Daddyplace.com

Anything Dad Related => In The News => Politics => Topic started by: ToddS on February 26, 2009, 11:36:21 AM

Title: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on February 26, 2009, 11:36:21 AM
I know your shocked but here comes more spending by Obama.  here you go (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19334.html)
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: jbpdvm on February 26, 2009, 11:38:10 AM
Where does all this money come from? Are they going to pull it out of their asses?
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: z_randy on February 26, 2009, 11:41:35 AM
If we had all this money just laying around why is there a deficit?
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Chef Dad on February 26, 2009, 11:43:33 AM
they're going to pull it out of our asses
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: MnMDad on February 26, 2009, 11:50:35 AM
Maybe they are going to get it from all the money that disappeared out of my 401K...
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Frobozz on February 26, 2009, 12:00:55 PM
"NO MAS!"

(http://www.boxing-memorabilia.com/images/duran-leonard.jpg)
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on February 26, 2009, 12:04:12 PM
Pop quiz, how much per person was spent on health care last year?
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: z_randy on February 26, 2009, 12:08:50 PM
$800 billion trillion! 
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: MnMDad on February 26, 2009, 12:49:31 PM
eleventy zillion
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: JgansoC on February 26, 2009, 12:50:47 PM
they're going to pull it out of our asses

And they plan on going deep
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bigred on February 26, 2009, 02:00:54 PM
hmm, seems a bit short, Gov already spends nearly $2.4 trillion in Healthcare for 08, yet somehow adding the $634 Billion over 10 years is gonna give everyone Heathcare.

Something don't smell right, there's alot more to this than they are telling us and this first infusion of $634 Billion ain't gonna do squat.  Probably filled with tons of crap/pork like all the other legislations thats being passed.

BTW I didn't mean to call pork, crap.  I like pork, in almost every form.  (Accept pickled pigs feet). 
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Aftrthought051 on February 26, 2009, 02:25:55 PM
so far the money is just going to help those who already get free healthcare to get more coverage, and some of it is "suppose" to lower our cost of coverage.  This is skeptical at best.  I'm all for universal healthcare, but I deal w/ this crap everyday, and I'm really REALLY tired of worthless sacks of sh*t that don't even work who get everything paid for them, while I pay $200 a month for insurance, plus another $300 if my kid actually does go to the doctor.  I work and contribute to society, and yet I have to pay for health coverage.  Shouldn't it be the other way around.  Shouldn't we work on fixing that before we give sacks of sh*t more coverage.  I don't know, guess it's just me.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on February 26, 2009, 03:24:00 PM
This is probably the most poignant thing that I've read on the US Health care System, about half-way down it even explains how the system itself is causing the system to be more expensive.

Using 2006's numbers.
Quote
Profits, billing, marketing, and the gratuitous costs of private bureaucracies siphon off $400 billion to $500 billion of the $2.1 trillion spent, but the more serious and less appreciated syndrome is the set of perverse incentives produced by commercial dominance of the system


Quote
A popular strategy among cost-containment consultants relies on the psychology of income targeting. The idea is that physicians have a mental picture of expected earnings — an income target. If the insurance plan squeezes their income by reducing payments per visit, doctors compensate by increasing their caseload and spending less time with each patient.

This false economy is a telling example of the myopia of commercialized managed care. It may save the plan money in the short run, but as any practicing physician can testify, the strategy has multiple self-defeating effects. A doctor's most precious commodity is time — adequate time to review a chart, take a history, truly listen to a patient. You can't do all that in 10 minutes. Harried primary care doctors are more likely to miss cues, make mistakes, and — ironically enough — order more tests to compensate for lack of hands-on assessment. They are also more likely to make more referrals to specialists for procedures they could perform more cost-effectively themselves, given adequate time and compensation. And the gap between generalist and specialist pay is widening.


(http://content.nejm.org/content/vol358/issue6/images/medium/01f1.gif)
Quote
The growth rate of medical expenditures has been slowest in nations with universal health insurance systems. Data are from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. GDP denotes gross domestic product.


Notice that the US's cost per person started as the highest and went up the most sharply of any of the other OECD Countries.

Okay now I'm off my soapbox.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on February 26, 2009, 05:03:31 PM
Here's the whole article.  I realized I hadn't linked it.  http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/6/549 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/6/549)

Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bigred on February 26, 2009, 06:07:57 PM
on average Taxes paid by people making average salaries in those countries, married with a couple of kids

USA - 12%
Germany - 36%
UK - 27%
Canada - 22%
Australia - 16%
Mexico 19%

so lets see here to have a government run health program lets say I will have to pay an additional 5% in taxes (thats probably pretty low but lets go with it).  Lets see I spend maybe $6,000 a year right now for insurance and everything insurance doesn't cover including dental and eye.  Without going into detail what I pay now is a fraction of the amount of extra money the government will need to take from me for us to have a poorly run health care system.  Screw that crap, I'm not a socialist and never will be, I like having the choice of what I want to do with my money and giving it to a bunch of lazy, illegal, drug addicted, or corrupt politicians is not my idea of fair.

No thanks, you like your system, by all means stay in your country cause I don't want what you have in my country.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on February 26, 2009, 07:52:37 PM
so lets see here to have a government run health program lets say I will have to pay an additional 5% in taxes (thats probably pretty low but lets go with it).  Lets see I spend maybe $6,000 a year right now for insurance and everything insurance doesn't cover including dental and eye.  Without going into detail what I pay now is a fraction of the amount of extra money the government will need to take from me for us to have a poorly run health care system.  Screw that crap, I'm not a socialist and never will be, I like having the choice of what I want to do with my money and giving it to a bunch of lazy, illegal, drug addicted, or corrupt politicians is not my idea of fair.

No thanks, you like your system, by all means stay in your country cause I don't want what you have in my country.

