disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I've asked this question before on this forum, and on others as well, and never once got a positive answer. I've had several say "no", and some "No (bleep!)ing way", but no yes or even maybe:
Some of the members of this forum live in Canada and other nations that have universal health care. Would any of you trade your health care system for that of the United States?
Anyone... anyone???
EMPLOYEES should take their income and provide for their own healthcare. Its pathetic that we continue to dump everyone elses failings at the feet of those that succeed.So your belief is that employers are responsible to provide for their employees healthcare. Right? All employers? And what of their families?
Pathetic, yet oh so typical. You dont believe people should take care of themselves...that duty should rest with those that manage to actually find success or with the government. Everyone but the individual.
So...that mom and pop business...the one that hires two, maybe three workers and barely makes enough to pay the bottom line yet manages to pay their employees salaries...them too...right? After all...THEY have to follow all those other rules. So...they should pay too. Right?
Employers cover there OWN HC. They think it is the responsability of the business to cover their HC and retirement.......
Solution for all = Single payer
Then business is totally out of the HC business.
Interesting question indeed. If they felt so passionately attached to their own systems' superiority, one would have to ask why so many of them cross the border into this country in order to get access to care. It seems that many of them are voting with their actions if perhaps not out loud .
...John Metz, who owns around 40 Denny’s and multiple Dairy Queen Locations in Florida, as well as a franchise called Hurricane Grill & Wings, made news and ruffled diner food fans’ feathers when he told the Huffington Post that he planned to add a 5 percent surcharge at the start of next year in addition to cutting back some full-time employees to part time. His reasoning, he said, was that the measures are necessary to offset the costs of the Affordable Care Act, which goes into full effect in 2014.
But now representatives for Metz are walking back those statements, telling ABC News in a statement that while Metz will cut back hours his employees work, the 5 percent surcharge was merely speculation, and never was his actual intention.
“Hurricane Grill & Wings will be implementing the 28 hour [maximum hour] rule in all corporately owned and operated restaurants starting in Q1 of 2013. The 5 percent surcharge mentioned in various online outlets is pure speculation and only a potential option should the law be re-written to include full-time equivalents,” the statement read. “The surcharge is not to be implemented or considered at this time.”...
um.... not entirely.
So yes, no surcharge. The consumers don't get screwed - the workers do.
Could be, except that the USA is way, way, down on the list of destinations for medical tourism. Those busloads of Canadians coming to the US when "Hillarycare" was being debated? Turns out they were fictional.
Sure, a few wealthy Canadians come here for cosmetic surgeries and the like that they couldn't get readily at home, but, no, the US is not a medical tourism destination for anyone.
...Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams is seeking heart surgery in the United States, drawing criticism from “local bloggers and people calling in to the province’s immensely popular open-line radio shows.” Yet his actions are hardly unusual for world leaders. Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz is known to have his checkups at the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had heart surgery at the Cleveland Clinic in 2006 . Even middle-class Canadians are utilizing their proximity to the United States to seek treatment here....
Any Canadians ready to answer the question?
I'm sure they'll be devastated to learn that they'll lose their hours working for such a nice man who wants nothing more than to deny them health care coverage in orderto make more moneyto be able to continue to hire them at all.
EMPLOYEES should take their income and provide for their own healthcare. Its pathetic that we continue to dump everyone elses failings at the feet of those that succeed.
That is where Private Charity needs to step in and help make these people whole again. It's also why people need to be working to achieve sufficient education and training where they can get a job that provides health insurance.
Very simple answer to that - Stop requiring emergency medical centers to provide treatment for people who can't pay or who have proven an unwillingness to pay bills in the past.
It's not a matter or More or Less. It's simply a matter of which pocket we're pulling the bills from.
First of all, we are talking about two different things so we are basically just talking past one another. I am discussing rights in the traditional sense of those things that belong to each individual by virtue of his being, and you are discussing privileges--what society, the state, or the Great Leader allows you to do. The US was founded upon my understanding of rights which is why I am still here and argue agaisnt what the US is becoming.Why are you in the US if you feel this way? Wouldn't Somalia be a better place for you? Of course there is no right. But as a society we feel, well, not you, that we should not leave people to die in the streets. You clearly feel that is an acceptable or even good way of running society. A civilized society outside of your view, does not simply let people die because of bad luck. Furthermore, in my example, the patient actually is entitled to life saving treatment as he paid for insurance. But under your framework, because his wallet was lost, the hospital can freely let him die in the street.
Not true. The government of a free people has a limited role. The government of an enslaved people has an unlimited role. In a free society, it is the individual that directs his own actions and pursues his own happiness. I am a libertarian because I value liberty and the concept of individual rightrs. To secure these rights, governments are formed among men. Rights pre-exist the state. The state is there to secure them, not violate them. When an armed man breaks into your home and you call the police do you expect them to arrest the intruder? Or do you expect them to look around at your possessions and determine whether or not the intruder should share in what you have? If you chose the former then we agree on the proper role of the state. The difference is that I apply that standard consistently and you do not.But you seem to have a problem with any form of power of the state. So much so that you advocate for letting people die in the streets simply because they don't have their insurance cards on them.
