|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 2, 2009 12:42:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 2, 2009 13:20:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 2, 2009 15:37:13 GMT -8
I guess YOU didn't read the article you posted. Canada only has 33 million people in a population spread over a country larger than the U.S. Why wouldn't they take advantage of services in the U.S. that are closer than they are in Canada? BTW, those U.S. provided services were paid for by the Canadian Medicare system. I'm not saying that there are not issues with their system just like there are issues with our system. What I am saying is that it is a single payer system, patterned after our Medicare, that works. Healthcare is still private. Unless someone can identify what is wrong with the U.S. Medicare system as it relates to the quality and availability of healthcare, I'll argue for a single payer system until I'm blue in the face. Paying for it is another issue entirely. It is a problem that CAN be solved. And since Medicare (both U.S. and Canadian) is basically an 80 - 20 type plan, private insurance won't entirely go away either. I'm sorry, I just don't see any down side to a universal single payer system. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 2, 2009 15:57:37 GMT -8
>>I'm sorry, I just don't see any down side to a universal single payer system. <<
Lack of choice. Loss of freedom.
I'll argue against people like you arguing to force people into something they may not want until I'm blue in the face.
Medicare is going bankrupt. No one can deny that with a straight face. And more and more providers are declining to accept Medicare patients. Your single payer will result in medical professionals choosing another profession. What's left in the medical profession will be the least qualified, hired by the gummint at gummint slug salaries.
So where will they send us for quality health care when we have "Indian Reservation" style health care?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 2, 2009 18:55:04 GMT -8
One simply cannot ignore the fact that many Canadians come to the U.S. for health care rather than rely on their system. If the Canadian system were so great, we would not be hearing such stories.
Look, it's fairly simple. When a service is taken over by the government, the quality of service always. . . always! . . . declines. There is no way around this. And when unions get a strangle hold, the quality goes down even more because those unions are able to extort wages and benefits and working conditions that cannot be justified by the underlying economic realities of the system. When politics trumps economic realities, efficiency disappears.
Sure, millions and millions of people will say, probably honestly, that they think a government system is just fine. That's because they basically see that system as free to them. Of course, it's not free, somebody has to pay. But the politics of class warfare can go a long way toward making the bottom 50% of the population believe that the rich folks have screwed them and now it's their turn to get what should rightfully be theirs.
Many recipients of government largess may well be satisfied with such a system. Why is that so? Well, largely it's because most people are relatively healthy at any one time. Since most people's medical needs are minor, they probably don't mind waiting a while since they have to pay nothing (or so they think). That view is flawed.
The really important job of a health system is to keep people alive. And it's there that the inevitable rationing comes home to roost. It's one thing to wait for a minor procedure, or even for a procedure that will alleviate the pain a patient has been putting up with during a long wait for treatment. But if the wait means that by the time you see that specialist your illness, once treatable, has become terminal.. . . well, national health care doesn't seem so hot in that case.
Barack Obama and his ilk either are so unbelievably stupid that they do not understand that socialized medicine will necessitate fatal delays in getting treatment or else they judge such deaths a small price to pay for universal health insurance. Notice I did not say universal health care, since the quality of such care will not be improved.
Single payer perhaps seems fine until you realize that the system may well mean that your access to needed special treatment is limited. And what's worse, according to what I have heard, is that the Dems may want to criminalize private contracting between a patient and a doctor after the start of government health care. Needless to say, no one with even a minor degree of libertarian sympathy would react to that concept with anything other than alarm.
