Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Canadians realize that they have tremendous security due to 2 oceans. And if you did any reading on it at all, you'd realize that Canadian units distinguished themselves in every war they've fought in. Including the disastrous Dieppe Raid, 1942. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I pay about $1,000.00 a month for my family's helath insurance and owe the hospital $20,000.00 for having a foot of colon removed and a hole in my small intestine patched-up. If that's the best the free market can do, give me socalized medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Yeah, ask Canada & Engalnd how well socialized health care is working out for them. And I wonder where they'd get the funding for the program? Oh yeah, by taxing the welathy even more. Between this & rolling back the tax cuts that Bush instituted, this country could be in for some very difficult economic times if a Dem is elected Prez. Let me explain this as if I was talking to a Oklahoma State grad... Canadians and Britons both have a longer life expectancy than Americans. You can complain about the long lines for medical images, but I remember reading a story about how there is a expensive medical procedure that gives heart patients so much more information about the functioning of their hearts than the 50 year old technology of echo-cardiograms (or something similar, I'm not a doctor) and after careful study they found that patients who received the more expensive test had exactly the same survival rate as those who didn't. Sometimes, technology is just technology. It's used because it costs more and the system is profit-based. So there's that. Claiming that our system is better should be measured by how many people live and die. We're losing... and paying more for it. Also. "Who's going to pay for this? Taxes!" Is utterly ridiculously retarded. If you don't understand why complaining about a raise in taxes to save yourself thousands of dollars on insurance is retarded, then there is no point in talking. "What! This $20 bill is going to cost me $10!?!?!!? I'm not paying $10!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 "Who's going to pay for this? Taxes!" Is utterly ridiculously retarded. If you don't understand why complaining about a raise in taxes to save yourself thousands of dollars on insurance is retarded, then there is no point in talking. "What! This $20 bill is going to cost me $10!?!?!!? I'm not paying $10!!!" Bingo. Not to mention the massively increased profits every company with health benefits will make when it isn't dragging around the health insurance anchor any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Ask most any Canadian or Brit about the state of thier healthcare and the feedback is overwhelmingly positive. yup This must be the opinion held by everyone except the people who actually live there. Most of my friends from Edmonton, Calgary, Banff and Vancouver come to the US if they have anything worse than the flu because they can't get an appointment or have to see the wrong doctor for their condition. I haven't heard anything positive except "the price is right". Any details that could convince us your statement is widely supported? get our a bit in canada... most think is fine.. u have been reading the nra propaganda a bit to much it think ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Let me explain this as if I was talking to a Oklahoma State grad... Canadians and Britons both have a longer life expectancy than Americans. You can complain about the long lines for medical images, but I remember reading a story about how there is a expensive medical procedure that gives heart patients so much more information about the functioning of their hearts than the 50 year old technology of echo-cardiograms (or something similar, I'm not a doctor) and after careful study they found that patients who received the more expensive test had exactly the same survival rate as those who didn't. Sometimes, technology is just technology. It's used because it costs more and the system is profit-based. So there's that. Claiming that our system is better should be measured by how many people live and die. We're losing... and paying more for it. Also. "Who's going to pay for this? Taxes!" Is utterly ridiculously retarded. If you don't understand why complaining about a raise in taxes to save yourself thousands of dollars on insurance is retarded, then there is no point in talking. "What! This $20 bill is going to cost me $10!?!?!!? I'm not paying $10!!!" yah dog u be talking to the wetoads ... no point in trying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 "Who's going to pay for this? Taxes!" Is utterly ridiculously retarded. If you don't understand why complaining about a raise in taxes to save yourself thousands of dollars on insurance is retarded, then there is no point in talking. "What! This $20 bill is going to cost me $10!?!?!!? I'm not paying $10!!!" right, because the government is always more efficient and cost-effective than private industry. great point, how could anyone possibly question that brilliant logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 right, because the government is always more efficient and cost-effective than private industry. great point, how could anyone possibly question that brilliant logic. u must work for an HMOmo.... they are bigger thief's than the goberment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 right, because the government is always more efficient and cost-effective than private industry. great point, how could anyone possibly question that brilliant logic. How to explain, then, the fact that we spend far more per capita than government run health systems but we still fail to live as long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 right, because the government is always more efficient and cost-effective than private industry. great point, how could anyone possibly question that brilliant logic. If you don't believe that government controlled health care would be less expensive than the current model, then please make that argument. