# The Low-down on affordable US health care



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Article here:
Health insurance hikes stun small businesses



> While Anthem Blue Cross has been taking the heat for proposing rate increases of up to 39 percent on individual consumers, other health insurers have stunned some small businesses with hikes that in some cases exceed 75 percent.
> 
> Tom Simmons, president of an Oakland design and consulting firm with four employees, said he had just read about the Anthem increases when he opened a letter from his insurer, Blue Shield of California, informing him his monthly family premium would go up to $1,596 a month from $908, a nearly 76 percent increase.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Wonder why insurance companies weren't crying foul when Obama threatened the country with government health care? Because he's been in bed with the insurance companies since Day One. The hikes come as he plans to make it illegal not to buy insurance. This president has got to be the biggest supporter of corporate welfare and toadyism in the country's history.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh right this is why the uninsured brainless were all out in force protesting free healthcare.

I forgot.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They were protesting Obamacare--nothing is free.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

nothing is free?

Well. That's some pretty profound reasoning right there Macfury. Next we'll hear about death panels, and, stuff.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Award for clueless (would-be) politician of the week goes to:*



> "You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor, they would say I'll paint your house. I mean, that's the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system."
> 
> _-- Sue Lowden, U.S. Senate candidate in Nevada_​


(From the 21 April 2010 Doonesbury)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They would pay for their doctor service. Instead of getting someone else to pay for it. Can you imagine?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Sure... that would work fine, MF. Everybody's got a chicken these days to spare! Wonder how much that anti-cholesterol drug is, converted into poultry? And the MRI machine... might have to part with a pig to cover that one, eh?

Christ. It's not 1929 anymore. Stop being ridiculous.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Obama is a fake. I'm shocked few see through this fraud. Must admit he has charisma and is a good talker though.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A fake what? Is he a space alien, cleverly disguised? What's he faking?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

adagio said:


> Obama is a fake. I'm shocked few see through this fraud. Must admit he has charisma and is a good talker though.


As said earlier the health care bill is written by the Insurance Companies and Big Pharma and they are the only ones that benefit in any way.

Something usually overlooked in US health care discussions is how hospitals bill the uninsured. Typically they will recieve a bill 2 to 5 times greater than an insurer would pay. The hospitals actually benefit when the uninsured cannot pay as they then get a big tax write-off, hence the bloated billing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Sure... that would work fine, MF. Everybody's got a chicken these days to spare! Wonder how much that anti-cholesterol drug is, converted into poultry? And the MRI machine... might have to part with a pig to cover that one, eh?


Or money, which is our current method of exchange. Yes, I know it's shocking but health care costs money. You're just asking other people to pay for yours. Big hearted, you are.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Or money, which is our current method of exchange. Yes, I know it's shocking but health care costs money. You're just asking other people to pay for yours. Big hearted, you are.


We should all pay for each other's health care because we all benefit. Just like a corporation sees boosts in productivity when their employees are healthy, society in general sees boosts in productivity when its citizens are healthy. 

I'd much rather see people healthy, working, and paying taxes, than home collecting welfare because they can't afford to fix whatever ails them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> We should all pay for each other's health care because we all benefit. Just like a corporation sees boosts in productivity when their employees are healthy, society in general sees boosts in productivity when its citizens are healthy.
> 
> I'd much rather see people healthy, working, and paying taxes, than home collecting welfare because they can't afford to fix whatever ails them.


This is like saying we should all buy vehicles or food or Nintendo Wiis for each other because we all benefit. There has to be a more reasonable criteria.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> This is like saying we should all buy vehicles or food or Nintendo Wiis for each other because we all benefit. There has to be a more reasonable criteria.


Health is far more basic than that. More basic than education, roads, police, fire, etc. If there is ONE thing that the government SHOULD cover universally, it's healthcare before anything else.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Everybody has their idea about what should be covered before everything else. It's why all of our governments are hideously in debt.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I strongly believe in universal health care. What the US has now is a slaughtering of the masses. Oh how the insurance companies love Obama. I know some folks who are getting killed with their rate hikes. This is a good thing? 

Yes Obama is a fake liberal. He talks the good talk to the masses but he's really in the pocket of big business. I never trusted him and now many American friends who believed in this man, voted for him and had hope, are disgusted as I am. He'll be a one term president.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So if he's a fake liberal, does that make him a real conservative?

Just following along here, trying to connect the dots...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> So if he's a fake liberal, does that make him a real conservative?
> 
> Just following along here, trying to connect the dots...


We haven't had a real conservative in the White House in years. He's just a statist like Bush, tearing chunks off the Constitution and feeding them to the federal government so it can grow nice and fat. Obama is just more direct about it.

If it wasn't going to wreck the world's economy, I'd be laughing harder at the dupes who thought Obama would bring them change and "economic salvation," as Evan Pitts would have said.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

only a macfury can make comparisons of gaming consoles to healthcare and try to sound credible. :lmao:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> We haven't had a real conservative in the White House in years. He's just a statist like Bush, tearing chunks off the Constitution and feeding them to the federal government so it can grow nice and fat. Obama is just more direct about it.
> 
> If it wasn't going to wreck the world's economy, I'd be laughing harder at the dupes who thought Obama would bring them change and "economic salvation," as Evan Pitts would have said.


