English and Canadian healthcare may be fine if you are young and don't need or can wait for major surgery. I used to work with a guy that still maintains dual citizenship, US and UK. He had to a have a heart bypass operation here in the States when he was in his late 50s. He told me afterwards, if he were still in England, he would not have gotten the operation since he was over 55. So in my view, and I believe many others, government healthcare is most likely death sentence for older people. Approximately 85% of the US has health insurance. The Obamacare solution is to increase the price and lower the availablity of healthcare for the 85% so the 15% can have insurance. An unacceptable social cost in my mind which perhaps is why it is so unpopular.
Liar, liar pants on fire
- Thread starter Pack66Dad
- Start date
Pack66Dad
New Member
- Aug 26, 2010
- 1,427
- Boat Info
- 1997 41 Convertible
- Engines
- Caterpillar 3126 Diesels
As usual, you guys don't even read what I posted or why. How is VTSeaRay's personal experiences (that I was commenting on) are more "valid" than mine?
This definition of brainwashed fits many of you to a tee:Taught to accept a system of thought uncritically
Do you ever think outside your Fox-box?
It is baffling to me why you closed minded people are so fervent about being so absolutely wrong.
VTSeaRay
Active Member
- Feb 19, 2008
- 1,905
- Boat Info
- 2007 210 Select w/5.0L 260HP MPI Mercruiser Alpha 1
- Engines
- 8 cyl 5.0 Merc mpi, w/alpha 1 with 19" prop, with the speedo hole on the leading edge just above it
The cases I'm familiar with aren't getting boob jobs, though I'm sure that happens. The one's I know of are typically major surgery/services, for heart issues and cancer. The services for these types of surgeries/treatments in Canada aren't at the level they are here in the United States (not to mention the age limits/waiting periods for them).
One instance in particular, the cancer would have killed the woman before she would have been able to get the treatment she needed in Canada based on the schedule they had for getting people in for that particular treatment. She came to the US, had the treatment and it saved her life.
One instance in particular, the cancer would have killed the woman before she would have been able to get the treatment she needed in Canada based on the schedule they had for getting people in for that particular treatment. She came to the US, had the treatment and it saved her life.
- Feb 14, 2009
- 1,361
- Boat Info
- '07 42SS Carver, full electronics array
'03 380DA, RL80C+, ST7001, Kohl 7.3,4kw o/array sold
- Engines
- 8.1S Crusader express drives
When you learn a little more about what you are talking about, check back in. Until then, and it could be a while, Merry Christmas. (Clue...medical tourism is incredibly complicated. Many US citizens use Canadian and Mexican health care options when available as a function of out of pocket costs. In Mexico, for example, antibiotics are OTC. In Great Britain, personal use steroids are perfectly legal. Many more US citizens travel to foreign countries for routine surgeries which are very expensive here. There is also a huge market for international medical tourism for things like plastic surgery and dentistry. Costa Rica, for example, has dentistry that's about a third the going rate for US. Brazil is the center of plastic surgery tourism in the world. Although interestingly, Dothan, AL has a thriving under the radar market in cheap boob jobs. However, it is generally accepted that cutting edge treatments, diagnoses and the best doctors in the world are in the US. That doesn't make us evil...that is all part of Adam Smith's invisible hand correcting market inequities and it has been happening since the beginning of time. It is certainly possible, especially for a not very smart union thug <sorry, had to throw that in after your infantile Fox shot>, that every single person you have ever contacted either has no reason for medical tourism or is happy with what they have. That doesn't affect the observations of others that services in a managed health environment are rationed, which was the point raised by VT and Woody...they weren't taking a poll, dummy. You have neither understood nor responded to a single rational discussion point on this issue. Face it Pack, you used other people's talking points to throw firebombs on a subject in which you are apparently nearly illiterate. Now back to the points you have been avoiding...how does adding more drivers improve steering? How many more people are you going to save and at what cost? Tell me about your compassionate TSA? There is an old joke about three guys in a room, two smart and one not so...the first one says "I'm Mensa, talk to me about string theory." The second says "I'm a Rhodes Scholar, talk to me about international economics." Pack, I'm thinking you are the third guy and we really need to be talking about the weather.)