Slight problem with your logic.  You're already paying 6000 out of pocket and over 7000 of your taxes goes toward health care coverage that doesn't cover you.  So currently you're paying 13 000 dollars towards your very own health care, because the costs of covering the people that aren't covered equals out to 7000 per person in the US.  Here in Canada we pay our own dental and eye but we pay 0 out of pocket and about 4000 per person.  Now I will be the first to say that Canada should spend more per person than they do, no we aren't desperately out of all of the crap that are the common misconceptions but more money would reduce wait times.  Currently you pay 3 times as much as I do for healthcare before you ever use it.  If you use it, chances are you are paying considerably more than that.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on February 26, 2009, 09:04:46 PM
Were do you get the $7000 dollar figure from and where does that money go?  Looking at the stats there are 45 million uninsured people in the US but we have to remember that this number includes those wealthy enough to insure themselves and those who decide that they dont want insurance.  There are about 40 million people on medicare and another 40 million on medicaid or state assistance.  If I am assuming correctly that means that 7K is only covering insurance for less than half of our population so that means to give every citizen healthcare we are going to have to more than double that 7K.  How is that saving me money?  I bet for my family of 4 we don't spend more that 6K on insurance and doctors visits.  There is no way in hell that government can do things cheaper than the private sector. 
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bigred on February 26, 2009, 09:10:24 PM
Your right, we also pay about 7% of our income into the already existing healthcare program (our employer typically picks up the other half), however to think that would change is crazy they will add the extra percentage to the sum already there, afterall that burden is still there.  So no problem with my logic unless you are assuming that they will take away that 7%, and they won't.

So I am only paying $6000 to my health care like I said, and going to a government health care system would add 5% or more on top of that.  As you pointed out I am already paying an additional 7% of my income to our government funded healthcare system, which I do not use, so why on earth woud I want to spend an additional % for a universal healthcare system that will make things worse than what they already are.

So you pay only $4k per person into your health care?   Total?  That number seems low?  
But, I believe we have some 10 times the number of physicians and nurses that you do and they are paid on average twice as much as yours are.  We have far more technically advanced medical gadgetry than you guys per population, and we don't have to wait as long as you do for medical treatment and surgeries.  We have a much higher crime rate and drug use rate which burdens our system, we have many more illegal alians burdening our system, so yeah I guess I can see why you would pay less.  But none of those things I mentioned will be fixable by the government, except maybe the illegal alien thing but our government sucks when it comes to that so i don't see that changing anytime soon.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on February 26, 2009, 10:16:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared)


Excerpts from there
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,714; in Canada, US$3,678.

Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).

The average life expectancy for Canada was 80.34 years compared with U.S. at 78.6 years.

The U.S. government spends more on health care than on Social Security and national defense combined, according to the Brookings Institute.

In both Canada and the United States , access to health care can be a problem. Studies suggest that 40% of US citizens and 5% of Canadian citizens lack adequate access to health care.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on February 27, 2009, 12:09:55 AM
Bill you keep saying how much the US already spends on health care.  That money is only spent on people who have no insurance or on Medicare/medicaid. The people with no insurance is less than 45% of the population.  So if we are already paying such a ridiculous amount for health care how is doubling the number of people using it going to save us any money?  While the Canadian health system is cheaper than the US what was the savings to the Canadian people when it was first implemented or did it actually cost people more?  As far as your stats go about life expectancy and infant mortality, they cannot be attributed to the health care system alone.  There are a lot more factors involved.

The other question that comes to my mind is why on earth would I want to give the government more control over my personal life?  Now the government gets a say in what I can eat, drink, and smoke and this is not a conspiracy theory.  Things like this are happening in Great Britain, Germany and Japan. 




























Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on February 27, 2009, 08:20:37 AM
So if we are already paying such a ridiculous amount for health care how is doubling the number of people using it going to save us any money?


Because your system is a For Profit system. Fully one quarter of your tax dollars goes directly to that.  Seeing as the New England Journal of Medicine put it best I'll quote them. "Profits, billing, marketing, and the gratuitous costs of private bureaucracies siphon off $400 billion to $500 billion of the $2.1 trillion spent" (numbers reflective of 2006)

So half a trillion dollars goes to pay rich people to manage your medical care.
And yes you're right.  Your 7000 per person funds just a little under half of the health care system.

Quote
The other question that comes to my mind is why on earth would I want to give the government more control over my personal life?

Good question, I wouldn't want that either, as a matter of fact, I don't have that.  To quote wikipedia..... 
"While some label Canada's system as "socialized medicine," the term is inaccurate. Unlike systems with public delivery, such as the UK, the Canadian system provides public coverage for private delivery. As Princeton University health economist Uwe E. Reinhardt notes, single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems, because doctors are in the private sector.[21] Similarly, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities, rather than being part of government. "

Quote
The people with no insurance is less than 45% of the population.
Actually it's more like 20%.

"Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007" quote from The National Coalition on Health Care, Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Coverage. http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)

"In recent decades, managed care has become prevalent in the United States, with some 90% of privately insured Americans belonging to plans with some form of managed care.[57] In managed care, insurance companies control patients' health care to reduce costs, for instance by demanding a second opinion prior to some expensive treatments or by denying coverage for treatments not considered worth their cost."  And the government seems like a worse choice than a guy making millions of your dollars to decide whether a treatment is "worth their cost"?




Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on February 28, 2009, 12:13:54 PM
When I stated that 45% of the population had no insurance I was including the people on medicare and medicaid because that we what the taxpayers are having to pay for.  I would love to see the stats of what it was costing people before government took control of healthcare vs what they are paying now.  I really don't see government doing things cheaper than the private sector.  You say that 25% of our medical costs are profit.  So by giving the government control we are going to lower prices by 25%?  Hogwash, how much is all the new government buracracy going to cost us?

As far as Canadian health care goes it sounds like you are very happy with it and that is great but that does not mean that our politicians are going to implement it the same way.  The core of the liberal platform is that the individual cannot possibly know what is best for themselves.  The government knows best and it is here to take care of you.  We cannot continue to just hand over control of our personal freedoms.  Freedom comes with a cost.  That cost is having to be responsible for your actions and knowing the risks of those actions.  I would much rather make my own decisions than have mommy government do it for me. 
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on February 28, 2009, 01:03:27 PM
Todd, I'm uncertain how it is that you can misunderstand facts.  Your system is a for-profit system.  Your insurance is for-profit and so might very well tell you no when you have a medical necessity because it isn't "cost effective".  If the system were non-profit IE paying ONLY for the costs of administering your costs would be cut by one quarter.  If the system wasn't for- profit and you didn't have to buy third party insurance you also wouldn't be paying out of pocket for insurance, thereby cutting your personal costs easily in half by the numbers that were shown by BigRed.  1/4 off your taxation dollars, and 6000 less out of pocket.  Remember that currently your hospital boards are most interested in keeping their profit margin in the 10 - 20% range.

