Quote :

"So you're telling me that 46.6 million americans are driving BMW's instead of getting insurance?"

You would be pretty fucking surprised. I sometimes take a shortcut through a trailor park back home in Charlotte and I have seen BMW's and even a corvette. Yet, they are living in a trashy trailor.

9/19/2007 12:38:14 PM

great article and summary:

only 12 percent of health-care costs are paid out of pocket, and the government already pays almost half of health-care costs. Liberals need only push this system toward its logical conclusion.

Because the private health-insurance market doesn’t function properly, the government is left to pick up the pieces. But it is government policies that distort the health-insurance market in the first place. Ideally, people would pay for their own health insurance, the way they do with, say, auto insurance. But the tax code favors insurance that people get through their employers.

This creates all sorts of problems. Because employers pay for their insurance, for most people the costs of health care are essentially hidden. They have no incentive to shop around for cost-effective plans. Meanwhile, when people lose their jobs, they tend to lose their insurance — exactly when they probably need it most.

This creates an expensive system that’s anxiety-inducing for people who worry about losing their insurance. The way the system is set up makes it difficult and expensive for individuals to buy insurance, which is one reason why 47 million Americans are uninsured.

Clinton’s plan would make this ramshackle system worse. She proposes more regulations on insurers and a mandate on large employers to provide insurance coverage or pay a tax. The regulations will make insurance even more expensive, while the employer mandate would only augment the current senseless system of people getting insurance through their jobs.

This means that the private-insurance market would, in all likelihood, continue to break down. And, of course, government will be there to keep increasing its market share.

9/19/2007 12:40:48 PM

Quote :

"you're an idiot and talking out of your ass. i'm from canada and didn't experience any of that. 3 days at most. wow, a whopping 3 days. if its serious, same day no problem. maybe 17 weeks for something such as a physical. "

haha, just the first one I came to. If you mean a couple of days in the STATES is no problem, then I guess you are correct.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/253664

Lindsay McCreith, 66, of Newmarket and Shona Holmes, 43, of Waterdown filed a joint statement of claim yesterday against the province of Ontario. Both say their health suffered because they are denied the right to access care outside of Ontario's "government-run monopolistic" health-care system. They want to be able to buy private health insurance.

Ontario's "monopoly" over essential health services and its delay in providing the services have left both patients to "endure significant financial, emotional and physical hardship to access such services in the United States," states the claim .

The accusations made in the statement of claim have not been proven in court.

Holmes began losing her vision in March 2005, she told a press conference at Queen's Park yesterday. An MRI in May 2005 revealed a tumour in her brain. Her family doctor couldn't expedite appointments booked with specialists for July 19 and Sept. 19, 2005. As the tumour pressed on her optic nerves, her vision deteriorated. Afraid to wait any longer, she went to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Within a week she met three specialists and was told she had a fluid-filled sac growing near her pituitary gland at the base of her brain. They urged her to have it taken out immediately. She went home with the hopes of quickly removing what is known as a Rathke's cleft cyst.

Unable to get surgery fast, she returned to Arizona and had the mass removed on Aug. 1, 2005. Her vision was restored in 10 days. The Holmes family is now in debt $95,000 because of medical costs.

And then thier is the part about 17 weeks coming out of my ass. LOL
here your go aye:

Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=705

Longest average was 33 weeks.

Great system. Ok Mr. Jones we have discovered the problem, the good news is you have a tumor, the bad news is its going to take 8 months before we can treat it.

9/19/2007 12:48:02 PM

Quote :

"what if there is something really serious that affects a lot of people? still same day no problem? or rich people in front of the line, poor people in the back? ^btw what were your income tax rate and sales tax rate when you lived in Canada?"

sales tax was 8%, very similar to here. income tax was 22% + $5800. which really isn't that much different than here when you consider everything you get.