I dont live in Canada, but I suspect the answer would be no. The truth of the matter is that universal health care coverage would "work" better than what we have here in the US now. I say that not as an advocate of socilized medicine but out of the realization that our current system is hopelessly broken. We should either embrace single payer or return it to the free market, but the current mixture of the two is failing everyone.I've asked this question before on this forum, and on others as well, and never once got a positive answer. I've had several say "no", and some "No (bleep!)ing way", but no yes or even maybe:
Some of the members of this forum live in Canada and other nations that have universal health care. Would any of you trade your health care system for that of the United States?
Anyone... anyone???
Our multiple payer system is in deep trouble as well, and far more expensive than is Canada's system. But, the issue was satisfaction (relative that is). Who are the Canadians who would trade their system for one like ours?
This is a false choice you set up here Ditto...No one disagrees that our system is in need of fixes that make the system better, for more affordable rates. But what you are arguing is that we should abandon our system of health care for a system that is demonstrably not sustainable, and is breaking the bank of countries that already have that system in place, and are trying to move away from it. That is insane, why would a rational person do that?
Healthcare in Singapore is mainly under the responsibility of the Singapore Government's Ministry of Health. Singapore generally has an efficient and widespread system of healthcare. Singapore was ranked 6th in the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems in the year 2000.[1]
Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode.
A key principle of Singapore's national health scheme is that no medical service is provided free of charge, regardless of the level of subsidy, even within the public healthcare system. This mechanism is intended to reduce the overutilisation of healthcare services, a phenomenon often seen in fully subsidised universal health insurance systems. Out-of-pocket charges vary considerably for each service and level of subsidy. At the highest level of subsidy, although each out-of-pocket expense is typically small, costs can accumulate and become substantial for patients and families. At the lowest level, the subsidy is in effect nonexistent, and patients are treated like private patients, even within the public system.
oh rearry?
British Columbia sends patients to Seattle for coronary artery surgery. Bypassing the queue in Canada.
Faced with long waiting lists for cancer treatment, the government of Quebec province, Canada, plans to send patients to the United States at a cost of $US15000 (£9375) each.
A big driver is waiting time periods. Due to government provision, there is a shortage of doctors in single-payer nations far worse than the doctor shortage here in the states.
A hospital survey of five countries (United States, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Australia)... found that “waits of six months or more for elective surgeries were reported to occur ‘very often’ or ‘often’ by 26–57 percent of executives in the four non-U.S. countries; only 1 percent of U.S. hospitals reported this. (Half of all Canadian hospitals reported an average waiting time of over six months for a 65-year-old male requiring a routine hip replacement; no American hospital administrators reported waits this long.)
Shona Holmes, for example, had a brain tumor that needed to be removed immediately; and was told that the wait to see the endocrinologist was four months, and the wait to see the neurologist was another six.
It got so bad that the Canadian Supreme Court had to intervene in order to make sure that Canadians could escape their health system, in order to seek necessary care. "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care".
And so on and so forth ad nauseum. And this is before we even get into the issue of medical innovation.
When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent)
Taxes go up, charities suffer, since less disposable income exists for those that are charitable.
That is something very few on the left are willing to discuss.
While there are no doubt wealthy Canadians who come to the US for health care due to its proximity, America doesn't even make the list of destinations for medical tourism.
The reason is most likely the cost. Why go to where costs are highest in the world?
In bold is where your wrong, it's not because of our proximity, but because of the waiting time and the lack of specialists. Why would the wealthy even come here is they got the same treatment in Canada, it's because they don't.
I mean they come to the US instead of Singapore, or one of the other common destinations for medical tourism, because it is much closer.
No doubt, the Canadian system needs work, as does ours. The difference is that ours costs far more than theirs does.
I'm not sure why a UHC would break the bank, when nations that have such a system pay far and away less than we do. Maybe it's a choice between bad and worse.
Perhaps a system like that of Singapore would serve us better:
Of course because we provide better care? Again whey does anyone come here for medical treatment, it's because they get treatment now, not 10 months from now. And we have the specialists to provide immediate care now, not 10 months from now. Having access to immediate care would cost more. Now if you want to go to Canada for lower cost and wait 10 months for cancer treatment be my quest.
So, now we know the problems with the US system are cost and access, and the problem with the Canadian system is wait times.
A better system would be a universal coverage that requires the patient to pay a portion of the costs. Nothing is free, after all, and the patient needs an incentive to cut costs too.
Costs maybe, 'access'? who? and what does that even mean?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?