Macfury, who would you consider to be a "real conservative" president in the US? You may start with Washington, Adams, etc and work your way up to Obama. As well, if you could have a "real conservative" in the presidency, whom might it be? Pick anyone, living or dead, from say 1880 to the present. Just curious. 

I don't view you as a wild-eyed reactionary, in spite of the teasing I give you in various threads, and I would just like to have an intellectual exchange from someone whom I admire, intellectually if not politically, as to his choice of a good president. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: will carefully craft an answer to that one, because the obvious answers don't always fit the bill!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: will carefully craft an answer to that one, because the obvious answers don't always fit the bill!


A wise approach to the question, Macfury. No rush. I was just curious. I actually liked listening to William F. Buckley Jr. talk about various topics in that at least he took an intelligent approach to each issue. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> This is like saying we should all buy vehicles or food or Nintendo Wiis for each other because we all benefit. There has to be a more reasonable criteria.


No, it isn't like that at all. Buying health care gets people back to work, increasing the country's GDP and paying income tax. Buying vehicles and Wiis do not do that. A bit of sales tax is helpful yes, but compare that to not having to pay welfare and collecting income tax.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Everybody has their idea about what should be covered before everything else. It's why all of our governments are hideously in debt.


No, sending a huge chunk of an over-inflated defence budget to a Saudi-based corporation based on the wishes of a previous vice-president is why the US government is hideously in debt; but that's a different thread.

I would think the protecting the welfare of the citizens would come first. That is, after all, why we have government.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> No, sending a huge chunk of an over-inflated defence budget to a Saudi-based corporation based on the wishes of a previous vice-president is why the US government is hideously in debt; but that's a different thread.


Obviously Bush was not a Conservative.



hayesk said:


> I would think the protecting the welfare of the citizens would come first. That is, after all, why we have government.


"_Promote_ the general welfare" not "provide it."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

promote it?

like create ads urging people to use medial services to maintain health that they don't have access to?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> promote it?
> 
> like create ads urging people to use medial services to maintain health that they don't have access to?


Who was doing that?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

read my post again.

I asked a question. if it's incorrect, correct it.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm really not sure what Adagio is on about as it relates to health care. These huge increases in premiums as referred to in the original story that sparked this thread are *exactly* the sort of thing that's been going on for *years,* and which the "Obamacare" law will put a stop to.

While I certainly don't think the new law will fix all of the US's healthcare issues, it definitely is a HUGE step forward (just the ending of the "preexisting condition" scam ALONE is a huge step forward).

Sure, if I'd written the bill it would have been a lot different, but here's the thing about armchair senators: we don't have to dabble in reality.

It always reminds me of the long-held Libertarian plank that if ever elected, they would shut down the IRS on *day one.*

Now, nobody really loves the IRS, but ponder for the moment the absurdity of ACTUALLY trying to shut down the IRS in a single day. Go ahead. Lay out a specific plan on how that would happen, and what the real-world consequences would be. That should be most entertaining.

Obama wasn't elected president because he's a liberal. In fact, he's been a remarkably consistent CENTRIST from before the campaign right through to the present day (all you had to do was actually read his position papers and statements on various issues -- rather than project your own wishes on him as some foolish people did).

He was elected because the country had two options: a fellow who promised to keep doing things the way Bush had done them, and a fellow who promised not to. The fellow who said he wouldn't do things the way Bush done them won. Simple as that, really.

As for Obama's record on his promises, here ya go. Good reading.

Overall, he's done pretty well. Like all presidents, I have areas of disagreement which range from weak to strong. But when I consider the alternative, Obama looks better every day IMHO.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Very interesting read on the Obamameter, chas. Thanks for this clip. Puts certain things that others are saying against Obama into a better perspective. The truth always helps to shine light upon falsehoods and lies. Merci, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I'm really not sure what Adagio is on about as it relates to health care. These huge increases in premiums as referred to in the original story that sparked this thread are *exactly* the sort of thing that's been going on for *years,* and which the "Obamacare" law will put a stop to.


Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases - latimes.com



> And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.
> 
> Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.
> 
> ...





chas_m said:


> While I certainly don't think the new law will fix all of the US's healthcare issues, it definitely is a HUGE step forward (just the ending of the "preexisting condition" scam ALONE is a huge step forward).


A huge step backward. If anything, this would have been the group that government could have involved itself in taking care of directly. Instead, it forces insurance companies to sell policies to these individuals, even on the day that they come home from the doctor diagnosed with an illness. Why do you you suppose the health bill forces Americans to buy insurance (although this provision is unconstitutional)? The people who are choosing not to buy insurance now are largely younger, healthier Americans. Obama is forcing them into the pool to buy insurance at inflated costs so they can support the unfunded liabilities of selling to those with pre-existing conditions. Don't be surprised if insurance costs continue to rise under this plan.



chas_m said:


> It always reminds me of the long-held Libertarian plank that if ever elected, they would shut down the IRS on *day one.*
> 
> Now, nobody really loves the IRS, but ponder for the moment the absurdity of ACTUALLY trying to shut down the IRS in a single day. Go ahead. Lay out a specific plan on how that would happen, and what the real-world consequences would be. That should be most entertaining.