As for the lines. rich and poor people were in the same lines. it was first come, first serve. money didnt play an issue. and what do you mean if something really serious that affects a lot of people. are we discussing ebola outbreak or something here? i think even if something like that were to explode in the US the current system would have large wait times. but no, really, be more descriptive on something really serious that affects a lot and i'll answer it sincerely.

^i have never experienced such. but i do see that yours is about specialist. i have never had to go to a major specialist. when i said serious i was talking broken bones or something of that level. i am not familiar with anyone who has needed to go to a specialist for anything as immediate as that so i can't really comment on it. every system does have its flaws.

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ^]

9/19/2007 12:49:12 PM

The flaws are govt intervention, in my opinion. Thanks for your insight. Its always good to hear someones first hand knowledge.

I love this video about tax day in canada.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_hB63qSMhQ0

The damn canadian PM just went to the US to get treatment. LOL, oh yeah sign me up hllary.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914?hub=Health

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2007 12:56:22 PM

i mean if your'e rich and the best doctor is some place else thats reasonable for you to go to then why not. that says nothing about their health care system.

9/19/2007 1:05:46 PM

We already have universal health care. What we don't have is an efficient universal health care system.

The status quo is people who have insurance subsidizing anyone that walks into the ER off the street.

9/19/2007 1:09:27 PM

health care is not a right.

It's a privilege that's a function of technology.

If the government wants to get involved, then they should have to compete in the free market like everyone else. If they can truly come up with a better system, then they'll win market share through lower prices, and either put the gougers out of business or drive down health care costs overall.

9/19/2007 1:11:53 PM

universal emergency health care is not the same thing as universal health care.

9/19/2007 1:12:03 PM

- govt introduces "universal health care"
- govt subcontracts all health care services to private industries
- govt gets percentage points on yet another hustle under the guise of appealing to emotion

9/19/2007 1:21:19 PM

Sure it is. Why, I bet if I got cancer right now I could walk into the ER and they'd fix me right up.

9/19/2007 1:22:45 PM

Quote :

"health care is not a right."

and why not. why is good health not a right.

should the firemen and police also have to compete in a free market as well. i dont see how having either of those protection agencies is any more of a right than health care.

9/19/2007 2:12:27 PM

Quote :

"universal emergency health care is not the same thing as universal health care."

And that's not necessarily universal. Private hospitals are only required to take people in if they're dying. Public (county-owned) hospitals take in everyone. So what occurs is cause they don't have any insurance, some people will just use an ER as a doctor's office. Some of it is written off as bad debt or as free care as part of the county-run hospital's obligation as a non-profit enterprise. But also what happens is everyone else's insurance pays for those people as well. My mom's a CFO at the county-owned hospital in Morehead City, and she's told me these things.

Quote :

"The damn canadian PM just went to the US to get treatment. LOL, oh yeah sign me up hllary."

Because of high costs, more Americans are going to Mexico to get operations done.

9/19/2007 2:23:10 PM

Quote :

"and why not. why is good health not a right"

cause its not

omg why arent free cheeseburgers a right

why dont i have the right to always live in a mansion

9/19/2007 2:30:29 PM

It's great that you didn't answer the second half of his question. Did your master salisburyboy teach you how to only answer parts of questions with stupid overblown statements?

9/19/2007 2:36:43 PM

yep...my "master salisburyboy" told me that health care isnt a right enumerated in any federal or state constitution

maybe you could point out where people are guaranteed "free" health care? you probably cant though, since its not a right

go back to trying to appeal to peoples emotions on some "omg have some compassion!" type lame argument

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2007 2:45:00 PM

I never claimed it was a right, I said it would be for the betterment of America as a whole, as opposed to say, wasting trillions on a war that's making everyone around the world hate us and therefore making us less safe.

You still failed to answer his question about police and fire departments having a right to be controlled by the government. What about the airwaves being controlled by the FCC?