Quote
We cannot continue to just hand over control of our personal freedoms.  Freedom comes with a cost.  That cost is having to be responsible for your actions and knowing the risks of those actions.

Once again, the government doesn't control who I see, the government doesn't control where I go to see a doctor.  They merely make sure that the doctor I see and the place I go are paid for their services.

Fear is not freedom, and all I see in these repeated posts is fear of change.  To say that a system that is not seeing to the needs of nearly 40% of people and that 100% of the people in the country pay for 25% of the peoples healthcare and their own is about the oddest thing I've seen.  The government is already giving the poor people healthcare so the whole "I'm not paying for lazy people to see a doctor with a social system, f* that"  You already are, and have been for a long time.  Not to mention that you've been paying a doctor and a hospital that you never went to PROFIT.  Isn't it time to find something better?
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on February 28, 2009, 03:23:30 PM
You are darn right I am afraid of the government taking things over.  Look at what the have done to our schools, social security and medicare how it already is.  They dont do anything right.  The budgets do nothing but grow and grow and they cant manage the things they already control.  Why on earth could I expect them to run my health care properly.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on March 01, 2009, 01:49:08 AM
You are darn right I am afraid of the government taking things over.  Look at what the have done to our schools, social security and medicare how it already is.  They dont do anything right.  The budgets do nothing but grow and grow and they cant manage the things they already control.  Why on earth could I expect them to run my health care properly.

So you're hoping that some day the people that have been made millionaires by the system of fleecing every person in the country for the sake of profits will just have a change of heart and go "What about the people?!  What we're doing really doesn't help a fair amount of people, lets change things and stop worrying about our ridiculously large salaries!"

I wouldn't hold my breath for that day.

And once again, my government doesn't run my health care.  They run the socialized insurance that pays for my health care.  Is that so hard to get, or does your argument lose its teeth if that basis of "government control" is removed in any way?
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: z_randy on March 01, 2009, 09:31:42 AM
When the people in government stop thinking about themselves maybe I'll worry less
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on March 01, 2009, 10:03:27 AM
Bill I have said it before that it is great that you are happy with the Canadian system.  No one is trying to get you to change.  I can however find lots of stories about how your system is not the greatest either.  I find it really interesting that your government is so scared of private health care that they wont even let doctors run private practices.  If people can afford it who is the government to say that you cant use your own money to go to the doctor.  How is this a bad thing?  There is no guarantee that the US will implement the same system as yours.  You also speak of how profits are bad thing and how evil the rich are.  If I had a choice between going to the doctor and getting whatever treatment I want when I want it and it being expensive or only being able to get the treatment that the government will give when they give it to me.  Then I want the freedom to do what is best for me. 

The real end to this debate is that we are republic and we follow the rule of law.  Any form of social program violates this but the politicians of this country have been wiping their asses with the constitution for so long that no one cares.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on March 01, 2009, 10:34:39 AM
No the real end to the debate winds up being stories like this....  http://www.katu.com/news/40122542.html (http://www.katu.com/news/40122542.html)

(http://media.katu.com/images/090223_LAITH_DOUGHERTY.jpg)

PORTLAND, Ore. - A Portland family is fighting for the life of their baby boy, who needs a heart transplant or will die.

But a $1.5 million price tag is standing in the way of his survival.

Rejected by the hospitals that could save his life, 10-week-old Laith Dougherty can't even get on a waiting list for a new heart.

“It just astounds me that our health care system would let children die," said the baby’s mother, Ghadah Makoshi.

Laith was born early and initially needed help breathing and for other complications. But his mother said he went home after eight days and seemed healthy until they noticed weeks later that he did not seem to be eating as much as he should. Further tests eventually revealed the baby had a congenital heart defect, Makoshi said.

Doctors told the family the baby's heart is too weak for surgery and the only option for survival is a heart transplant.

Now inside OHSU’s Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, doctors can only monitor Laith's condition. OHSU doesn't offer transplants for babies, and the out-of-state hospitals that do have told his family "No."

“For Seattle's or for any other hospital who thinks it's just, you know, a matter of numbers, and, you know, ‘Fine, we're just not going to accept that case,’ you're essentially writing a death sentence," Makoshi said.

The mother said Seattle's Children's Hospital told her it needs $1.5 million to give Laith a transplant. But the child needs a heart now.

“Probably what was the hardest thing to hear from the doctor was that, 'If you don't get insurance, then at some point, you're going to need to decide how you want him to die,' " Makoshi said.

She and her husband do have health insurance, but it doesn't cover transplants.

 “I just can't understand how anybody could turn him down for a heart,” she said. “I just don't.”

The mother said she is asking for donations and also for people to write their state representatives and senators.

LEARN MORE ABOUT HOW YOU CAN HELP LAITH

Seattle Children's Hospital on Tuesday released this statement about Laith's case:

"It pains us to be in a position where we cannot provide health care services to all children who need them. We receive requests for financial support from families throughout the world and unfortunately do not have funds to care for every child in need.

We are committed to providing health care to children in the WAMI region (Washington, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) regardless of a family’s ability to pay. Unfortunately we do not have the funding to make the same commitment to children outside our four-state area. Patients who live outside our region are encouraged to work with their insurance company and members of their communities to raise the money needed to be seen at Children’s.

Children’s provided more than $86 million in un- and under-compensated care in FY 07/08 and that number is expected to grow to more than $100 million in FY 2009."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our government isn't afraid of Private practices.  Our government knows that to allow it is to never be the government in power ever again and to have that be the fastest thing to be repealed ever.  Plus they know that here in Canada two things are true, never having to worry about finances when you're sick helps you to live longer and that a baby's heart transplant may cost us a million dollars but I would rather pay that then tell my neighbour to F*** off because they can't afford it.