Oh, yes. Let's not forget that Ketchup Lady and here super, super rich chums will never, never be limited to waiting in line to see a doctor. They will be able to fly anywhere in the world where competent medical care can be obtained if the patient has enough money.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 3, 2009 14:40:20 GMT -8
>>>...the Dems may want to criminalize private contracting between a patient and a doctor after the start of government health care.<<< They will absolutely have to criminalize private contracting. If they allow anyone to spend their own money on their own medical treatment, it wouldn't be "fair", doncha know? You can be a "gazillionaire", and if you want to spend your money on treatment the gummint doesn't "approve", well tough $#!+. If you do, you and your doctor go to the slammer. If the gummint is so goddam worried about people having to pay too much for health care, why do they still have a 7 1/2% of AGI exclusion on your form 1040 schedule A deductions? If they wanted to do something meaningful, why haven't they done away with that?  Because it isn't about people going bankrupt. It is about CONTROL! Oh, another point: "Maybe Congress should fix the health system it already runs before assuming the arrogance to fix the one that works perfectly well for the vast majority of Americans." hotair.com/archives/2009/09/01/indian-health-service-the-single-payer-system-experience/ |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 3, 2009 15:39:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 4, 2009 6:50:11 GMT -8
The really important job of a health system is to keep people alive. And it's there that the inevitable rationing comes home to roost. It's one thing to wait for a minor procedure, or even for a procedure that will alleviate the pain a patient has been putting up with during a long wait for treatment. But if the wait means that by the time you see that specialist your illness, once treatable, has become terminal.. . . well, national health care doesn't seem so hot in that case. Barack Obama and his ilk either are so unbelievably stupid that they do not understand that socialized medicine will necessitate fatal delays in getting treatment or else they judge such deaths a small price to pay for universal health insurance. Notice I did not say universal health care, since the quality of such care will not be improved. And you and your ilk are so unbelievably stupid that you don't realize that insurance companies already have fatal delays in treatment and more to the point, love to drop people with life-threatening illnesses. I still find it hilarious that the three people on here who argue the most against any sort of government health care consist of two people who've had government health care pretty much their entire adult lives and a third who is on Medicare. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 4, 2009 13:38:06 GMT -8
>>>And you and your ilk are so unbelievably stupid that you don't realize that insurance companies already have fatal delays in treatment and more to the point, love to drop people with life-threatening illnesses.<<<the =Perfesser
Prove it.
>>>I still find it hilarious that the three people on here who argue the most against any sort of government health care consist of two people who've had government [employer REQUIRED under penalty of law] health care pretty much their entire adult lives and a third who [since 1965 has paid into and now] is on [has the option of using] Medicare.<<<the Perfesser
Fixed it for ya.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 4, 2009 15:07:31 GMT -8
>>>And you and your ilk are so unbelievably stupid that you don't realize that insurance companies already have fatal delays in treatment and more to the point, love to drop people with life-threatening illnesses.<<<the =Perfesser Prove it. >>>I still find it hilarious that the three people on here who argue the most against any sort of government health care consist of two people who've had government [employer REQUIRED under penalty of law] health care pretty much their entire adult lives and a third who [since 1965 has paid into and now] is on [has the option of using] Medicare.<<<the Perfesser Fixed it for ya. What =Bob does not understand is that you (and I) have paid for the health care system(s) that we have. Tricare was an imputed portion of my pay and I have been paying into Medicare and SS since 1956 or 57. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 4, 2009 15:32:06 GMT -8
>>>And you and your ilk are so unbelievably stupid that you don't realize that insurance companies already have fatal delays in treatment and more to the point, love to drop people with life-threatening illnesses.<<<the =Perfesser Prove it. >>>I still find it hilarious that the three people on here who argue the most against any sort of government health care consist of two people who've had government [employer REQUIRED under penalty of law] health care pretty much their entire adult lives and a third who [since 1965 has paid into and now] is on [has the option of using] Medicare.<<<the Perfesser Fixed it for ya. What =Bob does not understand is that you (and I) have paid for the health care system(s) that we have. Tricare was an imputed portion of my pay and I have been paying into Medicare and SS since 1956 or 57. Yes, well... SS since 1958, and Medicare since 1965 (when it was instituted). No "opt out" unless you were a congress-piece-of-crap, or a federal employee before about 1978. Tricare is not "free". Anything that might be "imputed" would be the lower premiums compared to a strictly private policy. A big point that many people don't get about military medical care is that active duty members HAVE NO CHOICE. They MUST use the uniformed service facility, and if they go outside, on the civilian economy, for medical care of any kind they are subject to disciplinary action. Of course, in the field or deployed there isn't any choice at all. Most units have only a medic or corpsman to deal with medical issues. They are service members just like any other, and most of them are damned good. But they are not "doctors". Yes, if the issue is serious enough, you'll eventually get to see a doctor. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 4, 2009 18:24:50 GMT -8
