The greatest health care system in the world

[Gurdari]

I have only 2 problems with Universal Healthcare.

1. The government sucks at running things
2. The cost

Haha, what's wrong with a cheaper system that serves more people?

Nothing, but we aren't talking about a system that does either.

Well the person I quoted said something about universal care... so they were talking about it. We know it's cheaper per person, and we know it covers more people. What's the debate?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Haha, what's wrong with a cheaper system that serves more people?

Nothing, but we aren't talking about a system that does either.

Well the person I quoted said something about universal care... so they were talking about it. We know it's cheaper per person, and we know it covers more people. What's the debate?

So sorry, but talking about universal health care is NOT talking about a cheaper system that serves more people. In actual fact, universal health care gives you two choices: let costs balloon out of sight, or ration care. And hey, just letting people go without any healthcare is cheaper, but that's not really the point, is it? Shooting them in the head would ALSO be cheaper, because bullets don't cost that much.

If you seriously don't know what the debate is, then you're a frigging moron and should just take yourself out of here until you become informed.

 

[Agnapostate]

If you seriously don't know what the debate is, then you're a frigging moron and should just take yourself out of here until you become informed.

 

[Diuretic]

So sorry, but talking about universal health care is NOT talking about a cheaper system that serves more people. In actual fact, universal health care gives you two choices: let costs balloon out of sight, or ration care. And hey, just letting people go without any healthcare is cheaper, but that's not really the point, is it? Shooting them in the head would ALSO be cheaper, because bullets don't cost that much.
.....

Universal health care is about how health care is delivered to those in need, there's no choice issue in it, it's just a concept. How it's managed is important and that's what you're referring to. Good management of a universal health care system ensures health care is delivered as required within budget. Bad management of universal heatlh care means that costs are not contained and/or people don't received the health care they need.

 

[editec]

Nothing, but we aren't talking about a system that does either.

Well the person I quoted said something about universal care... so they were talking about it. We know it's cheaper per person, and we know it covers more people. What's the debate?

So sorry, but talking about universal health care is NOT talking about a cheaper system that serves more people. In actual fact, universal health care gives you two choices: let costs balloon out of sight, or ration care.

Exactly as I have pointed out repeatedly when this subject comes up.

Of course I know WHY that will happen specifically.

I was actually attempting to explain it to you, (it has to do with how supply and demand don't work the same in HC as in most things) but because you couldn't understand it, you started insulting me assuming that anything you cannot understand must therefore be pointy headed liberal double speak.

You know what that tells us about you, Cec?

It tells us that you don't read, what you read you don't understand, and what you don't understand you assume is a liberal plot.

You are, a perfect tool, dear.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well the person I quoted said something about universal care... so they were talking about it. We know it's cheaper per person, and we know it covers more people. What's the debate?

So sorry, but talking about universal health care is NOT talking about a cheaper system that serves more people. In actual fact, universal health care gives you two choices: let costs balloon out of sight, or ration care.

Exactly as I have pointed out repeatedly when this subject comes up.

Of course I know WHY that will happen specifically.

I was actually attempting to explain it to you, (it has to do with how supply and demand don't work the same in HC as in most things) but because you couldn't understand it, you started insulting me assuming that anything you cannot understand must therefore be pointy headed liberal double speak.

You know what that tells us about you, Cec?

It tells us that you don't read, what you read you don't understand, and what you don't understand you assume is a liberal plot.

You are, a perfect tool, dear.

It took you all day to figure out a way to avoid admitting that you didn't really understand the obfuscatory bullshit you were trying to piggyback on in order to insult me? And the best you could do was snivel about ME insulting YOU by insisting that you prove your attempt at loftiness?

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. Go join your asshole buddy on ignore. FAIL!

 

[Agnapostate]

It took you all day to figure out a way to avoid admitting that you didn't really understand the obfuscatory bullshit you were trying to piggyback on in order to insult me? And the best you could do was snivel about ME insulting YOU by insisting that you prove your attempt at loftiness?

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. Go join your asshole buddy on ignore. FAIL!

Jesus doesn't like those words.

 

[editec]

Exactly as I have pointed out repeatedly when this subject comes up.

Of course I know WHY that will happen specifically.

I was actually attempting to explain it to you, (it has to do with how supply and demand don't work the same in HC as in most things) but because you couldn't understand it, you started insulting me assuming that anything you cannot understand must therefore be pointy headed liberal double speak.

You know what that tells us about you, Cec?

It tells us that you don't read, what you read you don't understand, and what you don't understand you assume is a liberal plot.

You are, a perfect tool, dear.