Last edited:
Woody
Well-Known Member
Why don't these Canadian gals get their chests and self esteem lifted in their own country? :huh:
wish2fish
Active Member
Seems one of the flat chested Canadians left one of their boobs in the state of Washington! :huh:
Thought I would stay out of the debate for a while to see where it goes without facts. . . and here we are - -
An excellent rebuttal except for one minor detail: Canadian health care is not a "managed" system. Canadian health care is a "single payer" system, with the government medicare paying the insurance claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
In terms of rationing of health care, it is probably about the same as most group insurances as in the U.S. Probably better than most privately run HMO's in the U.S. The issue is not rationing, it is availability. The issue is "number of doctors". . . because presumably the rates the government is paying may not be high enough. Why be a private doctor in Canada, when you can be a private doctor in the U.S. (where you make more money AND it's warmer. . )
You guys are so afraid of government health care when you get old? You guys are worried about quality of care and availability? I have only one word to say to you enlightened people:
Medicare.
Bob keeps hammering this point regarding availability;
That is the real issue, is it not? If the number of doctor's remains the same, and you have 20% more people seeking doctors. . .how can that be good?
Now I am not sure about the "increasing the price" part. It seems to me that the 10-15% annual increases in health care costs are taking care of "increasing the price" part all by itself. That is the free market in action. You want to live? You have to pay.
An excellent rebuttal except for one minor detail: Canadian health care is not a "managed" system. Canadian health care is a "single payer" system, with the government medicare paying the insurance claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
In terms of rationing of health care, it is probably about the same as most group insurances as in the U.S. Probably better than most privately run HMO's in the U.S. The issue is not rationing, it is availability. The issue is "number of doctors". . . because presumably the rates the government is paying may not be high enough. Why be a private doctor in Canada, when you can be a private doctor in the U.S. (where you make more money AND it's warmer. . )
You guys are so afraid of government health care when you get old? You guys are worried about quality of care and availability? I have only one word to say to you enlightened people:
Medicare.
Bob keeps hammering this point regarding availability;
That is the real issue, is it not? If the number of doctor's remains the same, and you have 20% more people seeking doctors. . .how can that be good?
Now I am not sure about the "increasing the price" part. It seems to me that the 10-15% annual increases in health care costs are taking care of "increasing the price" part all by itself. That is the free market in action. You want to live? You have to pay.
- Feb 14, 2009
- 1,361
- Boat Info
- '07 42SS Carver, full electronics array
'03 380DA, RL80C+, ST7001, Kohl 7.3,4kw o/array sold
- Engines
- 8.1S Crusader express drives
I respect the distinction, but I'm not sure there is a practical difference in this case. Much like the Oregon model, there is a list of services which will are approved, and until very recently, physicians were not allowed to provide services outside those allowed. In an effort to correct, Canada is now allowing private facilities (or so I understand...please forgive me, I don't pay that much attention to Canada...although I speak fluent Canadian). Thanks for jumping back in, by the way...Pack needed some help.
Last edited:
I would submit that we are headed in that direction even last year. This is the "free market in action". We have crossed the threshold where employers pay 100% of coverage; many companies are passing a portion onto the employees. Health insurance costs will continue to rise until premiums rise so high, employees stop paying it. And by not paying it. . I mean so many people stop paying, becoming uninsured, that it affects the bottom line of the insurance companies.
Now. . .this is the tough nut; because most intelligent families will prioritize health insurance right up there with food.
About 294 posts back, I posted articles citing that most of this years increase in insurance premiums on health care costs and not expanding coverage. Insurance companies are not really containing costs. HMO's tried that. . and look what happened.
Nor is there incentive to contain costs (yet) Remember. . there is usually some regulation of insurance invovled. Most people look at overheat %'s. But if COSTS go up. . .and %'s remain the same. . . . .