>>>And you and your ilk are so unbelievably stupid that you don't realize that insurance companies already have fatal delays in treatment and more to the point, love to drop people with life-threatening illnesses.<<<the =Perfesser Prove it. >>>I still find it hilarious that the three people on here who argue the most against any sort of government health care consist of two people who've had government [employer REQUIRED under penalty of law] health care pretty much their entire adult lives and a third who [since 1965 has paid into and now] is on [has the option of using] Medicare.<<<the Perfesser Fixed it for ya. What =Bob does not understand is that you (and I) have paid for the health care system(s) that we have. Tricare was an imputed portion of my pay and I have been paying into Medicare and SS since 1956 or 57. What's amazing to me is that you continue to offer the Nav bitch that you are somehow deprived while you have had national health care since the day you joined up but want to deprive others of having what you have enjoyed. Tell me something - do you really believe that nobody other than vets have paid into Medicare and SS? And given when Medicare was instituted, how stupid is it to claim you've been paying into it since the '50s? Either way, it doesn't matter. What you, Dave and Will represent are 3 old farts, two of which have enjoyed government health care your entire adult lives and, with William, someone who most likely enjoyed employer health care until he became old enough to get on Medicare. Let's face a rather simple face, Pooh. You assume that because you served in the Nav you are "owed" something that anyone who did not serve in the military is "owed". In short, you believe yourself to be part of some privileged class of people that the government should take care of while the citizens who paid their taxes in order to pay your salary can rot. I've written before about my friend, whose father was a mustang lifer, stating that the military is the greatest welfare system in this country. I'm sure that pisses you off, but it is a fairly simple equation; join the Nav, float on boats for 20 years (and I do separate Dave from you on this since he apparently was a "swifty") and then retire before you are 40 and get free health care for the rest of your life. And while you are at it, demand that nobody other than you get health care because you oh, so, sacrificed by floating on boats. I don't need to prove my statements. All you need to do is a bit of research to discover how it works within the health industry. Of course, you won't do that because you've got government run health care and you have never had to deal with private insurance companies and what they do to people. But, as always, you claim to be a "Christian" who actually cares about others. You are a total hypocrite. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2009 8:41:48 GMT -8
What =Bob does not understand is that you (and I) have paid for the health care system(s) that we have. Tricare was an imputed portion of my pay and I have been paying into Medicare and SS since 1956 or 57. What's amazing to me is that you continue to offer the Nav bitch that you are somehow deprived while you have had national health care since the day you joined up but want to deprive others of having what you have enjoyed. Tell me something - do you really believe that nobody other than vets have paid into Medicare and SS? And given when Medicare was instituted, how stupid is it to claim you've been paying into it since the '50s? Either way, it doesn't matter. What you, Dave and Will represent are 3 old farts, two of which have enjoyed government health care your entire adult lives and, with William, someone who most likely enjoyed employer health care until he became old enough to get on Medicare. Let's face a rather simple face, Pooh. You assume that because you served in the Nav you are "owed" something that anyone who did not serve in the military is "owed". In short, you believe yourself to be part of some privileged class of people that the government should take care of while the citizens who paid their taxes in order to pay your salary can rot. I've written before about my friend, whose father was a mustang lifer, stating that the military is the greatest welfare system in this country. I'm sure that pisses you off, but it is a fairly simple equation; join the Nav, float on boats for 20 years (and I do separate Dave from you on this since he apparently was a "swifty") and then retire before you are 40 and get free health care for the rest of your life. And while you are at it, demand that nobody other than you get health care because you oh, so, sacrificed by floating on boats. I don't need to prove my statements. All you need to do is a bit of research to discover how it works within the health industry. Of course, you won't do that because you've got government run health care and you have never had to deal with private insurance companies and what they do to people. But, as always, you claim to be a "Christian" who actually cares about others. You are a total hypocrite. =Bob Once again you prove that you have either a reading comprehension problem, a limited understanding of "impute" along with a complete disregard for the servicemen and their sacrifice for your benefit or most likely both. Those who serve are paying for their benefits often with their lives. Now you short sighted and callous liberals want to rob both the elderly and servicemen of what they have paid for. I think you should rethink who is the self serving hypocrite in this discussion. Those living up to their obligation and expecting the government to do the same or you liberals wanting to take it away with this "slight of hand" change to the rationing and decrease in quality that could become ObamaKare if independents don't wake up. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 5, 2009 14:33:57 GMT -8
