Idiotic writers...

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

One, if that's the case then why did you invite it by saying "Ask yourself this question..."?

Two, that's not a personal story so much as it's a comparison of the two systems. Yearly mammograms reduce the risk of breast cancer by catching it early. They are not available in Canada, but they are available in the US. In this example, socialized medicine is not the better system.

Yes I agree. In this, quite narrowminded view, socialized medicine is not a better system.

However, I do think you stretched my question to the limit. A single parent working to make ends meet probably don't have the surplus to take a yearly trip to the US for a scan.

Are you sure your aunt meets the criteria described?

Anyway I have a feeling that we're at a stalemate. You don't want to recognise any problems whatsoever with the american health care system, and I'm not ready to fall to my knees and bow.

But as we all know, It's good to be on the saved side. And from there it's easy to cast stones on the less fortunates.

[corroonb]

In most, if not all, socialised systems, one has the option to pay for private treatment if one wishes and there is usually insurance available for such people. There is nothing to say that a socialised healthcare system cannot work alongside private healthcare. In many countries specialists work both publicly and privately. However I gather people are angry that their taxes might go towards saving the lives of poor people.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by corroonb

In most, if not all, socialised systems, one has the option to pay for private treatment if one wishes and there is usually insurance available for such people. There is nothing to say that a socialised healthcare system cannot work alongside private healthcare. In many countries specialists work both publicly and privately. However I gather people are angry that their taxes might go towards saving the lives of poor people.

Apparently you do not know that my taxes already go toward saving the lives of poor people. We don't need a new system to do that.

[corroonb]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Apparently you do not know that my taxes already go toward saving the lives of poor people. We don't need a new system to do that.

What about people who are not "poor" but can not afford to pay for their healthcare?

Do they qualify under the existing schemes?

Am I misinformed that one of the main causes of debt in the US is healthcare?

[Laz116]

The question stands: Why should private corporations be better handling the health of people, when corporations by definition has no legal responsibility to anyone else than their shareholders?

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Apparently you do not know that my taxes already go toward saving the lives of poor people. We don't need a new system to do that.

What??? tell me you're not talking about the 0.1 % of GNP you give to the underdeveloped countries.


On a national scale I don't see how you taxes per se goes to saving the lives of the poor.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Laz116

What??? tell me you're not talking about the 0.1 % of GNP you give to the underdeveloped countries.


On a national scale I don't see how you taxes per se goes to saving the lives of the poor.

No, I'm talking about the fact that anyone who goes into an emergency room will be treated. The cost of those who can't pay is partially covered by taxes, and the rest is absorbed by those who can pay.

[PKFFW]

So let me see if I get this.......

Socialised police.......ok
Socialised fire brigade.......ok
Socialised schools......ok

Socialised healthcare.......bad?

As for "the poor get great healthcare free of cost already", lets be honest here, they get health care if it is a life and death situation. Otherwise they get bupkis. You go rupture your ACL, turn up to an emergency centre and need a knee reconstruction and see how far you get without health insurance. They will stabilise your condition and send you on your way.

As has been mentioned before, in every "western" socialist health system I have ever heard of one can still opt in for health inusrance. The rich can still get better health care if they are willing to pay for it. It's just that the poor and lower classes still have some hope of getting things, other than life and death emergencies, cared for.

So I personally don't see the problem.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

No, I'm talking about the fact that anyone who goes into an emergency room will be treated. The cost of those who can't pay is partially covered by taxes, and the rest is absorbed by those who can pay.

What about those with preexisting conditions. Not all ills are derived from an axe in the head, you know.

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So let me see if I get this.......

Socialised police.......ok
Socialised fire brigade.......ok
Socialised schools......ok

Socialised healthcare.......bad?

As for "the poor get great healthcare free of cost already", lets be honest here, they get health care if it is a life and death situation. Otherwise they get bupkis. You go rupture your ACL, turn up to an emergency centre and need a knee reconstruction and see how far you get without health insurance. They will stabilise your condition and send you on your way.