9/19/2007 2:53:39 PM

You can classify his politics by what hes tried to do all you like. I can get behind preventing terrorism, improving health care, and improving education. And if his attempts to do those things weren't always such royal fuck ups it would be great. Most presidents we remember well did one thing very well. Won a war, bailed out the economy, built or rebuilt a large part of our government. What has bush done that didn't suck?

9/19/2007 3:15:30 PM

Quote :

"should the firemen and police also have to compete in a free market as well. i dont see how having either of those protection agencies is any more of a right than health care."

Well to be fair, other than "emergencies" you don't have any rights with respect to the police or the fire department. The courts have ruled that police have no obligation to protect any individual, just the public at large, and I'm sure were it pressed, the fire departments have no obligation to save any individual house again just the public at large. The police are under no obligation to check your house when you come home for the day, nor to provide you with armed escort through town. The fire departments are not obligated to test your smoke detectors, nor provide you with free fire extinguishers. That the only "universal" form of health care is mainly emergency care is not out of line in comparison to other services.

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : edit]

9/19/2007 3:17:47 PM

Quote :

"What has bush done that didn't suck?"

well lets look at the Iraq War...its obviously been a polarizing topic over the last 4 1/2 years...but nobody will really know the overall effect for another couple decades

9/19/2007 3:30:48 PM

a lot of debt.

it was/is a huge waste of money.

9/19/2007 3:32:09 PM

during WW2 you could say thats a huge waste of money

but again, it takes time to see the overall effects

I'm not saying the Iraq War will be some huge success...I'm saying we don't know if it will be remembered as a success or failure because all of us are looking at it in a "trees" perspective instead of a "forest" perspective...we can see that X number of people died today in a bomb, or that Y neighborhood is now safer...but those are tiny details...the overall effect wont be evident for some time

9/19/2007 3:33:56 PM

Well, to be honest, WW2 was a great waste of lives and money, presuming we could have somehow convinced the germans to not invade Poland...

9/19/2007 3:38:04 PM

But this is more like if Germans invaded Poland so we attacked Russia, knowing that if it came up, Russia would probably side with the people who attacked our allies, then got caught up in fighting their allies while trying to rebuild their economy. All the while continuing to make deals with Germany because their profitable trading partners who our president has a lot of stock in.

9/19/2007 3:51:55 PM

Quote :

"What has bush done that didn't suck?"

Extended daylight savings time from march-nov instead of april-oct

Quote :

"during WW2 you could say thats a huge waste of money but again, it takes time to see the overall effects"

There is no way you can compare the war in Iraq to WW2. Last time I checked Iraq did not surprise attack one of our major military/navy bases nor was he gobbling up the entire middle East. No one better mention Kuwait b.c that would be like if we let Germany take over Europe then wait till 1952 to decide that we had enough of the Nazi bullshit deciding to invade years after the initial war had ended.

The only recent comparable war in a warped way would be Vietnam. Although Iraq was not already having a civil war due to a US supported autocratic regime.

9/19/2007 4:15:22 PM

^pick any war you want...my comparison is valid

the circumstances of the war don't matter for the point i'm making...regardles of the war, people talking about the war during the war (like we're doing right now) only had short-sighted specific perspectives...we can talk about WW2 fairly easily nowadays because not only do we know lots about the few years the war lasted, but we know it was worth it based on seeing all the axis powers essentially being "good" nowadays

We won't know the longterm effects of the Iraq War until many many years after the war ends

9/19/2007 5:01:52 PM

so we should just let wars that are going badly go on endlessly because there's no way to judge their progress while they're going on?

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 6:21 PM. Reason : didn't realize this was the health care thread, plz to go back on-topic]

9/19/2007 6:13:32 PM

should we have just left WW2 after so many D-Day casualties?

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 6:52 PM. Reason : get back on topic]

9/19/2007 6:51:51 PM

Quote :

"You would be pretty fucking surprised. I sometimes take a shortcut through a trailor park back home in Charlotte and I have seen BMW's and even a corvette. Yet, they are living in a trashy trailor."