So the biggest difference is that if this family was poor enough you'd pay for it whether you liked it or not.  And because they aren't, their baby will die even if a heart becomes available because they don't have 1.5 million dollars.  Hell of a system you have there.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on March 01, 2009, 10:48:17 AM
Let me add one more thing and you can answer it or not, you can find many articles about how horrible the Canadian system is, but how many can you find that are written by Canadians?  I'm sure that there are some, but the main article about your system was written by the New England Journal of Medicine.  Someone that is getting paid by your current system of health care is saying "Damn this system is crap."
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on March 01, 2009, 03:39:32 PM
Bill that is a horrible story and my prayers go out to that family but are you trying to say that the no one in Canada dies from not being able to get proper medical care?  Bad things happen every day no matter how much you try or how much money you spend.  Life is not fair and you can't change that.  I have never said that our system is perfect and doesn't need changes.  My argument is that government is not the answer to those needed changes. 

As far as private medical practices go, currently the Canadian law says that if the Canadian Health System covers X procedure than a private practice cannot offer that procedure.  So if the wait for a hip replacement is 2 years then you cannot go to a private practice and use your own money to pay for one and receive one in a timely manner.  Further research reveals that the government is starting to turn a blind eye to this but it is still illegal.  Also it is illegal to sell private insurance in Canada.  If the system in Canada is so great why are they afraid of competition.  No one says that you have to get rid of the government insurance just allow those who can afford it to be able to purchase private insurance to do so.  The heart of this issue is that it is unfair.  The evil rich should not be allowed to have better health care or more options.  Again we have to get over this notion that life is fair.  Not everyone can be rich.  Everyone has the opportunity to be rich but it is up to you to make the right decisions and sacrifices or you can just be lucky and be born into your money.  Why should that be held against someone?  They earned the money they should be able to spend it as they see fit. 
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bigred on March 01, 2009, 03:56:16 PM
And you know what the great thing is about this country.  Because we are not having to be forced to pay into these type of programs people have the ability to donate to good causes.  Once the Government starts taking more money out of our pockets to help insure everyone this type of charity stops, and that would be truley sad.

I would rather rely on the goodness and charity of the people of this country than have those people give the government that money and rely on them, the government, to do the right thing.

Whats to say in this case the government wouldn't have told the parents, well its just to risky, your baby has other problemns and giving a child this small a heart transplant at this time is not a good use of this countries funds, so sorry we can't do anything.

http://dailycherez.com/?p=2013 (http://dailycherez.com/?p=2013)
 Looks like the family is taken care of.

----------------------------------------------------
Socialized Medicine in Canada's Healthcare System
    Uploaded by SMILEE2325 on Nov 11, 2006  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Socialized Medicine in Canada's Healthcare System

Canada’s healthcare system has been the envy of many western industrialized countries for years. England’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill inspired it in 1948 when he said:

“The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all […] Disease must be attacked whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman, simply on the ground that it is the enemy […] Our policy is to create a national health service in order to secure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available” (Wollstein 23).

Completed in 1970, this socialized health plan provides free public healthcare. Every Canadian receives free doctors’ visits, free hospital care, free surgery, and free medicine while in the hospital. So well known and regarded, Canada’s healthcare system has long been looked to as a shining example of what socialized medicine could be and even won an international award for excellence in 1993.

Even though Canada’s Healthcare plan has had such a positive history it is now plagued with problems. Some of these problems include lack of doctors, lack of beds and supplies, and very long waiting periods for medical attention. Because of these problems arising in Canada’s healthcare there has been quite a debate going on in Canada over socialized medicine. Many people argue that these problems are due to the fallacies of socialized medicine claiming,

“Socialized medicine, like all other forms of socialism, is a world-wide failure. As people throughout the world from the Soviet Union to South America are learning, socialism cannot work. Socialized medicine results in skyrocketing demand for nominally “free” health care, doctors being over-burdened, medical services steadily deteriorating, and endless waiting periods for health services”(Wollstein 24).

Others, who are for socialized medicine in Canada feel the problem is not with the system but with the people themselves. They argue that people are exploiting the system and, “not taking enough responsibility for themselves”(Pierson 26). In any case both sides agree that the main cause of these problems is lack of money, but instead of arguing how they intend to secure more money for healthcare, they argue whether socialized medicine is good or not. This question of good and bad is a philosophical issue best discussed over time. Instead both of these sides should be joining together to fight for funds. Funds that their government owes them.

In 1970 at the dawn of Canada’s healthcare the federal government promised to provide 50% of all healthcare costs in Canada. The other 50% was supposed to be provided by local provinces. Since then the government has yet to pay 50% of healthcare costs and, to add insult to injury, has steadily decreased the amount of funding they once promised. From 1970 to 1983 the Canadian government paid only 37% of all health care costs leaving the local provinces to pay the other 63%. At this rate local provinces could fit the bill but in 1984, when the Canadian government amended the National Health Care Act, they cut their funding of health care costs down to a mere 29%. Then in 1990 after another budget cut the Canadian government paid only 25%. Since then there has been so many cuts in healthcare funding that ever since 1990 the Canadian government, with a population of 21 million, has spent less on healthcare than Washington D.C. who has a population of only 4 million (Frampton).

With ever increasing demand and cost for healthcare, local provinces, which now must pay over 75% of all healthcare services for their citizens, are forced to make cuts. Since service is one major cost for medical care many local provinces choose to cap doctors’ salaries. These caps range from each province but the average ceiling for doctors is 150,000(CD) for general practitioners and 175,000(CD) for specialists. These caps, besides making most doctors unhappy, has had some negative effects. The first and most noticeable effect is Canadian doctors leaving Canada for the United States. Dr. Warren Molberg, an emergency ward physician at Edmonton’s Royal Alexandra Hospital, says he and his colleagues regularly receive letters from United States healthcare companies. These companies apparently promise them guaranteed salaries that are much higher than what they receive in Canada and “the benefits, incentives and tax rates are also very attractive, as is the chance to work in sophisticated healthcare facilities equipped with the latest medical technologies”(Sillars 59). These packages are appealing to doctors whose work places are deteriorating and many are willing to go says Dr. Eldon Smith, dean of the University of Calgary medical school, “A lot of people are unhappy and a lot are talking about [moving to the U.S.]” Many people do not find this a problem and feel that there are too many doctors in Canada already but Dr. Smith believes that there is a risk of losing highly specialized physicians and teachers and says, “if we lose those, that’s a very serious issue.”