It took you all day to figure out a way to avoid admitting that you didn't really understand the obfuscatory bullshit you were trying to piggyback on in order to insult me? And the best you could do was snivel about ME insulting YOU by insisting that you prove your attempt at loftiness?

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. Go join your asshole buddy on ignore. FAIL!

People like you are why the adage "Never get into an argument with an idiot" exists.

Let's just agree that we don't have enough common ground to have a serious discussion, shall we?

 

[Said1]

I wonder if Canadians look south and think, "hey that's a great system, let's copy it!"

I wonder.

Maybe Canada could ease up on the restrictions on private medical care, whether it be purchased direct or via insurance. A two-tier system may upset the strongly ideological but it's actually not a bad idea.

They aren't saying that now, of course, but maybe once we reform our health care system, they will.

Maybe they will, but they need to get a bit more with it. I wonder why the system in Canada is province-based and not national, there are probably very good reasons for that but anyway that would end up in thread drift so best I leave it alone.

Budget wise, it's shared. Provincial governments are responsible for delivery and management.

 

[Diuretic]

They aren't saying that now, of course, but maybe once we reform our health care system, they will.

Maybe they will, but they need to get a bit more with it. I wonder why the system in Canada is province-based and not national, there are probably very good reasons for that but anyway that would end up in thread drift so best I leave it alone.

Budget wise, it's shared. Provincial governments are responsible for delivery and management.

Thanks Said, I wondered about that. Slight difference here (much smaller population and a smaller physical size in our country as well) is that individuals are given a national card (Medicare card) and don't need to worry in which state or territory they are, so they don't need to advise or make arrangements if they're going to another state or territory. But budget wise similar to Canada then, the feds provide much of the money (although the previous government tried to get the states and territories to put in more money than they had before) but service delivery is handled at the state/territory level.

 

[Said1]

Maybe they will, but they need to get a bit more with it. I wonder why the system in Canada is province-based and not national, there are probably very good reasons for that but anyway that would end up in thread drift so best I leave it alone.

Budget wise, it's shared. Provincial governments are responsible for delivery and management.

Thanks Said, I wondered about that. Slight difference here (much smaller population and a smaller physical size in our country as well) is that individuals are given a national card (Medicare card) and don't need to worry in which state or territory they are, so they don't need to advise or make arrangements if they're going to another state or territory. But budget wise similar to Canada then, the feds provide much of the money (although the previous government tried to get the states and territories to put in more money than they had before) but service delivery is handled at the state/territory level.

The federal government provides a health transfer - equalization. What the provinces do with the money is up to them, as long as their budgets are equal, relative to their needs. In short, the fed gov makes up for what they can not raise themselves through taxation. We're Ok traveling too, our provincial plan is good if you're hurt elsewhere.

The gov of Quebec has the most private system. They've allowed private clinics in areas we could use to shorten waits at hospitals. Ontario has responded by keeping things like MRI machines running 24/7.

I know I've mentioned this before, but one of the biggest bones in the system is fluctuating populations. When the province finally catches up with needs, people are moving on to the next boom town. It's rumored Alberta is headed for a crash, all of a sudden areas that were fine before will be over burdened and Alberta will be closing hospitals.

 

[Diuretic]

Budget wise, it's shared. Provincial governments are responsible for delivery and management.

Thanks Said, I wondered about that. Slight difference here (much smaller population and a smaller physical size in our country as well) is that individuals are given a national card (Medicare card) and don't need to worry in which state or territory they are, so they don't need to advise or make arrangements if they're going to another state or territory. But budget wise similar to Canada then, the feds provide much of the money (although the previous government tried to get the states and territories to put in more money than they had before) but service delivery is handled at the state/territory level.

The federal government provides a health transfer - equalization. What the provinces do with the money is up to them, as long as their budgets are equal, relative to their needs. In short, the fed gov makes up for what they can not raise themselves through taxation. We're Ok traveling too, our provincial plan is good if you're hurt elsewhere.

The gov of Quebec has the most private system. They've allowed private clinics in areas we could use to shorten waits at hospitals. Ontario has responded by keeping things like MRI machines running 24/7.

I know I've mentioned this before, but one of the biggest bones in the system is fluctuating populations. When the province finally catches up with needs, people are moving on to the next boom town. It's rumored Alberta is headed for a crash, all of a sudden areas that were fine before will be over burdened and Alberta will be closing hospitals.