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Let me explain this as if I was talking to a Oklahoma State grad... Canadians and Britons both have a longer life expectancy than Americans. You can complain about the long lines for medical images, but I remember reading a story about how there is a expensive medical procedure that gives heart patients so much more information about the functioning of their hearts than the 50 year old technology of echo-cardiograms (or something similar, I'm not a doctor) and after careful study they found that patients who received the more expensive test had exactly the same survival rate as those who didn't. Sometimes, technology is just technology. It's used because it costs more and the system is profit-based. So there's that. Claiming that our system is better should be measured by how many people live and die. We're losing... and paying more for it. Also. "Who's going to pay for this? Taxes!" Is utterly ridiculously retarded. If you don't understand why complaining about a raise in taxes to save yourself thousands of dollars on insurance is retarded, then there is no point in talking. "What! This $20 bill is going to cost me $10!?!?!!? I'm not paying $10!!!" This is a stupid argument ACEO. You can't compare the health care systems of two nations by the longevity of the nations people. That is just plain stupid. There are way to many other factors that have just as much to do with that. Sloth and gluttony are what is killing Americans, not our health care system. It is our life style, what we eat, what activities we enjoy or in some cases don't enjoy. By the way, I'm about as conservative as they come, but I'm for socialized medicine, we are already paying for it anyway. Look at it this way. Those of us that are responsible pay outrageous premiums. Why because hospital bills are outrageous. Why, because half the people that go the hospitals don't pay. However if we are going to do this right, we need to abolish the income tax, and go to a national sales tax, that way we can make sure all of the illegals that enjoy our health care system get to pay for it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 So there are only two choices? the current system and the Canadian system.... Gee you would think we could come up with something better. Maybe we should ask the health insurance lobby... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Canadians and Britons both have a longer life expectancy than Americans. Please show me any studies that show life expectancies in each of the 3 countries you are referencing are tied to health care in those countries in any way. Talk about your assinine arguments. You may as well argue that higher unemployment rates in those countries are responsible for longer life expectancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Maybe we should ask the health insurance lobby... They are currently in meetings rubbing down both parties equally. You'll have to call back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 "Who's going to pay for this? Taxes!" Is utterly ridiculously retarded. If you don't understand why complaining about a raise in taxes to save yourself thousands of dollars on insurance is retarded, then there is no point in talking. "What! This $20 bill is going to cost me $10!?!?!!? I'm not paying $10!!!" Really? It seems that we pay about as much per capita as the citizens in Canada & England for their health care right now. Can you show me any tangible argument that government run health care in this country will cost less than the current system. I find it incredulous that involving the government in the system doesn't increase the cost substantially. Where do the savings come from, and what is the trade off in benefits? I'll wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 This must be the opinion held by everyone except the people who actually live there. Most of my friends from Edmonton, Calgary, Banff and Vancouver come to the US if they have anything worse than the flu because they can't get an appointment or have to see the wrong doctor for their condition. I haven't heard anything positive except "the price is right". Any details that could convince us your statement is widely supported? Funny, my boss last night said the same thing. Said healthcare in Canada is great if you just have a cold or something minor, but if you need a hip replacement or anything major you might as well go buy a saw...and those cost $80 at the local Ace hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 (edited) link In fact, medical treatment of Canadian nationals in U.S. border cities and states is a booming business thanks to price controls on medical care in Canada as well as the abundant, fast and technologically advanced medical care offered in the United States. At Seattle’s University of Washington Medical Center, for instance, Canadians, who make up half of the hospitals in vitro fertilization patients, are happy to pay $5,000 out of their own pocket to have the procedure done speedily. Entrepreneurs have taken note of the results of price controls in Canada. One California heart surgeon routinely advertises his services in a Vancouver newspaper and the Winnipeg-based suckyAmerica Health Care Corporation in 1993 began to offer an insurance policy for Canadians for access to medical attention in the United States if they had to wait 45 days or longer for attention in Canada. But those Canadians who can’t afford the fare to the United States are