The second negative effect of these salary caps has to do with physicians’ distribution. Because of the cap on doctors’ salaries most doctors are choosing to work in major cities. In fact, over 85% off all doctors in Canada practice in the city. This has left a serious shortage of doctors in rural areas. The reason for this is rural doctors have much more work to do then city doctors do.

In the countryside there are at most two doctors for an entire area. These doctors must see everyone and are usually on call 24 hours a day. This was not a problem for most rural doctors because due to the increase in work they had a direct increase in pay. In fact, until the salary caps, most rural doctors were averaging 10% higher incomes than city doctors were. After the salary caps these rural doctors still had the same amount of work but could no longer make higher incomes. In the city physicians now made just as much money and with much less work. This created doctor shortages in rural areas and has had some very negative effects such as this story taken out of a local newspaper:

“Dennis Goodswimmer was driving eastward on highway 34 as fast as he dared to the Valleyview General Hospital. Beside him in the van’s passenger seat lay his son Joey, unconscious and bleeding after being hit by a car. Fortunately the hospital was no more than a 10 minute trip. But as the desperate dad neared town, paramedics in an ambulance intercepted him. Their news was grim indeed: due to an unexpected shortage of doctors, the Valleyview hospital was closed for the weekend Aug 21-22.

The hospital rebuilt just two years ago, cost $15 million. Virtually on its doorstep, Joey and his father waited for an air ambulance. The boy was flown from Valleyview to Grand Prairie and then to Edmonton, delaying his medical care for nearly an hour. The next morning, doctors at the University of Alberta Hospital declared the lad dead of head injuries”(C.S. 11).

Joey had the misfortune of living in a rural area. The hospital was closed due to one doctor being on vacation and the other doctor resting from exhaustion. Valleyview General hospital had tried to find a replacement physician but could not. With these caps rural areas cannot find enough doctors and because of this these people are not receiving medical services. This is definitely tragic especially when we look to poor little Joey as an example.

Doctors are not the only ones affected by the Canadian government’s budget cuts. The patients themselves are suffering. Due to lack of money for services and lack of doctors, patients are placed on long waiting lists. These waiting lists are so severe that women, on average, wait 6 months just for a pap smear and depending on the seriousness of your case you can be seen as early as 3.5 weeks for chemotherapy or up to 33 weeks for orthopedic surgery. Either way both of these waits are exceedingly long. In fact, a 1993 study found that Canadian cancer patients were waiting an average of three times longer than patients in the Untied States for treatment and one third longer than what their doctors thought was clinically reasonable. Even the wait that Canadian doctors deemed clinically reasonable was 33% to 50% longer than what United States doctors thought reasonable (Walker 45). Here is a list of average, actual wait periods in weeks versus clinically reasonable waits:

Apparently the Canadian government feels that an extreme waiting list will not kill you. This is not so when headlines like “Lack of beds and long lines killed my hubby, wife claims” appear in their newspapers. But even if the wait does not kill you, data published by Statistics Canada indicate that 45% of all patients waiting for healthcare say they are in pain. Some of these waits can be up to 6 months and according to Mr. Walker of the Fraser Institute, “The physical and psychological pain can be devastating.”

These lists have become so bad that many Canadians are now crossing the border into the United States to receive medical treatment. This phenomenon of border crossing became prevalent in 1987 and has grown larger year by year. In fact by 1994 over 30% of Canadians have crossed the United States border for medical treatment of one type or another. Border hopping to avoid lines has now become a common practice for anyone who can afford to pay for medical services in American hospitals. Unless the Canadian government owns up to its responsibilities this problem is going to continue to grow. In fact people on waiting lists grow each year by 20%.

This is completely unacceptable and unfair to Canadian citizens and this is also why they have had so many debates in this last decade discussing their healthcare. Unfortunately they have looked past the real cause of the problem and instead argued over whether socialized medicine can work or not. Both sides agree there is not enough money for their hospitals but fail to see the true reason why. One side argues that government controlled healthcare becomes too expensive and claims, “The monopoly of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogenous public system of healthcare delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. It is no longer efficient and costs more money”(Lemieux 36).

Because of this reason they believe that socialized medicine should be discarded. But this will never happen in a country where 86% of the citizens still want free healthcare and this argument does not hold true in a country that pays much less for healthcare than the United States does. The other side has even less of an argument. They believe that people themselves are ruining the system. They feel that people abuse the system and expect too many services. But how can someone abuse that which is free?

Both sides recognize the shortages, the long wait periods, and the gaping lack of funds but they do not attribute this to the real culprit, the Canadian government. The Canadian government promised to pay a certain amount of the bill and with increased costs they are now trying to back out. They even passed laws making it impossible to receive private healthcare, which now forces everyone to wait in line for medical care. With their decreasing support Canada’s local provinces cannot bare the burden and healthcare, inevitably, is going down the tubes. Those who would argue whether socialized medicine is good or not should instead focus on making their government own up to its responsibilities.
 
_______________

The other thing your system can't handle is the massive influx of illegal aliens.  How do you think your system would react to 20+ million illegal people coming in and using your "free" health system.  Thought you had long waits now, HAhhahahahahhaha.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on March 01, 2009, 05:05:39 PM
Wow, I know that smilee2325 is the guy to talk to about health care.

So was it written by an american or a Canadian?  I've seen more than enough fear-mongering articles in the US about my health care system.  I've seen Canadian articles about the US,  I believe the most telling part is the article written by the people in the system. 

Quote
The other thing your system can't handle is the massive influx of illegal aliens.  How do you think your system would react to 20+ million illegal people coming in and using your "free" health system.  Thought you had long waits now, HAhhahahahahhaha.

Nope, I don't have long waits, despite what smilee2325 believes.  Not a single source quoted for any "research" in the article.  I mean that's totally awesome.  By the way 20 million illegals here would roughly increase our population by 67% so that would be considered an invasion.  Secondly we have illegals.  I'll have to check the number to see if you're anywhere near us in the per capita numbers.  Of course there is also the option of saying if you don't have a health card, you pay.  Kinda like you would if you came here.

Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on March 01, 2009, 06:41:20 PM
After further review it appears that your system is more socialized than you lead on.  While the government does not own the institutions they set the prices, set the salaries, they define procedures and they do not allow any competition.  It really doesn't get more socialized than that. 