I think it's only absurd to people with a lot invested in the ideas of socialism. Most of these groups suggest replacing the IRS with a single sales tax, no loopholes. The IRS could indeed be disbanded in a single day under that plan.



chas_m said:


> Obama wasn't elected president because he's a liberal. In fact, he's been a remarkably consistent CENTRIST from before the campaign right through to the present day (all you had to do was actually read his position papers and statements on various issues -- rather than project your own wishes on him as some foolish people did).
> 
> He was elected because the country had two options: a fellow who promised to keep doing things the way Bush had done them, and a fellow who promised not to. The fellow who said he wouldn't do things the way Bush done them won. Simple as that, really.


It was a choice between two presidential candidates who were tracking sharply left of centre. 



chas_m said:


> He was elected because the country had two options: a fellow who promised to keep doing things the way Bush had done them, and a fellow who promised not to. The fellow who said he wouldn't do things the way Bush done them won. Simple as that, really.


Instead, they got "Super Bush." A guy who doubled Bush's spending while continuing most of his policies. Add to that Obama's own leftist ideas and you have, ladies and gentlemen, the disaster you see before you in the Oval Office today.



chas_m said:


> As for Obama's record on his promises, here ya go. Good reading.


People aren't opposing Obama for the promises he's failed to keep. They consider him dangerous because of the ones he's keeping--and the method in which he's keeping them. Many Obama supporters had no idea that voting for Obama would result in this sort of governance.



chas_m said:


> Obama looks better every day IMHO.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

That's a nice opinion there macfury, but I think many consider the "disaster" to have already left office.

Unfortunately we are experiencing the fallout from that, and all this Armageddon talk as a result of of who you consider to be some kind of communist or something of a president, is nothing but mewling with no real evidence to support it really.

All this "it's gonna" talk next what already happened is pretty useless really. Where was the 'it's gonna' talk when bush was in office? Right. Like the tea baggers, who suddenly, appeared out of nowhere to protest government spending -after- Bush left office.

And I'm supposed to consider this credible?

pfffft.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> That's a nice opinion there macfury, but I think many consider the "disaster" to have already left office.


No question, Bush was a disaster. One of the worst leaders of any western nation, ever.

That doesn't in any way make Obama a *good* president.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no it doesn't.I agree. It'll something else that will have to make him a good president.

I think though, that's rather obvious isn't it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> That's a nice opinion there macfury, but I think many consider the "disaster" to have already left office.
> 
> Unfortunately we are experiencing the fallout from that, and all this Armageddon talk as a result of of who you consider to be some kind of communist or something of a president, is nothing but mewling with no real evidence to support it really.
> 
> ...


Always trying to put the focus back on Bush. 



groovetube said:


> That's right, always put the blame on the Liberals


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Always trying to put the focus back on Bush.


what?

What we are CURRENTLY seeing, was from the Bush years. When we start seeing real effects from Obama, let me know.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> what?
> 
> What we are CURRENTLY seeing, was from the Bush years. When we start seeing real effects from Obama, let me know.


.


groovetube said:


> Round and round we go. Now it's time to blame the Liberals.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

this is becoming brainless macfury.

Obama has been in office for barely over a year. Now, you can jump up and down scream, stomp, and wave your libertarian arms all you like, but the truth is, well if you're sane anyway, is that Obama hasn't really had much of an effect on anything in a significant way yet. Sure he has made some significant decisions that will have serious ramifications soon. You can disagree, and project what a disaster of a communist failed state the US will -become-, as a result of his policies. And maybe it will be disastrous! I don't have a crystal ball. But the truth is, the huge disaster of an economy, the current, happened under Bush's watch. Full stop. I know, despite your libertarian "Bush ain't no conservative" bleatings that this is hard to swallow, but that's really how it is.

On the flip side, here in Canada, it would be like blaming this economic downturn on Harper. I don't think he had one bit to do with it. In fact his own finance minister was apparently completely oblivious to it until it smacked him in the head. And now they want us to believe it was all their doing that we were in good shape. When, they weren't even in office when many of the steps taken happened to put us on a good path. Truthfully, in the current, I think they've had very little to do with or economic position right now. But that will change soon since they have been in office now for a few years. 

Just as we will begin seeing effect south of the border after Obama has been in office for a while longer.

Enjoy your merry-go-round... solo.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah, spam lite?

See already under Harper's rule we're seeing scum suckers appearing to promote more scum suckers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Wow! That's some leap of logic to blame Harper for a spam message. One would have to really have it bad to make that tie.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

while the liberals were in power they were blamed for everything. Then when Harper was in minority for 5 years, everything was still the liberals fault.

Suck it up buttercup


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> while the liberals were in power they were blamed for everything. Then when Harper was in minority for 5 years, everything was still the liberals fault.


While the Liberals were in power, a few people here _thought_ they were being blamed for everything. I'm with SINC on this one--this is a huge leap in logic even for you.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

my job is done. Time for sunshine.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> my job is done. Time for sunshine.


A little leaping over logic, a little drumming... a good day all in all.


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

Macfury said:


> This is like saying we should all buy vehicles or food or Nintendo Wiis for each other because we all benefit. There has to be a more reasonable criteria.


Er, isn't there a hierarchy of needs thing here? I don't think cars and wii's are the same as healthcare.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that'll be a bit of an uphill one to explain I'm afraid.