What =Bob does not understand is that you (and I) have paid for the health care system(s) that we have. Tricare was an imputed portion of my pay and I have been paying into Medicare and SS since 1956 or 57. What's amazing to me is that you continue to offer the Nav bitch that you are somehow deprived while you have had national health care since the day you joined up but want to deprive others of having what you have enjoyed. Tell me something - do you really believe that nobody other than vets have paid into Medicare and SS? And given when Medicare was instituted, how stupid is it to claim you've been paying into it since the '50s? Either way, it doesn't matter. What you, Dave and Will represent are 3 old farts, two of which have enjoyed government health care your entire adult lives and, with William, someone who most likely enjoyed employer health care until he became old enough to get on Medicare. Let's face a rather simple face, Pooh. You assume that because you served in the Nav you are "owed" something that anyone who did not serve in the military is "owed". In short, you believe yourself to be part of some privileged class of people that the government should take care of while the citizens who paid their taxes in order to pay your salary can rot. I've written before about my friend, whose father was a mustang lifer, stating that the military is the greatest welfare system in this country. I'm sure that pisses you off, but it is a fairly simple equation; join the Nav, float on boats for 20 years (and I do separate Dave from you on this since he apparently was a "swifty") and then retire before you are 40 and get free health care for the rest of your life. And while you are at it, demand that nobody other than you get health care because you oh, so, sacrificed by floating on boats. I don't need to prove my statements. All you need to do is a bit of research to discover how it works within the health industry. Of course, you won't do that because you've got government run health care and you have never had to deal with private insurance companies and what they do to people. But, as always, you claim to be a "Christian" who actually cares about others. You are a total hypocrite. =Bob You don't have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to military health care. Once again, active duty members are REQUIRED <repeat> REQUIRED to use military medical facilities. THERE IS NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. After retirement, they are offered civilian health insurance for which premiums have to be paid for anything close to full coverage. And that is contracted out to a civilian insurance company. And they DO limit what they will cover. At least in retirement, a retiree can go out of the system and pay out of pocket, as I did when I needed a biopsy not long ago. You seem to think that no one should have to actually DO anything to earn a benefit, and that those who did earn a benefit should now have to pay for those who didn't. Typical. If you think everyone should be on Medicare from the get go, without the years and years of paying into it, fine. Let them buy into it with a lump sum. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 6, 2009 6:47:25 GMT -8
The really important job of a health system is to keep people alive. And it's there that the inevitable rationing comes home to roost. It's one thing to wait for a minor procedure, or even for a procedure that will alleviate the pain a patient has been putting up with during a long wait for treatment. But if the wait means that by the time you see that specialist your illness, once treatable, has become terminal.. . . well, national health care doesn't seem so hot in that case. Barack Obama and his ilk either are so unbelievably stupid that they do not understand that socialized medicine will necessitate fatal delays in getting treatment or else they judge such deaths a small price to pay for universal health insurance. Notice I did not say universal health care, since the quality of such care will not be improved. And you and your ilk are so unbelievably stupid that you don't realize that insurance companies already have fatal delays in treatment and more to the point, love to drop people with life-threatening illnesses. I still find it hilarious that the three people on here who argue the most against any sort of government health care consist of two people who've had government health care pretty much their entire adult lives and a third who is on Medicare. =Bob What you are doing here is making the case of insurance reform, not some huge government takeover that will victimize all Medicare seniors and those who have made the sacrifice to be able to use Tricare. That and your usual incredibly poor choice of language in making a point. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 6, 2009 6:54:36 GMT -8
What's amazing to me is that you continue to offer the Nav bitch that you are somehow deprived while you have had national health care since the day you joined up but want to deprive others of having what you have enjoyed. Tell me something - do you really believe that nobody other than vets have paid into Medicare and SS? And given when Medicare was instituted, how stupid is it to claim you've been paying into it since the '50s? Either way, it doesn't matter. What you, Dave and Will represent are 3 old farts, two of which have enjoyed government health care your entire adult lives and, with William, someone who most likely enjoyed employer health care until he became old enough to get on Medicare. Let's face a rather simple face, Pooh. You assume that because you served in the Nav you are "owed" something that anyone who did not serve in the military is "owed". In short, you believe yourself to be part of some privileged class of people that the government should take care of while the citizens who paid their taxes in order to pay your salary can rot. I've written before about my friend, whose father was a mustang lifer, stating that the military is the greatest welfare system in this country. I'm sure that pisses you off, but it is a fairly simple equation; join the Nav, float on boats for 20 years (and I do separate Dave from you on this since he apparently was a "swifty") and then retire before you are 40 and get free health care for the rest of your life. And while you are at it, demand that nobody other than you get health care because you oh, so, sacrificed by floating on boats. I don't need to prove my statements. All you need to do is a bit of research to discover how it works within the health industry. Of course, you won't do that because you've got government run health care and you have never had to deal with private insurance companies