Here are a couple of articles by Canadians, including a quote from the founder of your system

1 (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html)

2 (http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html)

3 (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/06/founding_father.html)

    Back in the 1960s, [Claude] Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

    The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

    Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

    "We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on March 01, 2009, 07:20:45 PM
Quote
While the government does not own the institutions they set the prices, set the salaries, they define procedures and they do not allow any competition.  It really doesn't get more socialized than that.
And your insurance companies set the price as well.  Read the articles I posted on here for you to read and you'd see that your insurance company acts very much the same.  Of course your insurance company does this to maximize their profit, whether they help you or not.

The idea of competition amongst your hospitals is who can get away with the highest price possible.  Healthy system you have.

Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bigred on March 01, 2009, 07:59:19 PM
"Of course there is also the option of saying if you don't have a health card, you pay.  Kinda like you would if you came here."

Wow so your country would turn away people that can't pay?  Thats pretty harsh, guess its good we are here to help the people that can't pay for health care because your system will only help those that pay taxes or can pay from thier pockets.

--------

"Nope, I don't have long waits"  Your the first Canadian I've heard say that.  I work with several and while they tell me there are benefits and drawback to both systems they all have said that there aren't as long waits for certain things in this country.  And I believe your country even publically stated long waits is an issue and have earmarked federal funding to combat this problem.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/LeavingCanadaforMedicalCare.pdf (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/LeavingCanadaforMedicalCare.pdf)

or how about this one, tried to find a Canadian news source but haven't yet.

http://www.komonews.com/news/10216201.html (http://www.komonews.com/news/10216201.html)

or this one

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080119.neuro191/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080119.neuro191/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home)

But you've never had to wait.

I think Canada has been lucky we are here, and I think those people that come to this country are happy we are here too, I mean what would have happened to some of these people if our super expensive and horrible system wasn't there.  

I didn't see Canada stepping up to the plate and givning that baby you talk about in that artical you posted a chance, nope I saw an american company stepping up and american citizen donating.


------

The articles claims that Canadian Federal Govmnt is supposed to pay 50% and has gone down, and the provinces or territories have to cover the rest, Is this not true, I haven't been able to find anything that say otherwise, but have found several articals that say it actually is true.

-------

As far as doctor payment goes do you have evidence that the statements in the article are false?  We pay our doctors high because they are some of the best in the world.  many Canadians come to this country to use our "overpaid " doctors.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914 (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914)

And there are articles saying the health care coverage in your rural areas are lacking.

http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/41975/la_id/1.htm (http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/41975/la_id/1.htm)

-------

So yeah its not an official news story, its a cheat essay, but that doesn't mean the numbers are untrue, Granted the Story about the guy and son may or may not be true.

And let me help you with your illegal immigration problem, obviosly not muchof one since you don't know what it is.

In the US in 2000 is was about 1.7% of the population was illegal.  In Canada I've read anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000.

In a typical month at an innercity Hospital in Houston only about 1 to 3% of the births are from people that either have insurence or can afford it.  The other 90+% are from illegals that have, no insurence, no money, no documents and don't pay taxes.  But our laws force the hospitals to treat them at there own expense.  This goes for any emergency room visit for any reason.

Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bigred on March 01, 2009, 08:15:35 PM
Quote
The idea of competition amongst your hospitals is who can get away with the highest price possible.


Where'd you get that from, its a very silly statement.

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/health/4631.html (http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/health/4631.html)

An interesting quick look at a couple of Hospital CEO's and the problems they see.

Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on March 01, 2009, 08:38:49 PM
But I have the choice to use a different insurance company or the option to not use insurance at all.  I can also choose the level of insurance I want or at least I used to.  One of the reasons that insurance here is so expensive is because the government intervenes and forces insurance companies to cover people for things they don't need or want such as mental health coverage or pregnancy coverage for single people or older people.  

Why do you hate our system so?  You don't have to use it.  Your money is not funding my health care.  No one here is asking Canada to switch to a private system although from the quote above you guys may be headed in this direction.  If we switch to a system like Canada's it isn't going to affect your life one bit.  Except maybe to force the rich people, who you seem to despise so much, to have to go somewhere else for their treatments. Yes you can offer us your experience with the Canadian system but yours is one opinion and there are others in your country that disagree.  We can go round and round about which system is better but that isnt going to change our views.  We have a fundamental difference.  You think that government knows best and that they should do everything in their power to make life fair.  I believe that people should have a choice in life in everything they do so long as they are not infringing upon anyone else's rights.  Rights in this country are those defined in the Constitution.  The Constitution explicitly outlines the role of the Federal government.  Health care is not one of those roles and it is not a right.  Health care is something that should be handled by the state.  Until our Constitution is amended that is fact whether our health care system sucks or not.  Now are politicians have been trashing our Constitution so this will eventually pass but that does not make it right.

I started this article to let people know that our president is looking to spend more money after we already have a record deficits and we keep spending and spending and we don't have the money to cover this.  Our social programs are out of control and to think we could add another one is the definition of insane.  This should infuriate people and get them to take action.  If you think that health care should be a right the call your government officials and ask them to amend the Constitution.  If you think government needs to be reigned in then call your state officials and ask them to call for a Constitutional Congress.  If your foreign and think America sucks then send money to favorite anti American organization.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bill on March 01, 2009, 09:08:38 PM
But I have the choice to use a different insurance company or the option to not use insurance at all.  I can also choose the level of insurance I want or at least I used to.  One of the reasons that insurance here is so expensive is because the government intervenes and forces insurance companies to cover people for things they don't need or want such as mental health coverage or pregnancy coverage for single people or older people.  

Why do you hate our system so?  You don't have to use it.  Your money is not funding my health care.  No one here is asking Canada to switch to a private system although from the quote above you guys may be headed in this direction.  If we switch to a system like Canada's it isn't going to affect your life one bit.  Except maybe to force the rich people, who you seem to despise so much, to have to go somewhere else for their treatments. Yes you can offer us your experience with the Canadian system but yours is one opinion and there are others in your country that disagree.  We can go round and round about which system is better but that isnt going to change our views.  We have a fundamental difference.  You think that government knows best and that they should do everything in their power to make life fair.  I believe that people should have a choice in life in everything they do so long as they are not infringing upon anyone else's rights.  Rights in this country are those defined in the Constitution.  The Constitution explicitly outlines the role of the Federal government.  Health care is not one of those roles and it is not a right.  Health care is something that should be handled by the state.  Until our Constitution is amended that is fact whether our health care system sucks or not.  Now are politicians have been trashing our Constitution so this will eventually pass but that does not make it right.