As has been mentioned before, in every "western" socialist health system I have ever heard of one can still opt in for health inusrance. The rich can still get better health care if they are willing to pay for it. It's just that the poor and lower classes still have some hope of getting things, other than life and death emergencies, cared for.

So I personally don't see the problem.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Sounds reasonably to me. But then again I live in the country with the highest tax rate in the world (and I'm willing to pay more).

[Donnageddon]

I have literally dozens of family members in Canada (cousins, uncles aunts, etc) and NONE of them would trade their healthcare system for one dependent on their employers providing it (and thus losing it when unemployed for any reason) or going personally bankrupt when a major medical issue arises in the family (with insurance or not).

This is not even considering the current US insurance industry practice of rejecting people with pre-existing conditions. Let alone the fact that the insurance industry is just sucking off billions of dollars from the American economy and providing nothing of value.

The lies propagated by the right wing fringe and insurance industry in this debate is astoundingly horrific.

There is NOTHING in the bills making the rounds in congress that willl:

- force anyone to join the public option. It is an OPTION. If you are satisfied with your insurance. you keep it.
- Death Panels. This is such an outlandish lie, it borders on criminal. The section of the House bill concerns reimbursement for VOLUNTARY CONSULTATIONS with a doctor for end of life planning, such as living will, medical power of attorney (given to a relative). My mother who passed away recently had a living will, and I can not say how important it was, and how thankful we are she had one (let alone how happy she was to know her wished would be carried out) To turn this into Death Panels run by the government is a damnable lie!

- rationing healthcare

- National ID cards ( the links in the many fringe spam emails try to describe the card used for the OPTIONAL public insurance)

- government access to your bank accounts, or any of the other nonsensical claims the wingnut fringe is trying to scare gullible Americans with.

And if anyone cares to provide a complete quote (from a bill not a wingnut website or talk radio host or spam email) that shows that any of this in the reform bills out there, post it. I would love to see it.

I am so sick of the distortions and lies about this desperately needed healthcare reform I could scream.

It is time for us to join the rest of the civilized world and get reasonable healthcare coverage for all. And get the Insurance Industry out of our pockets and stop them from obstructing the decisions made between you and your doctor. insurance companies are required to make a profit for their stockholders, and the best way they have to accomplish that is by denying YOU healthcare. And they make LOTS of profits.

And currently when a person ends up in an emergency room because he has no insurance we pay for it with taxes and increased health premiums. That is horrendously expensive, both due the the expense of emergency room treatment, and that preemptive care (regular access to a primary care physician) is much more cost effective, and obviously has much better health outcomes.

The Healthcare reform planned now will lower costs, increase availability for everyone (and lessen the worry of losing healthcare due to job loss, or even denial of health insurance due to pre-existing conditions). And best of all for if you like the insurance you have now you can keep it.

How can you argue with that? Only with distortions and irrationality.

And we obviously have an ample supply of that out there.

[Donnageddon]

I think HarryT's original post said it best. The fringe is so desperate to defeat reform that they will pull any lie out of their bag of tricks, even when they haven't the first clue what they are talking about.

[Laz116]

Well obviously, if anyone hadn't guessed by now, I think that it is a mark of greatness if you are so rich that you can treat people equally.

After all: what other measurement is there for developed nations, other than how you treat the minorities and the weak?

How are you a developed nation if you do not take care of those?

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by Laz116

Well obviously, if anyone hadn't guessed by now, I think that it is a mark of greatness if you are so rich that you can treat people equally.

After all: what other measurement is there for developed nations, other than how you treat the minorities and the weak?

How are you a developed nation if you do not take care of those?

It's not just "minorities" and the weak, there are far too many middle class families losing everything under our current system.

[Madam Broshkina]

Originally Posted by Laz116

Well obviously, if anyone hadn't guessed by now, I think that it is a mark of greatness if you are so rich that you can treat people equally.

After all: what other measurement is there for developed nations, other than how you treat the minorities and the weak?

How are you a developed nation if you do not take care of those?

We did elect a a member of the minority to be the President of the United States. It was in all the papers.