No problem. I like a good debate. I have learned a number of things as a result. I actually read the links before I post them. :grin:
There is a HUGE distinction regarding "managed care" vs. "single payer". Consider the last 50 posts; we have focused on wait times in Canada. If you are waiting. . that means it must be approved, right? You don't "wait" for procedures that you are not getting, right? So the problem is not prohibition; it is in availability.
If you want to contrast "single payer" vs. "managed care" on the government level consider "medicare" vs. "VA". If you want to constrast "single payer" vs. "managed care" on the private level; consider a standard group insurance policy vs a HMO.
EVERYONE restricts procedures; If you are talking about procedures in the U.S. that are not FDA approved; or otherwise experimental; you will find that most insurance companies will not approve the coverage.
You will also find that insurance companies already limit costs to some small degree with fixed rates for services. When I see medical bills from a doctor; I generally see three categories (1) My deductible/copay (2) Insurance payment and (3) writeoff. The "writeoff" being the difference between what insurance pays, and what the doctor wants to charge.
Right now, those that have insurance have good health access because the "writeoffs" are acceptable. If the insurance (either goobermint or private) won't pay enough -> then you will find problems with medical access.
So here is what I see. . . .
. . many American's have rejected low cost HMO's because they are willing to pay for full coverage, without the managed care limitations of HMO's. Hence, we now have most people paying a premium for better insurance. That is American markets in action.
And most people can pay. . .more and more . . each year. Because the alternative (no medical care) is unacceptable. So health care costs will continue to go up. . insurance will trim on the edges with fixed rates for certain procedures. . .
. . and slowly, the number of uninsured people will rise. Those that can afford it will buy it and get the best of care. Those that can't. . .well. . .. . .it is not fun being poor.
So. . two issues:
1) Do you cover poor people? This is "health exchange" part of last years legislation. Do we really want to pay to fix poor people? That is open for debate
2) Pre-existing conditions: There was legislation on this in 1996 (hmmm. . .Wasn't Newt speaker)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_condition. Now modified in 2010. Supposedly, to cover the really expensive people, we need the "health insurance mandadate". That is also open for debate.
. . many American's have rejected low cost HMO's because they are willing to pay for full coverage, without the managed care limitations of HMO's. Hence, we now have most people paying a premium for better insurance. That is American markets in action.
And most people can pay. . .more and more . . each year. Because the alternative (no medical care) is unacceptable. So health care costs will continue to go up. . insurance will trim on the edges with fixed rates for certain procedures. . .
. . and slowly, the number of uninsured people will rise. Those that can afford it will buy it and get the best of care. Those that can't. . .well. . .. . .it is not fun being poor.
So. . two issues:
1) Do you cover poor people? This is "health exchange" part of last years legislation. Do we really want to pay to fix poor people? That is open for debate
2) Pre-existing conditions: There was legislation on this in 1996 (hmmm. . .Wasn't Newt speaker)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_condition. Now modified in 2010. Supposedly, to cover the really expensive people, we need the "health insurance mandadate". That is also open for debate.
Another part of Obamacare that hasn't been brought up yet, but is one the major reasons why I believe prices will go up is the $500 Billion reduction in Medicare funding. The money then has to come from somewhere. You guessed it, medicare recipient's pockets. Also, payments to doctors and hospitals will likely go down. That can have one of two effects, they either raise their prices over the medicare allowance or simply refuse to take on medicare patients since now the other 15% will have insurance that will likely pay more.
A better solution would have been to increase the Medicare payroll deduction but the libs would not have that because it's regressive taxation. So that is why I keep hammering away on price and availability of care since I, and I believe you are part of the 70-80 million baby boomers that will be eligible for Medicare in the next 15 to 20 years. If Obamacare included funding to expand the healthcare delivery system in terms of facilities and personnel my arguments might be less valid.