I bet I know the trailer park

right outside matthews?

my ex fiancee's sister lives there with her 2 kids lol lol lol lol

9/19/2007 6:59:45 PM

Quote :

"It's a privilege that's a function of technology."

A-FUCK!ing-men.

Quote :

"Focus more on preventative healthcare, give people incentives to stop smoking and eating a quadruple cheeseburger."

Well, how about the current incentive not to smoke or get fat? You know, the one that says that if you do that shit, it's gonna cost you a ton of money? And the best part? The gubment doesn't have to pay a cent for that incentive!

Quote :

"they see very little problems with the current health system"

WRONG! Most people see a problem with the current health system. It's just that those you are lambasting see the problem as being the government itself and its effect on the system. Thus, to them it is ludicrous to use the problem as part of the solution.

I also just loooooove the idea that in order to reduce the cost of health insurance, we should use a system that has been proven to waste at least 50cents of every dollar it obtains. That really makes sense. Paying at least double the cost somehow makes it cheaper, right?

9/19/2007 7:10:39 PM

Quote :

"Well, how about the current incentive not to smoke or get fat? You know, the one that says that if you do that shit, it's gonna cost you a ton of money? And the best part? The gubment doesn't have to pay a cent for that incentive!"

and we see how well that's working.

9/20/2007 9:45:55 AM

thats because the biggest abusers are given their healthcare, and only the taxpayers feel the pain.
Govt needs to get out of healthcare.

9/20/2007 10:24:26 AM

Quote :

" I bet I know the trailer park right outside matthews?"

haha yeah.

Quote :

"should we have just left WW2 after so many D-Day casualties?"

u are trolling or just being retarted if you really try to compare WW2 to Iraq Invasion 2. Unless that is if the role of the US in Iraq Invasion 2 is that of Nazi Germany in WW2, which is still a bad comparison

9/20/2007 11:01:54 AM

^I think his point was more of the attitude of americans now to cut and run when we get bad news or faced with a horrible incident vs. before, moreso than the cause of the wars. I might be wrong though.

9/20/2007 11:53:16 AM

^ I think part of that is b/c of how much we can see going on in a war zone now. In WWII days, there was no internet or instant digital communication. Now anyone in Iraq can start a blog and post horrific images that show how bad war really is. I think people now have an easier time seeing that war isn't some heroic, chivalrous endeavor that it was once romanticized to be. I think that if people in the US during WWII could see first hand how bad things were the way we can today, there would have been a lot more protest against the war.

9/20/2007 12:03:07 PM

so if we had had modern media coverage back in the 1940s during WW2 we wouldve seen some bad shit

and people would say "we must leave this place, this is an unjust war, why are we even here"

but obviously in hindsight we know it was good for the WORLD that we stayed in WW2

so how are people so quick to say we should leave Iraq since we see US casualties?

and please spare me your further "omg iraq and ww2 are nothing alike" and actually focus on my analogy, not your own tangents

[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2007 12:19:17 PM

I could not agree more opstand.

9/20/2007 12:21:54 PM

you are still comparing apples and oranges.

Iraqi citizens do not want us there
Iraq did not attack the US
Iraq was not in the process of gobbling up our allies

The brave young men of the time felt a calling at the time even w/o the draft to join the military to stop the Axis powers. Politicians and citizens alike all knew the cost of war (in lives and economically) feeling the need to stop the Nazis and Japan deemed the war necessary.

Iraq Invasion 2 is a completely different situations. Most other major world powers not suckling off the US teats were against the invasion. 4 years later the majority of Americans are against the war which shows in the polls and the loss of so many seats within congress by republicans (along with other political issues). 1000's of Americans killed for the sake of Bush's oil interest (insert your favorite Bush reason for Iraq war here) is not worth it which is why people want us to withdrawal.