I know my mom would have benefited far more from free cars and nintendos than all the surgeries that saved her heart and her lif this past year. She wouldn't be with us if we were in the states.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

vancouverdave said:


> Er, isn't there a hierarchy of needs thing here? I don't think cars and wii's are the same as healthcare.


Food before healthcare?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> She wouldn't be with us if we were in the states.


That's obvious. She wouldn't be with you if she were anywhere else but in the same place as you are.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> that'll be a bit of an uphill one to explain I'm afraid.
> 
> I know my mom would have benefited far more from free cars and nintendos than all the surgeries that saved her heart and her lif this past year. She wouldn't be with us if *we* were in the states.


yes indeed it is obvious!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, if you were in the states and your mother were here, she wouldn't be with you either.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you really should stick to your free cars and nintendo stance.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

HarperCo is busy consolidating its hold on power, like the libs before them. No one who has even mildly followed national politics should be surprised that they would act in this manner. That process includes awarding select faithful soldiers with plum gigs. Taxpayers will of course foot the bill; _plus ça change..._


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> Taxpayers will of course foot the bill; _plus ça change..._


_Naturellement _, didn't expect any less. We traded red pigs for blue pigs to feed at the trough. I'm willing to let the blue pigs feed for awhile. 

We'll have to see if the orange pigs will have any effect in curbing any overindulgence on part of the blue piggies.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well they have a majority, which some here feel is the second coming of christ himself, but as such I doubt there's much the orange piggies could do to stop the gorging on public funds that has happened, and about to really get ramped up.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Food before healthcare?


Or neither.

62% of personal bankruptcies in the USA because of medical bills -- three-quarters of those people had health insurance -- at least when they first got sick. 

Nintendoes and Wiis indeed.



> Using a conservative deﬁnition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost signiﬁcant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills.
> 
> Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical deﬁnitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.
> -------
> Medical impoverishment, although common in poor nations, is almost unheard of in wealthy countries other than the USA.


PDF link - The American Journal of Medicine


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Or neither.
> 
> *62% of personal bankruptcies in the USA because of medical bills -- three-quarters of those people had health insurance -- at least when they first got sick. *
> 
> ...


Bu-but we're so desperate for this in Canada! And like the Chretien liberals before, this government will be more than happy to take this much further. With it seems, the blessing of the lemmings.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Or neither.
> 
> 62% of personal bankruptcies in the USA because of medical bills -- three-quarters of those people had health insurance -- at least when they first got sick.
> 
> ...


Come on GA don't start introducing facts into a rugged individualists ideological rants. That's not fair. His is not in a debate it's..it's...it's a political diatribe, yah that's the ticket. A fact free zone like Faux News. Yah! Thats it!

You know as well as I, facts can be used to prove anything.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

groovetube said:


> Bu-but we're so desperate for this in Canada! And like the Chretien liberals before, this government will be more than happy to take this much further. With it seems, the blessing of the lemmings.


As we all know our Prime Minister served as head of the National Citizens Coalition during his brief hiatus from Parliament prior to returning to become the Canadian Alliance leader. The NCC is an organization whose central thrust and reason for founding was to turn back public universal health insurance.

Harper claims that sometime since coming back to Parliament he has changed into a believer and supporter of Canada's universal health care. I find that difficult to believe, but I also know that he couldn't very well have said otherwise and won an election. It's too much of a hot topic, even with a majority, because even many Conservatives support universal health insurance.

But I think he will do as Chretien and Martin did before him -- claim the need for austerity, cut payments to the provinces, who control the administration of their health plans and fail to enforce the standards of the Canada Health Act when some provinces experiment with sliding in two-teir coverage bit-by-bit. 

The goal is to have universal health care die a death so slow that Canadians hardly realize it's happening.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The goal is to have universal health care die a death so slow that Canadians hardly realize it's happening.


Nice to see that not everyone is fooled.

But you have to give him credit for playing the game so well. If I didn't disagree with almost everything he stands for, I'd happily vote for Harper; he's a remarkably skilled politician. If the Liberals could come up with someone even 1/10th as competent as leader, they'd have a clear shot at consecutive majorities.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We'll have full-fledged two-tier shortly. You have your universal, and then a better standard of care for those who choose to buy it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The same logic that following the US model of superjails thinking it'll be different.

Lemmings...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> The same logic that following the US model of superjails thinking it'll be different.
> 
> Lemmings...


Hard road for ya groove.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

groovetube said:


> ?


He's just gloating, because it appears likely the conservatives will be successful in dismantling the health care system we enjoy here in Canada. Given his passion for all things American, you can hardly blame him for being self-congratulatory as well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> He's just gloating, because it appears likely the conservatives will be successful in dismantling the health care system we enjoy here in Canada. Given his passion for all things American, you can hardly blame him for being self-congratulatory as well.


I doubt it will be dismantled--but Canadians will be free to purchase better health care in their own country, instead of spending their health care dollars elsewhere.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> He's just gloating, because it appears likely the conservatives will be successful in dismantling the health care system we enjoy here in Canada. Given his passion for all things American, you can hardly blame him for being self-congratulatory as well.