Are you seriously suggesting that a reduction in entitlement spending is bad? Are you seriously suggesting that an increase in taxes to pay for entitlement spending (that people want) is bad?
Allow me to throw the Fiscal Conservative Hypocrisy flag.
The appropriate tea party answer would be to enact the $500B medicare reduction - maybe double the reduction - without any other provisions for health reform. Frankly. . I think the only reason the Political Right is not in favor of these reductions is because the Political left enacted it.
- - - - - - -
Oh right. . .the Republican platform called for a fiscal common sense using 2008 spending levels (is that including or not including TARP?). . and 2008 tax levels, and elimating pork. . . yeah. . . yeah. . .
- - -- - - - - -
Bob: I think the rest of your post is right on.
I think it is all about figuring out (1) How much of society will be covered by health care and (2) what quality we will provide.
Right now. . medicare covers the elderly. And it is busting the budget. Now. . .we want healthcare for all. . .without busting the budget. Tough choice. What do we want to do? If we eliminate medicare, and turn it over to the capitalism. . . wouldn't that be consistent with what the right leaning members of this thread would be in favor?
Oh. . and if we eliminte government medicare and put everyone into the private market. . would it be legal to prohibit "over 50" policy exclusions? I bet lots of companies would offer cut rate "young people group policies". The market would want these policies.
Allow me to throw the Fiscal Conservative Hypocrisy flag.
The appropriate tea party answer would be to enact the $500B medicare reduction - maybe double the reduction - without any other provisions for health reform. Frankly. . I think the only reason the Political Right is not in favor of these reductions is because the Political left enacted it.
- - - - - - -
Oh right. . .the Republican platform called for a fiscal common sense using 2008 spending levels (is that including or not including TARP?). . and 2008 tax levels, and elimating pork. . . yeah. . . yeah. . .
- - -- - - - - -
Bob: I think the rest of your post is right on.
I think it is all about figuring out (1) How much of society will be covered by health care and (2) what quality we will provide.
Right now. . medicare covers the elderly. And it is busting the budget. Now. . .we want healthcare for all. . .without busting the budget. Tough choice. What do we want to do? If we eliminate medicare, and turn it over to the capitalism. . . wouldn't that be consistent with what the right leaning members of this thread would be in favor?
Oh. . and if we eliminte government medicare and put everyone into the private market. . would it be legal to prohibit "over 50" policy exclusions? I bet lots of companies would offer cut rate "young people group policies". The market would want these policies.
Last edited:
AKBASSKING
Active Member
- Apr 13, 2008
- 4,649
- Boat Info
- 1988 Yacht Fisher
- Engines
- Twin 375hp Cat 3208 T/A
Something I heard on the radio the other day about Oregon and healthcare. Something about how Oregon got out of the fed system and now that Obamacare makes you cover your child to 26, any health care they recieve is considered taxable income in the state of Oregon?? Anyone hear about that?
The libs on this threat still won't comment on why my take home pay keeps getting less and less and why they feel that is good...
The libs on this threat still won't comment on why my take home pay keeps getting less and less and why they feel that is good...
wish2fish
Active Member
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJgkvF19QA&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]
Woody
Well-Known Member
That video should make us think, is that the type of care we want.
3 years ago I went for a physical. I didn’t think anything was wrong with me. Most of the little changes I’d been chalking up to just getting old. My doctor said I was in a lot better shape than most my age. As an after thought he scheduled me for a stress test, no real reason, just to be sure. On a Wednesday at noon I started the test and before it was over he said “ I got to run up to the cardiologist, there something wrong with you”. By 3pm that same day the cardiologist had reviewed all tests. He told me I had a problem and said “I’ll do my very best to get you in and figure out what’s going on”. At 7am on Friday morning he was looking around inside me with a camera and installed some stents. I even watched him working for a while. I was home by noon on Saturday. I had several blockages, one of them was 99%. He said to me “you must be lucky, that artery with the 99% blockage is the one we call the widow maker”.