not so lucky. In Canada, with a population of 25 million, some 1,350,000 people are waiting for some kind of medical service, with some 177,000 of them waiting for surgery of some kind of which 45 percent report they are waiting “in pain.” For example, waiting periods for health care procedures in Canada average 5.5 months for heart bypasses, 5.7 months for hernia repairs, 7.3 months for cholecystectomies, 6.4 months for hemorrhoidectomies, 8.3 months for varicose vein treatments, 3.7 months for hysterectomies, and 7.1 months for prostatectomies. Edited June 26, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalboyd Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Everytime Michael Moore makes a movie, a Democrat loses an election. No Michael Moore gave us a clue. And many Americans ran in the opposite direction. Now most say they should have put two and two together. Other just didnt want to see it. To each his own. But its not that hard to not put two and two together when the evidence is right in your face. But again to each his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Not so simple answer. You get insurance for a major crisis. Leave the basic general doctor business and check-ups out of pocket to the individual. Stop insuring EVERYTHING and only the major issues (like you do with your house, car and other things). Hopefully you don't use insurance everytime you get a ding in your door or a rotten board on your deck needs replacing. Oh, and having to get lumped in with your co-workers is asinine. I work with a lady that has had multiple cancer treatments. I haven't been to the doctor (outside of poison ivy this year at Patient First) in over 10 years. Why should we pay the same every year when she uses it a ton more? I don't mean to sound callous, but it should be treated more like car insurance in these cases. The more you use, the more you pay. Instead, simply because for no other reason than we share an employer, we are all treated equally for some stupid reason to get a "group discount". Give everyone the discount until they use the health insurance and give cause to increase your rates. Oh, and get the healthcare industry out of helping the doctor make critical decisions. Or just nationalize it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 No Michael Moore gave us a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclones Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 My mom is here in Kentucky visiting from Canada. She has a spot on her face that needs a biopsy, which she is slated to have 5 months from now. We got her in to our dermatolagist the next day and the biopsy was done later that week. That's what massive income tax, 15% sales tax, $4.00 a gallon gas, $8.00 cigarettes and $18 12 packs gets you, a 5 month wait at a crappy hospital. I will repeat my opinion for the umpteenth time on this board...if you are poor, the Canadian system is better, if you are middle class or higher, give me the US System. I agree with the points of some, however, that there is likely a system in the middle that could work better than either system currently does. The current Canadian system sucks ass, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Please show me any studies that show life expectancies in each of the 3 countries you are referencing are tied to health care in those countries in any way. Yeah... medical care probably isn't related to how long you live. You're probably right. Can you show me any tangible argument that government run health care in this country will cost less than the current system. I find it incredulous that involving the government in the system doesn't increase the cost substantially. Where do the savings come from, and what is the trade off in benefits? I'm afraid I can't help you, Billy. You've made the perfect argument once again. The current system isn't unnecessarily expensive. Thats why nobody ever talks about healthcare reform. As for your article quoted... it's about price controls and medicare. Price controls wouldn't work because they artifcially set prices in a commercial system, and medicare isn't ideal because it's sitting on top of a commercial system. Of course... it's highly unlikely that Invitro-fertilization and varicose vein treatment (two of the procedures mentioned) are covered by your insurance in the US, too. The one thing that a profit-based system does do is make a competitive market for elective and cosmetic surgery. People must be dying left and right from that other critical surgery waiting list though. That probably has a severe affect on their life expectancy. Oh wait. Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 The real reason the Federal Gubment doesn't want healthcare reform is because too many people may actually live long enough to collect that Social Security they steal from us every paycheck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Yeah... medical care probably isn't related to how long you live. You're probably right.\ You know better. Sure it is related, but it is far from the sole contributer. Lifestyle is just as important if not more important. $1 hamburgers, disposable income allowing you to sky dive, mountain climb, jet ski, etc.. also have a lot to do with it. We are the most obese nation in the world. This doesn't have anything to do with our health care system, it has more to do with relatively cheap food, relatively stagnant lifestyles, and and a stressful work environment. Yes, health care is related to longevity, but it is naive to say that is the determining factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Yeah... medical care probably isn't related to how long you live. You're probably right. That you can be flippant and stupid at the same time is no small feat, my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.