and what they do to people. But, as always, you claim to be a "Christian" who actually cares about others. You are a total hypocrite. =Bob You don't have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to military health care. Once again, active duty members are REQUIRED <repeat> REQUIRED to use military medical facilities. THERE IS NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. After retirement, they are offered civilian health insurance for which premiums have to be paid for anything close to full coverage. And that is contracted out to a civilian insurance company. And they DO limit what they will cover. At least in retirement, a retiree can go out of the system and pay out of pocket, as I did when I needed a biopsy not long ago. You seem to think that no one should have to actually DO anything to earn a benefit, and that those who did earn a benefit should now have to pay for those who didn't. Typical. If you think everyone should be on Medicare from the get go, without the years and years of paying into it, fine. Let them buy into it with a lump sum. I have pointed out how Tricare as it has evolved into what it is today is not near what we were promised and what we paid for. You have done that as well. My experience with dealing with it was much more involved than a biopsy and required an "ombudsman" who knew how take the steps needed to get the care required for my wife. It was still quite expensive and involved multiple steps and lots of work to get care that should have been available with no hassle. I won't go into details again, but just so you know that the Military Hospitals can do what they and their Doctors want to do and that is not possible under the contracted Tricare. We had a good outcome, but at considerable cost in both time and money for what should have been provided up front. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 6, 2009 13:35:33 GMT -8
>>I've written before about my friend, whose father was a mustang lifer, stating that the military is the greatest welfare system in this country.<<the Perfesser
I have to wonder if the =Perfesser actually heard this first-hand from the "mustang lifer", or if it was hearsay passed on by his buddy telling him something he wanted to hear.
Either way, I would pay to see some jackass say that up front and personal right in the face of a Gold Star family member. The jackass would probably get his lights punched out.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 6, 2009 14:19:17 GMT -8
You don't have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to military health care. Once again, active duty members are REQUIRED <repeat> REQUIRED to use military medical facilities. THERE IS NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. After retirement, they are offered civilian health insurance for which premiums have to be paid for anything close to full coverage. And that is contracted out to a civilian insurance company. And they DO limit what they will cover. At least in retirement, a retiree can go out of the system and pay out of pocket, as I did when I needed a biopsy not long ago. You seem to think that no one should have to actually DO anything to earn a benefit, and that those who did earn a benefit should now have to pay for those who didn't. Typical. If you think everyone should be on Medicare from the get go, without the years and years of paying into it, fine. Let them buy into it with a lump sum. I have pointed out how Tricare as it has evolved into what it is today is not near what we were promised and what we paid for. You have done that as well. My experience with dealing with it was much more involved than a biopsy and required an "ombudsman" who knew how take the steps needed to get the care required for my wife. It was still quite expensive and involved multiple steps and lots of work to get care that should have been available with no hassle. I won't go into details again, but just so you know that the Military Hospitals can do what they and their Doctors want to do and that is not possible under the contracted Tricare. We had a good outcome, but at considerable cost in both time and money for what should have been provided up front. Understood. It is interesting that the HUGE lib, Frank Lautenberg, was successful in getting an amendment approved to S. 1390, the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Bill, which passed 87-7. It cited "the need to sustain a military health benefit consistent with the unique demands and sacrifices inherent in a military career..." Shows how far out on the whacked out left-wing fringe people like the =Perfesser really are. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 16, 2009 17:22:16 GMT -8
>>I've written before about my friend, whose father was a mustang lifer, stating that the military is the greatest welfare system in this country.<<the Perfesser I have to wonder if the =Perfesser actually heard this first-hand from the "mustang lifer", or if it was hearsay passed on by his buddy telling him something he wanted to hear. Either way, I would pay to see some jackass say that up front and personal right in the face of a Gold Star family member. The jackass would probably get his lights punched out. That "jackass" is a member of a gold star family and yes, I have heard him state that first hand. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 16, 2009 17:28:07 GMT -8
Understood. It is interesting that the HUGE lib, Frank Lautenberg, was successful in getting an amendment approved to S. 1390, the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Bill, which passed 87-7. It cited "the need to sustain a military health benefit consistent with the unique demands and sacrifices inherent in a military career..." Shows how far out on the whacked out left-wing fringe people like the =Perfesser really are. Never said there weren't unique demands and sacrifices inherent in a military career. However, it was the career you and other lifers chose, so how much you can complain about it is questionable. There are always jobs that take men away from their families, but most of them do not get free health care and (often) cheap housing. I actually have no problem at all with the benefits our military gets. What bothers me that you have a problem with others getting the same benefits. =Bob |
|