[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM. Reason : l]

9/20/2007 12:27:49 PM

Iraqi citizens dont want us there?

Quote :

"Leave, but not now," said Mohamed Ibrahim, a 22-year-old medical student who lives in Baghdad."

Iraq didn't attack the US, but neither did Germany or Italy

you're again failing to get the point...the point is more media coverage would automatically change the public perception of the war...regardless of how different the causes and reasons for WW2 and Iraq are, they are still wars that Americans are fighting/fought in...more media coverage in ANY war shows the violence and tragedy of war

But you just cant tell if Iraq will be worth it or not cause its too early to tell

9/20/2007 12:32:16 PM

^^ added an addition

So basically what you are telling me is that if WW2 happened today then the American people would probably throw their hands and demand an end of the war. We could then have peace talks w/ the 3rd Reich and Imperial Japan. You are forgetting that this technology is two sided. The Germans would see the greasily details of their own troops getting killed in order to conquer other countries. Casualties and wars suck but something tells me Americans given the situation of WW2 would be a little more tolerant to the cost of war. Btw a lot of the realistic picture of Iraq has been censored by American media for just that reason.

Your argument has no real scholarly merit. Any historical body, WW2 veteran, etc would laugh at you trying to compare WW2 to the shit going on in Iraq.

I would say Vietnam could be compared more to Iraq then the current situation



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/844nigml.asp

[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 12:45 PM. Reason : source]

9/20/2007 12:35:56 PM

you just dont get it...you try to make it a comparison between WW2 and Iraq...its not that...its a comparison between media coverage...you're just too eager to bash Iraq and Bush so that you can't think clearly

9/20/2007 12:57:18 PM

u r just way to smart for me i guess. i have just lost my mind waking up everyday looking for a reason to bash bush.

9/20/2007 1:03:43 PM

i think you're just more stubborn than a mule since you can't even let yourself see the point I'm trying to make

how can you not think if the average American in the 1940s had a high speed internet connection and cable tv (instead of 1 black and white tv per household with 6 channels) that there wouldnt be people like you back then saying we have to leave the european theatre, we're wasting innocent american lives for nothing, etc?

[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2007 1:05:11 PM

Quote :

"nstead of 1 black and white tv per household with 6 channels"

ummm. not to distract, but most 1940s americans didn't have tv's, nor did any of them have SIX channels.

9/20/2007 1:16:52 PM

Quote :

"how can you not think if the average American in the 1940s had a high speed internet connection and cable tv (instead of 1 black and white tv per household with 6 channels) that there wouldnt be people like you back then saying we have to leave the european theatre, we're wasting innocent american lives for nothing"

b.c our involvement in WW2 was provoked and justified. During this war the troops actually were "fighting for our freedom." Had the Axis parents gone unchecked even if we retained our sovereignty we would be in a humble state towards Germany, Italy, and Japan.

9/20/2007 1:37:40 PM

the TreeTwista10 method of internet arguments:

1. make stupid analogies
2. claim the other guy "doesn't get it"
3. call the other guy a troll and proclaim victory

9/20/2007 5:42:34 PM

yeah nobody else does that

but thanks for proving that you too are incapable of understanding simple comparisons like media coverage nowadays versus media coverage 60 years ago without going off on a tangent about how horrible the Iraq War is

[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 6:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2007 6:41:20 PM

Quote :

"but thanks for proving that you too are incapable of understanding simple comparisons like media coverage nowadays versus media coverage 60 years ago without going off on a tangent about how horrible the Iraq War is "

says the person who brought up the iraq war in a thread about health care in the first place.

[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 6:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2007 6:47:20 PM

yeah cause I was the first one to bring up Iraq in this thread

9/20/2007 6:49:03 PM

besides a tangential reference to funding conservative sketchiness by skankinmonkey, yes you were.

[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 6:50 PM. Reason : mis-remembered]

9/20/2007 6:50:16 PM