I don't doubt that. However, it isn't likely going to be me that is effected as much, as it will be a huge number of not so well off families. Eventually, the conservative parties will have to wear the "we dismantled healthcare" belt, and when more and more voters start to figure this out, that'll be the end of the conservative brand here. Just like the liberals, after 1 or 2 terms (hopefully, not 3) they will go down.

Unfortunately, if they keep spending at the rate they are, there isn't going to be, any money for healthcare to revive it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and they will spend vast sums to keep the macfurys rootin for them.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> We'll have full-fledged two-tier shortly. You have your universal, and then a better standard of care for those who choose to buy it.


Because we don't have nearly enough middle-class medical bankruptcies up here in Canada.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> We'll have full-fledged two-tier shortly. You have your universal, and then a better standard of care for those who choose to buy it.


The private sector may want two-tiered system eventually.

First the private sector will so engaged getting every public dollar in their grubby hands as quickly as possible it will be only after that the private organizations will go after new private money.

Tommy Douglas warned of the private medical industry coveting public payment in the 60's when Universal Public Medical services arrived and he said they would never stop pushing this position.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Tommy Douglas warned of the private medical industry coveting public payment in the 60's when Universal Public Medical services arrived and he said they would never stop pushing this position.


Of course it covets public payment--that's because the system Douglas invented has government largesse and waste built right in. For now we only have hospital bureaucrats and vast hospital administrations at the public trough. 

That's why we need to see private payment for private service.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

If we're going to have a two-tier system, it's because the current system is broken and we have idiots who don't know how to fix it or don't want to fix it.

As long as I'm being taxed at the rate i'm being taxed, I will oppose a two-tier system.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Of course it covets public payment--that's because the system Douglas invented has government largesse and waste built right in. For now we only have hospital bureaucrats and vast hospital administrations at the public trough.
> 
> That's why we need to see private payment for private service.


Yes, private health insurance companies are very efficient. They hire vast armies of paper pushers whose sole job it is to figure out how to best deny or limit any claims. They're very good at that. That's how they increase their profits and stock prices.

Your charge of inefficiency is suspect. The average American spends $1000 a month on private health insurance that's limited and might run out just when they need it the most. Does the average Canadian have to spend $1000 a month in extra taxes to pay for health coverage? I think not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Your charge of inefficiency is suspect. The average American spends $1000 a month on private health insurance that's limited and might run out just when they need it the most. Does the average Canadian have to spend $1000 a month in extra taxes to pay for health coverage? I think not.


Why should it matter if you can't afford private care, as long as the public system continues to run in tandem.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Why should it matter if you can't afford private care, as long as the public system continues to run in tandem.


Who would believe that the public system would continue to run unaffected in tandem if we allow a private system? I doubt if even advocates of two-teir actually believe this, although it's a convenient myth to promulgate to those they want to convince to give two-teir a try.

A private system will drain the resources from the public system and eventually make it akin to Medicaid in the US. We already have a shortage of doctors. Then when your private insurance craps out on you because you have a major and expensive health challenge, you'll have the option of selling your house and possessions to continue paying for the top tier or get in line with the what's left in the public tier. Just like our friends to the south of us.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Who would believe that the public system would continue to run unaffected in tandem if we allow a private system? I doubt if even advocates of two-teir actually believe this, although it's a convenient myth to promulgate to those they want to convince to give two-teir a try.
> 
> A private system will drain the resources from the public system and eventually make it akin to Medicaid in the US. We already have a shortage of doctors.


We have a shortage of doctors because of sweetheart deals between the provinces and the various medical associations limiting the number of doctors entering the field. This is an artificial shortage abetted by government.

When opportunities to expand economic activity in Canada occur, we don't traditionally cry: "Another construction project? Why that robs the existing construction industry of expert workers! A private school has opened--why that's robbing the public system of teachers! A new insurance company has opened--that's robbing the public system of actuaries." 

For some reason, whenever we talk of expanding the health care system, people raise the false argument of labour scarcity as though the supply of skilled labour in the health field is completely inelastic. In all other fields this would be called "job creation."



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Then when your private insurance craps out on you because you have a major and expensive health challenge, you'll have the option of selling your house and possessions to continue paying for the top tier or get in line with the what's left in the public tier. Just like our friends to the south of us.


Yes, you will have the option of using your own resources to get better care. You might even choose to sell your house so that you could receive a life-saving operation, instead of dying because a treatment either takes too long to receive, or is not on the list of government-approved treatments. Guess what--it's an OPTION, not a demand.

I once met someone who loved socialized medicine and the public system so much that he felt no ill will that his father died waiting for an operation that would have saved his life. By all means, if this seems reasonable to you, then you already have what you deserve.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> If we're going to have a two-tier system, it's because the current system is broken and we have idiots who don't know how to fix it or don't want to fix it.
> 
> As long as I'm being taxed at the rate i'm being taxed, I will oppose a two-tier system.


Even if the second tier does not consume pubic funds?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Even if the second tier does not consume pubic funds?


We already have a two tiered system...those with wads of cash go to the US. 

I'm not interested in my tax dollars used to educate and train doctors who immediately after graduating go into the "private" sector while people in rural or remote communities don't have a doctor or need to travel great distances for medical care.