All I know is that any changes that will reduce that capability will be a big step backward
3 years ago I went for a physical. I didn’t think anything was wrong with me. Most of the little changes I’d been chalking up to just getting old. My doctor said I was in a lot better shape than most my age. As an after thought he scheduled me for a stress test, no real reason, just to be sure. On a Wednesday at noon I started the test and before it was over he said “ I got to run up to the cardiologist, there something wrong with you”. By 3pm that same day the cardiologist had reviewed all tests. He told me I had a problem and said “I’ll do my very best to get you in and figure out what’s going on”. At 7am on Friday morning he was looking around inside me with a camera and installed some stents. I even watched him working for a while. I was home by noon on Saturday. I had several blockages, one of them was 99%. He said to me “you must be lucky, that artery with the 99% blockage is the one we call the widow maker”.
All I know is that any changes that will reduce that capability will be a big step backward
VTSeaRay
Active Member
- Feb 19, 2008
- 1,905
- Boat Info
- 2007 210 Select w/5.0L 260HP MPI Mercruiser Alpha 1
- Engines
- 8 cyl 5.0 Merc mpi, w/alpha 1 with 19" prop, with the speedo hole on the leading edge just above it
That was a good clip. LOL 24 hr turn around for a cat scan for a pet in a private run sytem, but 1 month if you try to get it for a human in the government run system.
And no mention of boob jobs! hmmmm....
That's pretty much what I've heard over the past few yrs about the Canadian system, it's also why Bernie has changed his support of the health system basis from a Canada/uk like system to the one this other country in Europe is trying to implement. I'll have to try and look up on his web site what country it is he now wants us to follow.
Last edited:
I think you would count me as a lib. . .although my viewpoint is far more libertarian than liberal.
Why is your take home pay going down. I will give several reasons;
1) Big employers are not interested in American labor. If you quit. .you will be replaced by someone overseas who costs less. Heck. . I see this as a non-union white collar worker. Therefore. . no reason to give you a raise.
2) Medical costs go up. The insurance companies, who get bad press when they deny coverage, pass those costs to your employers. Who in turn passes those cost to you, the employee. (see point 1 above. . . they don't pay health care costs in Vietnam or India. . . .)
3) We elect fiscal conservatives to government who reduce the size of government by passing perscription drug benefits that prohibit competitive bidding. These are the same people that reduce deficits by using up a budget surplus to finance pork, then on top of that fight an overseas war using funding completely outside the normal budget process.
4) We elect fiscal conservatives that pass a temporary reduction in tax rates because they can't address the long term negative revenue impacts. Then, instead of addressing the long term revenue impacts (by reducing entitlements), they seek to simply "make cuts permanent".
5) So. . .having caught on to how fiscal conservatives operate. . . we elect liberals promising universal health care. In the middle of a recession. Then we all act surprised when they pass a universal health care bill and pass large unfunded stimulus packages. Not happy with this, we turn to a new party, that promises to reduce taxes, and not reduce defence, not reduce SS, or reduce medicare one penny. (75% of total spending are in those areas)
so. . you wonder why take home pay is going down. . .
BTW: the answer is NOT "liberals raised your taxes". At least, not on the Federal level. 1/3-1/2 of the 2009 stimulus was actually tax cuts. You can argue if they did any good. . you can argue if you got any. . .but they did not raise taxes. Merely the deficit.
Pack66Dad
New Member
- Aug 26, 2010
- 1,427
- Boat Info
- 1997 41 Convertible
- Engines
- Caterpillar 3126 Diesels
:smt038
AKBASSKING
Active Member
- Apr 13, 2008
- 4,649
- Boat Info
- 1988 Yacht Fisher
- Engines
- Twin 375hp Cat 3208 T/A
Solution:
After 124 posts, I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me, therefore I will let my voice be heard at the ballot box.
It would appear last November, the independents and conservatives have spoken.
After 124 posts, I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me, therefore I will let my voice be heard at the ballot box.
It would appear last November, the independents and conservatives have spoken.