And that's an excellent point. The same thing has happened here. There are two areas that have benefited from the so-called "mining boom" here - south-eastern Queensland (the area surrounding Brisbane) and just about all of Western Australia. In se Qld and in WA the populations have exploded due to their resource-based economies. In Perth rents and house prices went through the roof (think Fort McMurray during the shale oil boom) and while state governments were getting revenue from mining royalties they were struggling to keep up with the infrastructure necessary to serve the increased populations. They demanded more money from the feds and the usual bickering took place and in particular se Qld started to suffer and there are definitely problems there especially with health services. But that's an overload effect that couldn't be foreseen and of course it's easily cured with an injection of money to meet those expanded needs.

 

[Said1]

I think it can be foreseen to a certain degree since provincial and more local governments are involved in certain parts of development. Of course the fed gov isn't supposed to be involved, but they are - think CIDA et al.

 

[Diuretic]

I think here with some of our state and territory governments, "planning" is defined as working out what to have for lunch

 

[Said1]

I think here with some of our state and territory governments, "planning" is defined as working out what to have for lunch

No doubt. And at which bar.

 

[Yukon]

It is sad. The US government has money to buy Banks, Insurance Companies, Automobile Manufacturers and the money to spend hundreds of billions on WAR; Americans even provide each and every Iraqi with fully comprehensive MEDICARE but your Government wont help its own citizens. How sad, how pitiful, how disgusting.

I'm so glad I live in Canada and I invite any American to come to our country, live in peace and be covered by universal Medicare - we have the FINEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM in the world. It is the envy of every "thinking" American.

God Bless Canada and God Help Obama Americans MEDICARE!

has come to this:

"I don't want to die. I shouldn't have to die. This is a county hospital. This is for people that, like me, many people have lost their insurance, have not any other resources. I mean I was a responsible person. I bought my house. I put money away. I raised my two children. And now I have nothing. You know my house isn’t worth anything. I have no money. And I said 'What do I do, but what do all these other people do after me?' 'And they said we don't know,'" Sharp told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley.

Sharp, 63, has been fighting lymphoma since July. She's not working because of her illness and has no insurance. Last year, she received charity care at the county hospital, University Medical Center. She was one of 2,000 patients who got the letter.

"Dear patient, we regret to inform you that the Nevada Cancer Institute will no longer provide contract oncology services at University Medical Center," Sharp read.

People who worked, raised their children, put money away, tried to be responsible, now have nowhere to turn to. Those who are on welfare, of course, can still get medical care.

What a sorry situation. There has to be a better way.

 

[Said1]

That's funny, Yukon. The #1 recommendation for keeping health care in the Yukon sustainable was raising alcohol and tobacco taxes to reduce consumption and more education about accident prevention. Apparently, people need to be responsible for themselves if they want to keep going to the hospital for real health care issues.


Page 15: http://www.hss.gov.yk.ca/downloads/301_yukon_health_care_review.pdf

 

[Diuretic]

I think here with some of our state and territory governments, "planning" is defined as working out what to have for lunch

No doubt. And at which bar.

Plenty of choices here - downtown is a square mile, several hundred establishments that sell booze, you can't go wrong

 

[Gurdari]

So sorry, but talking about universal health care is NOT talking about a cheaper system that serves more people. In actual fact, universal health care gives you two choices: let costs balloon out of sight, or ration care. And hey, just letting people go without any healthcare is cheaper, but that's not really the point, is it? Shooting them in the head would ALSO be cheaper, because bullets don't cost that much.

If you seriously don't know what the debate is, then you're a frigging moron and should just take yourself out of here until you become informed.

Can't tell if you are joking or embarassing yourself.

As to you 'argument' - and your reference to 'actual fact' - universal healthcare applies to everyone (* see the word "universal"). As for cheaper, I was saying the CANADIAN system is cheaper per person (don't take my word for it, do a little research... or *gulp*, a lot of research).
I live up here, and know that it doesn't matter how much $$$ I make, if I'm sick I get treated, not at the hospital of my choice, but at the CLOSEST one. Just like if I called 911, I get the CLOSEST cops responding, or firefighters arriving the fastest based on proximity, not the ones my boss got a deal with or the ones my company decided to use... or the ones I happen to be able to afford.

If private systems are the way to go - then go for it all the way.
If it isn't then accept the bullshit argument in support of the US style healthcare system is just that. It works for those who run it, and profit from it. But since it isn't called Health profiteering, it is mislabelled. If you actually believe medical services should be about MEDICAL CARE, then big changes are in order.

 

[Yukon]

The US Government spends much more than the Canadian Government for health care and Americans do not, repeat DO NOT, have a universal health care system (mediare). If memeory serves it was the Harvard School of Business that actually conducted the study that proved it.