What I would be in favour of would be to relax some of the current rules, but remain under provincial jurisdiction with respect to what they can charge. Currently a group of doctors operating a clinic can't purchase a MRI machine and operate it. A veterinarian has no such restriction, it's down right bizarre.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> If we're going to have a two-tier system, it's because the current system is broken and we have idiots who don't know how to fix it or don't want to fix it.
> 
> As long as I'm being taxed at the rate i'm being taxed, I will oppose a two-tier system.


smart. But there are lots of voters willing to buy the tax cut myth, and put up with paying the same taxes, only having to shell out way more for healthcare insurance for big corporations to make tons of profit denying needed health care.

Lemmings...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Even if the second tier does not consume pubic funds?


it'll consume massive amounts of consumer dollars for corporate profit. Anyone that thinks it's a straight fee for service proposition is totally delusional.

Unfortunately mr. libertarian, we've come a looooong way since paul revere and muskets.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> smart. But there are lots of voters willing to buy the tax cut myth, and put up with paying the same taxes, only having to shell out way more for healthcare insurance for big corporations to make tons of profit denying needed health care.
> 
> Lemmings...


True and I have no love for insurance companies, but do you recall the incident of the Ontario woman who was denied a cancer drug by our public system because her tumour was too small and the drug cost $40,000 per year?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> We already have a two tiered system...those with wads of cash go to the US.
> 
> I'm not interested in my tax dollars used to educate and train doctors who immediately after graduating go into the "private" sector while people in rural or remote communities don't have a doctor or need to travel great distances for medical care.


Your tax dollars train all sorts of people who leave the country the moment they receive their degrees. It isn't necessary that tax dollars do this, but many Canadians want it that way. 

So why should you have a say in forcing graduates to take one type of job or another? Just because they're doctors? People in remote communities don't have doctors because they don't pay them enough to go there--and the provincial government caps their salaries. It's an impasse created by the socialized system.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> it'll consume massive amounts of consumer dollars for corporate profit. Anyone that thinks it's a straight fee for service proposition is totally delusional.
> 
> Unfortunately mr. libertarian, we've come a looooong way since paul revere and muskets.


So people who don't agree with you are delusional and much time has passed since the death of Paul Revere?

That's all you got?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So people who don't agree with you are delusional and much time has passed since the death of Paul Revere?
> 
> That's all you got?


nice try.

it isn't about agreeing with me, it's being honest about where it'll go. Regardless of whether you agree with that direction or not. Because anyone who says different is either lying, or delusional.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> True and I have no love for insurance companies, but do you recall the incident of the Ontario woman who was denied a cancer drug by our public system because her tumour was too small and the drug cost $40,000 per year?


certainly. In US that's a daily occurrence. Wasn't that reversed? Good luck with that in the US.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Big medical business does not care if the people get adequate affordable health care. They do not care if they force many into personal bankruptcy. They do not care if the policies they want cause death and suffering. They don't care if they create fear and confusion with misinformation on a global scale.


Businesses are amoral. They can and must be concerned only about profits. Even when businesses are contributing to the community, being charitable, etc. they are doing so only because it is expected to improve their brand and therefore ultimately improve their profitability. And this is as it should be. As long as corporations are not providing essential services like health care, we should all be glad they're out there in the market fighting tooth and nail for our disposable income.

However, when they get into the business of health care, disease and disability become profitable, and you wind up with a system that has no motivation to keep people healthy, and benefits from real or perceived medical problems.

This is generally avoided throughout the civilized world (i.e. not the US) and I hope we can prevent the corporatists who have taken power in Canada from bringing it here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> nice try.
> 
> it isn't about agreeing with me, it's being honest about where it'll go. Regardless of whether you agree with that direction or not. Because anyone who says different is either lying, or delusional.


So anyone who disagrees with you on "Where it will go" is dishonest or delusional? That's your argument?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> We have a shortage of doctors because of sweetheart deals between the provinces and the various medical associations limiting the number of doctors entering the field. This is an artificial shortage abetted by government.


Here's a point we can agree on. A huge aspect of the problem with health care in Canada is that the number of doctors trained is artificially limited in order to keep the demand (and therefore the prestige, salaries, and marketability of that credential) artificially inflated.

One of the first steps any reasonable government would take to improve health care in Canada is to double or triple the number of positions in Canada's medical schools, and/or to relax and expedite the process of certifying M.D.s who've immigrated from other countries. This would solve about half of the 'long waiting lists' issue very quickly, but the average salary of an M.D. would also drop dramatically, so the CMA is adamantly opposed to such a move, and uses their considerable influence in Ottawa to ensure it won't happen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> As long as corporations are not providing essential services like health care, we should all be glad they're out there in the market fighting tooth and nail for our disposable income.


It's precisely because these services are essential that I want business to be more involved.

As if a large government bureaucracy best serves itself by curing its clients... it thrives on creating dependency and patient overload so it can cry to the government for more, more, more tax dollars.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> As if a large government bureaucracy best serves itself by curing its clients... it thrives on creating dependency and patient overload so it can cry to the government for more, more, more tax dollars.


I have to disagree. There is no profit motive for a publicly funded system to increase the prevalence of illness in society. And it is only these publicly funded systems that have a reason to promote preventative healthcare.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Case in point



> *Are C-sections More Likely at For-Profit Hospitals?
> *
> by Being Pregnant, on Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:16am PDT
> 8 CommentsPost a CommentRead More from This Author »Report Abuse
> ...