I started this article to let people know that our president is looking to spend more money after we already have a record deficits and we keep spending and spending and we don't have the money to cover this.  Our social programs are out of control and to think we could add another one is the definition of insane.  This should infuriate people and get them to take action.  If you think that health care should be a right the call your government officials and ask them to amend the Constitution.  If you think government needs to be reigned in then call your state officials and ask them to call for a Constitutional Congress.  If your Canadian and think America sucks then send money to favorite anti American organization.


I don't hate your system, I see the flaws in your system the same as I see the flaws in mine.  Our systems biggest flaw is that they need to put some more money into it, not like triple what we're currently spending, but more.

You're the one telling me how horrible my system is, I responded in kind.  Our system isn't perfect by any means, I believe I put that in my first post, but making sure that every Canadian has health care is a priority that we all stand behind here.  That is part of what makes our system workable, the people here see it as a duty to Canadians. 
Quote
If your Canadian and think America sucks then send money to favorite anti American organization.
Of course I hate America, I mean, who wouldn't?!  That's why I'm offering the opinion that things need to change, because I hope to see you fall.  I know more than one person who has said that they hope your health system never changes because it is the downfall of the American society.  It keeps you thinking that it is you against absolutely everyone around you.  I don't think that. 
I think, the last thing that I want to see on this board is what my wife got to read on her board about a friend of hers from the US whose husband got cancer.  The standard treatment for his cancer was a bone-marrow transplant.  His insurance said "Sorry, that's experimental and we won't cover it." Even though no other measure for his cancer aside from that had worked.  So they spent every dollar in savings that they had and got the treatment.  It worked, he's been six months with no sign of cancer at this point.  To make their life better, his work-funded insurance raised the businesses insurance rate because he was working there, so they canned him.  At which point they sent him a letter telling him that because he's had cancer he's a high-risk carrier and his insurance premium quadrupled to 900 a month.  So his insurance paid for none, raised his rates, cost him his job and his home and they moved in with his parents.  Him, his wife and their two kids lost everything because he got cancer.

The last thing in the world I want any of the dads on this site to have to deal with is that.  I'd love to see a workable system where everyone is covered no matter what.  Why would I give a flying crap about your health care system if I hated America?

Quote
The idea of competition amongst your hospitals is who can get away with the highest price possible.


Where'd you get that from, its a very silly statement.

[url]http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/health/4631.html[/url] ([url]http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/health/4631.html[/url])

An interesting quick look at a couple of Hospital CEO's and the problems they see.




From the first article I posted, which you clearly didn't read...  So here is the quote I'm referring to.  Feel free to not read it while I post it here too.

Markets are said to optimize efficiencies. But despite widespread belief that competition is the key to cost containment, medicine — with its third-party payers and its partly social mission — does not lend itself to market discipline. Why not?

The private insurance system's main techniques for holding down costs are practicing risk selection, limiting the services covered, constraining payments to providers, and shifting costs to patients. But given the system's fragmentation and perverse incentives, much cost-effective care is squeezed out, resources are increasingly allocated in response to profit opportunities rather than medical need, many attainable efficiencies are not achieved, unnecessary medical care is provided for profit, administrative expenses are high, and enormous sums are squandered in efforts to game the system. The result is a blend of overtreatment and undertreatment — and escalating costs. Researchers calculate that between one fifth and one third of medical outlays do nothing to improve health.

Great health improvements can be achieved through basic public health measures and a population-based approach to wellness and medical care. But entrepreneurs do not prosper by providing these services, and those who need them most are the least likely to have insurance. Innumerable studies have shown that consistent application of standard protocols for conditions such as diabetes, asthma, and elevated cholesterol levels, use of clinically proven screenings such as annual mammograms, provision of childhood immunizations, and changes to diet and exercise can improve health and prevent larger outlays later on. Comprehensive, government-organized, universal health insurance systems are far better equipped to realize these efficiencies because everyone is covered and there are no incentives to pursue the most profitable treatments rather than those dictated by medical need.

~~ New England Journal of Medicine, Market-Based Failure — A Second Opinion on U.S. Health Care Costs -- Robert Kuttner  February 7, 2008

For the last time, I don't hate America, I don't hate Americans.  I see a system that can help people to remove the one biggest stress in their lives and people who are so afraid of that change that they actually fight to keep a system that at any turn can instantly cost them everything they have. 

So you don't like the idea of government doing it and you attack my system, perhaps make suggestions to make your system workable.  Wouldn't that make more sense?
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on March 02, 2009, 12:03:57 AM
America is the most charitable nation on earth and we do not just sit by and let people fail and falter.  We consider it our duty to take care of everyone.  We just don't want to be forced to.  We want the freedom to choose where our money goes and who we help.  Are people going to fall through the cracks yes, no system is perfect but government is not the answer.



Suggestions to fixing our current system.  In no particular order

1 Get the government out.  Let the free market be a free market.
2 Tort reform
3 Fix the tax system.  Make the cost of doing things cheaper.
4 Reduce the cost of Government.  Stop funding non essentials services, the arts, foreign aid, subsidies in any form, grants, basically bring the federal government back to its constitutional roots.  Give the power back to the states. 


If this does not work and a socialized system has to be put into place then here are my thoughts. 

1  This is to be done at the state level.
2  Everyone pays the same percentage of their income.  Payment is mandatory.  Participation is optional. 
3  Private insurance will be available to those who want it because participation in the public system comes with a cost.
4  If you are going to deny someones rights by forcing them to pay for your insurance then your rights will be denied.
5  You will be on birth control.  Current children will be covered but if you can't afford insurance you cant' afford to raise a child
6  You will submit to drug and alcohol testing and nicotine testing.  If you cant afford insurance you cant afford these luxuries.
7  You will have to meet weight requirements.  A schedule can be set up for those who currently don't meet requirements
8  Any large purchases like a house, car, boat must be approved by the government.
9  You can't have cable, a cellphone, internet access or any other luxury unless you need them for your job.
10  If you violate any of the above rules then you will pay a  stiff premium above your tax rate and you will only be covered in emergency situations.
11  If you are not working and not contributing you will be assigned a stretch of roadway to keep free of litter.
12  A list of all people participating in the governments program will be available to everyone. 

