March 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM
It has been stated on here that some speak of things we know nothing about , But by that same thought aren't they speaking of the U.S. health care system , a system that they know nothing about . Everyone draws opinions from what they read,hear or see and sometimes they may be wrong in regards to what others perceive to be the facts. In my opinion the day that the government got into health care was the day cost started going up . As is the case with most things, when a company realizes that someone is willing to pay regardless of price then that cost will rise unless something limits it such as caps, supply or demand .
If someone went into a restaurant and didn't have to worry about the cost because someone else is footing the bill then they more than likely will order whatever they want but when it comes out of their pocket they will be more frugal about their spending . Free health care, Free housing or Free anything comes at a price to someone .
Permalink