Are C-sections More Likely at For-Profit Hospitals? - Parenting on Shine

and



> April 10, 2011
> Diagnostic Testing Schemes: Worthless and unnecessary electrodiagnostic testing billed to private insurers for more than $234 million


Diagnostic Testing Schemes: Worthless and unnecessary electrodiagnostic testing billed to private insurers for more than $234 million « Surgical Neurophysiology & Neuromonitoring

US per capita health costs almost double Canadian and other public systems....

Outcome - worse.

lots more 



> personal account by physician Jack Coulehan that appeared in the recent issue of Health Affairs journal:
> 
> Shingles Does It, Health Affairs, Sept/Oct 2009
> "After a doctor-professor with a bad case of shingles arrives in the ER, he discovers what it’s like to be a patient in pain during this age of aggressive medicine."
> ...





> The doctors are ordering these "unnecessary" tests to protect themselves from malpractice while being paid at the same time.
> 
> Don't let this distract you from the real issue: "the lie" that these tests or physicians time cost anywhere near $9000 dollars.
> 
> ...


but some seem to favor piracy and predatory practices as the norm....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I have to disagree. There is no profit motive for a publicly funded system to increase the prevalence of illness in society. And it is only these publicly funded systems that have a reason to promote preventative healthcare.


No, the motive is to create administrative positions and to expand the bureaucratic empire. The system does not seek to increase the prevalence of illness, but to ensure that hospitals are always used at slightly more than capacity, creating the urgent need for more money, more programs and larger hospitals.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> some seem to favor piracy and predatory practices as the norm....


From any perspective I can imagine; economic, philosophical, game theory, or basic mathematics (not to mention my own personal experience) a for-profit health care system is a recipe for disaster, and can serve only to exacerbate the growing chasm between the rich and the poor.

The simple mathematics ought to be enough to make the economic folly of private health care obvious:

Public system: Total Cost = Cost of Delivery + Cost of administration + Cost of inefficiency.


Private system: Total Cost = Cost of Delivery + Cost of administration + Cost of inefficiency + Cost of marketing + Profit Margin

Arguing that the private system is so much more efficient and/or that it requires so much less administrative oversight that the extra costs of the profit to be extracted and the marketing are more than offset is a pretty hard case to make. Especially when the example of such a system in operation in the US gives such an obvious example of exactly how much more expensive and less effective a for-profit system is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Case in point... but some seem to favor piracy and predatory practices as the norm....


If you don't favour private care, then stick with the inferior universal system--but don't deny others their right to choose.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> No, the motive is to create administrative positions and to expand...


And this does not occur in your imagined private system for what reason?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If you don't favour private care, then stick with the inferior universal system--but don't deny others their right to choose.


By any rational measure, the public national health-care systems throughout the civilized world are vastly superior to extant private national health-care systems.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> From any perspective I can imagine; economic, philosophical, game theory, or basic mathematics (not to mention my own personal experience) a for-profit health care system is a recipe for disaster, and can serve only to exacerbate the growing chasm between the rich and the poor.


Why would it? If the universal system is maintained, the "poor" will still have the same level of care. Or are you just saying that you don't want anyone else to get any better care?



bryanc said:


> Arguing that the private system is so much more efficient and/or that it requires so much less administrative oversight that the extra costs of the profit to be extracted and the marketing are more than offset is a pretty hard case to make. Especially when the example of such a system in operation in the US gives such an obvious example of exactly how much more expensive and less effective a for-profit system is.


I don't make that case. I only ask tat those who wish to punish themselves with such dreadful private care be given the opportunity to do so--as befit a free society.



bryanc said:


> By any rational measure, the public national health-care systems throughout the civilized world are vastly superior to extant private national health-care systems.


Then the private system coexisting with the vastly superior public system would find itself pushed out of the market in no time. With poor competition like that, what's to fear?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, the motive is to create administrative positions and to expand the bureaucratic empire. The system does not seek to increase the prevalence of illness, but to ensure that hospitals are always used at slightly more than capacity, creating the urgent need for more money, more programs and larger hospitals.


easy to do when you underfund.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> easy to do when you underfund.


The public system always says it is underfunded--even as it now consumes more than half the province's tax revenue.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

"underfund", is a pretty loose term. Sitting back and not enacting real reform to address -why- things are underfunded and declaring it a failure is not a solution either.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> "underfund", is a pretty loose term. Sitting back and not enacting real reform to address -why- things are underfunded and declaring it a failure is not a solution either.


Which government department says it is not underfunded? Reform won't address that notion. Each level of increased funding represents a new level of underfunding.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Which government department says it is not underfunded? *Reform won't address that notion*. Each level of increased funding represents a new level of underfunding.


yes it will. But the big private insurers are totally onside with you.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Why would it? If the universal system is maintained, the "poor" will still have the same level of care. Or are you just saying that you don't want anyone else to get any better care?


This is disingenuous and you know it. As is well-demonstrated by the mixed private/public system in the US, private clinics serving wealthy clients not only provide more profit for the HMOs, but also much more lucrative employment for the MDs and are able to afford more and better equipment. The existence of such private clinics and 'health spas' in the same market as the publicly [under]funded facilities dramatically impairs the ability of the public system to function effectively.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that's already happening in quebec.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

groovetube said:


> that's already happening in quebec.