None of the above are needs except for housing (you wont be denied housing just the amount you can spend on one)  so if health insurance is that important to you then you must be willing to sacrifice.  It is time people start taking responsibility for themselves.

Its easy to scream for free health care when it doesnt cost you anything.  Put the above rules in place and we will start to see how truly important health care is to people.


 
 
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Chef Dad on March 02, 2009, 12:16:26 AM
I hate Canadians, they're too good at hockey and they hang out with the French. damn Canadians. ay?
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: MnMDad on March 02, 2009, 07:56:05 AM
Wow this is a touchy issue.  Well I will throw my 2cents in.

The US system is screwed up so bad right now, but how do we fix it?  When you look at how much it costs for health insurance, then look at copays, incidentals, prescriptions, specialists, etc...Things are bad.  If you ever actually look at your plan, up close, you will see that most insurance companies have a set rate with doctors, as to how much they will pay for the service.  Now guess what, doctors can bill you over what the insurance companies will pay.  So if you go into your doctor for say, a physical.  (just an example)  The insurance company can say well we will pay $50 for the physical.  Your copay is i.e. $25,  the doctor charges $200 for the physical.  Guess what, they can bill you $125 on top.  Tell me that is not screwed up.  Why am I paying for insurance?

I believe the Govt should get involved with health care.  Insurance companies have been getting rich for years, guess what they are not in it for the charity, they are in it to get rich.  So that means that they want to get as much money from you as they possibly can while paying the doctors as little as they can.  Now if the Govt took control of the middle man, and set the prices that can be billed by the doctors you would actually see a big decline in the amount of money you would have to spend for health care. 

And lets look at HMO's.  They are the biggest joke out there. 

Take a look at this.

 Results 1 - 10 of about 25,500 for kaiser permanente horror stories.

 Results 1 - 10 of about 113,000 for aetna horror stories.

Results 1 - 10 of about 37,300 for blue cross blue shield horror stories.

Just take a look at the problems with our health care system. 

You look at the horror stories from the so called socialized medical countries and you see they are not so different from our own. 
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Frobozz on March 02, 2009, 08:27:13 AM

5  You will be on birth control.  Current children will be covered but if you can't afford insurance you cant' afford to raise a child

8  Any large purchases like a house, car, boat must be approved by the government.

9  You can't have cable, a cellphone, internet access or any other luxury unless you need them for your job.


Well Todd, you have finally convinced me that you don't have a single socialistic thread in your body.  I have no doubt that you are quite actually a fascist.   When the revolution comes, I'll expect to see you out front assuming the reins of leadership.

Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bigred on March 02, 2009, 08:41:22 AM
Bill I did read that article and I still think your statement is quite off base.  The article is mostly about insurence manipulation, nowhere in there do I see a comment or even a hint about hospital rasiing prices so they can be on top in price.

However there is an interesting paragraph toward the end where it would appear they want to government to regulate how many of certain types of medical people we have.  And the neat thing about a free market is that it does that already.  You don't need government to tell you that you need more proctologists, the pay will go up and be such that people attractted to that field will go into it causing the level of proctologists to go above what is needed therefore driving the inflated price for proctologists back down to a more reasonable level, but during this time there is anoer shrtage of doctors in the field of epidemiologists, and the cycle continues.  We don't need government telling people what they can and can't be.

Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Frobozz on March 02, 2009, 08:50:13 AM
However there is an interesting paragraph toward the end where it would appear they want to government to regulate how many of certain types of medical people we have.  And the neat thing about a free market is that it does that already.  You don't need government to tell you that you need more proctologists, the pay will go up and be such that people attractted to that field will go into it causing the level of proctologists to go above what is needed therefore driving the inflated price for proctologists back down to a more reasonable level, but during this time there is anoer shrtage of doctors in the field of epidemiologists, and the cycle continues.  We don't need government telling people what they can and can't be.



The problem with this is that insurance companies and lawyers mess up that model.  There are severe shortages in primary care physicians and ob/gyns coming out of med schools because the insurance company rules and reimbursements are too onerous for primary care docs and the malpractice insurance rates are killing the OB field.    This is why there has a been a huge influx to backroom specialties such as radiology and anesthesiology.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: Bigred on March 02, 2009, 08:52:20 AM
Quote
11  If you are not working and not contributing you will be assigned a stretch of roadway to keep free of litter.

I do like this one.  Even tho not merely about health care but it can be implemented today.  If you recieve government funding of any kind and are under the age of 55 and not working, you will be required to do whatever meanial task the government requires of you.

I bet you the unemployment rate would drop faster than a frozen turd.
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on March 02, 2009, 03:10:10 PM

5  You will be on birth control.  Current children will be covered but if you can't afford insurance you cant' afford to raise a child

8  Any large purchases like a house, car, boat must be approved by the government.

9  You can't have cable, a cellphone, internet access or any other luxury unless you need them for your job.


Well Todd, you have finally convinced me that you don't have a single socialistic thread in your body.  I have no doubt that you are quite actually a fascist.   When the revolution comes, I'll expect to see you out front assuming the reins of leadership.



Not a fascist bone in me.  I am all for individual freedoms but if you want to use the power of government to transfer wealth from other individuals pockets to your own then you are not capable of taking care of your self and you are incapable making responsible decisions.  I never said that you had to follow those rules, only if you want your health insurance to be paid for by other people.  Being on the government dole should not be a pleasant experience. 
Title: Re: Whats another $634 Billion
Post by: ToddS on March 18, 2009, 10:55:12 AM
Surprise surprise Obama may not have been telling the truth his health care plans will actually cost us 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090317/D97023500.html)

This will buy us great health care like they have in Britain.

I can't wait. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1162552/The-NHS-Third-World-hospital-patients-drank-flower-vases-Inquiry-12-Trusts-1200-died-needlessly.html)