And this ugly trend will accelerate if privatization is not prevented.

Anyone who thinks the American system works better is either very wealthy and cares nothing for their fellow citizens, or has not lived there.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

after touring for years down there, and family that lives down there, I got a real earful of the failings of the US system. It's beyond me how anyone could want us to go down that road.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This is disingenuous and you know it. As is well-demonstrated by the mixed private/public system in the US, private clinics serving wealthy clients not only provide more profit for the HMOs, but also much more lucrative employment for the MDs and are able to afford more and better equipment. The existence of such private clinics and 'health spas' in the same market as the publicly [under]funded facilities dramatically impairs the ability of the public system to function effectively.


This is the typical "Animal Farm" argument. Class warfare in the name of the sacred "public system" which is so ephemeral that the mere existence of a private system renders it feeble and inoperative.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

unfortunately for you, south of the border shows you are dead wrong.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> unfortunately for you, south of the border shows you are dead wrong.


The U.S. has both a fully universal single-payer system for public care and a second tier of private care? Since when?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and, you've missed the fact it's a total failure.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> This is the typical "Animal Farm" argument. Class warfare in the name of the sacred "public system" which is so ephemeral that the mere existence of a private system renders it feeble and inoperative.


How well do you think public care will be funded when the upper class start using the superior private system?

What do you think will happen to the price of medical equipment, supplies, and drugs when they have a new market that consists of nothing but rich customers?

And finally, unless you can guarantee that the public system is funded so that it is able to provide the same level of care as the private system, then the class argument is completely valid, despite you labelling it "typical."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the very fact macfury even tries to suggest that public healthcare won't be affected as an argument totally pulls his 'libertarian' rug right out from beneath him.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> How well do you think public care will be funded when the upper class start using the superior private system?


As well as the electorate demands.



hayesk said:


> What do you think will happen to the price of medical equipment, supplies, and drugs when they have a new market that consists of nothing but rich customers?


They will sell the equipment at the market rate, in order to sell more equipment than the competition--as they currently do. 



hayesk said:


> And finally, unless you can guarantee that the public system is funded so that it is able to provide the same level of care as the private system, then the class argument is completely valid, despite you labelling it "typical."


I don't guarantee anything, since the plan is not mine. It is simply what's coming down the pipe in one form or another.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and if the electorate makes any demands, squash the opposition, and lie to them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> the very fact macfury even tries to suggest that public healthcare won't be affected as an argument totally pulls his 'libertarian' rug right out from beneath him.


I don't support universal single-payer health care. But I'm not crafting the two-tiered system that will likely emerge.



groovetube said:


> and if the electorate makes any demands, squash the opposition, and lie to them.


That is the risk we always take as supplicants to a too-powerful government.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't guarantee anything, since the plan is not mine. It is simply what's coming down the pipe in one form or another.


Unless, as you say, the electorate demands otherwise. This is the point. People need to be aware of what is at stake; what we will loose if we allow the conservatives to continue their underhanded dismantling of the Canadian health care system.


Furthermore, you can't claim it's not your plan when you keep promoting the privatization of health care, and arguing that this is somehow desirable because people will be more free (as in free to be bankrupted by health problems while the corporations are fee to profit from people's misfortune).

If you really think a two tier system with private health care for the wealthy and public health care for the rest of us would be better for society, tell us why. Don't claim that it's inevitable and we may as well get used to the idea, or that you haven't been promoting this. It's clear that you think governments should get out of the health care business (as well as every other business) but you haven't made much of a case that such changes would benefit Canadian society.

About the only argument I can think of to support your position is that it would generate a good Darwinian selection environment, where poor and/or genetically inferior individuals would be removed from the Canadian gene pool. Is that what you're suggesting?!? :yikes:


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> As well as the electorate demands.


Really? The electorate demands a lot of things it doesn't get. No, the real answer is as low as the political party donating citizens and lobbyists demand.


> They will sell the equipment at the market rate, in order to sell more equipment than the competition--as they currently do.


Yes, because corporations would never agree to set artificially high prices. *cough* Internet *cough* gas *cough cough* US drug companies.


> I don't guarantee anything, since the plan is not mine. It is simply what's coming down the pipe in one form or another.


Nobody asked you to guarantee anything. They are challenging your view that it will be successful in providing health care to all and not just the rich.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't support universal single-payer health care. But I'm not crafting the two-tiered system that will likely emerge.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the risk we always take as supplicants to a too-powerful government.


wait a second, you are busy trying to convince us that the two tier system will not affect public healthcare as it becomes more mainstream. So, if I'm to take your libertarian beliefs with any seriousness, then I'd have to assume you're fibbing about public healthcare not being affected.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He'd rather be a supplicant to the Invisible Hand. 

He didn't catch the memo that Adam Smith was wrong.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Some Canada-USA health care comparison charts.




























Source

Meanwhile, the forward-thinking folks of Vermont are moving towards bringing in a Canadian-style single payer universal health care system. Good for them.

Vt. governor signs universal health care bill - seattlepi.com


----------



## brookeandy (Aug 27, 2013)

Nice information about health care !!!!........


----------

