Page 122 of 143 FirstFirst ... 2272112117118119120121122123124125126127132 ... LastLast
Results 2,421 to 2,440 of 2855
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2421  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Good. So you agree that doctors and patients should not be able to do or get anything they want, right? Tell me then, who should determine that? Each individual private insurer? Should the non-profit plan where you work have it's own list of approved interventions and every other plan do the same thing? Let's get detailed here.
    The patient and doctor. The issue is that they are making decisions based on a lack of information. You assume that the only solution is to take control of their rights to decide for themselves. That gives *you* too much power. It also forces you to look only at the collective, and not at the individual. We're in a nation that cherishes the individual and their rights to self determination. Yes, even if there is some cost based on poor choices. Your collective approach will also have some detrimental effects. At least my approach maintains an important founding principle.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. #2422  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    The patient and doctor. The issue is that they are making decisions based on a lack of information. You assume that the only solution is to take control of their rights to decide for themselves. That gives *you* too much power. It also forces you to look only at the collective, and not at the individual. We're in a nation that cherishes the individual and their rights to self determination. Yes, even if there is some cost based on poor choices. Your collective approach will also have some detrimental effects. At least my approach maintains an important founding principle.
    Sorry. Allowing the patient and the doctor to determine and select whatever treatment and testing they want has already failed. It failed many years ago when fee-for-service (you know, the single payor system that was BCBS) went away. Why? Because it was too expensive. There is no way that you can allow that to happen, regardless of your principles. Your own company doesn't allow it to happen now, does it? Your "principle" is what is bankrupting the country. But that is less important, right? I defy you to develop any kind of plan that will cut costs and maintain your "principle".

    Of course, you have to first agree that you actually want a plan. Which I'm not sure you do.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2423  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sorry. Allowing the patient and the doctor to determine and select whatever treatment and testing they want has already failed.
    Says you. I don't see it that way.
    It failed many years ago when fee-for-service (you know, the single payor system that was BCBS) went away. Why? Because it was too expensive. There is no way that you can allow that to happen, regardless of your principles.
    Ahh, but once we lose those principles, there's this slippery slope thing....
    Your own company doesn't allow it to happen now, does it?
    The patient and doctor have the option to use some other insurance providers, don't they? Or to find another way to finance their desired treatment. There are options that your approach will never allow.
    Your "principle" is what is bankrupting the country. But that is less important, right? I defy you to develop any kind of plan that will cut costs and maintain your "principle".
    My principle of self determination and individual rights is what made this country what it is today. It's why *you* have the life you have. Even if you don't understand it.
    Of course, you have to first agree that you actually want a plan. Which I'm not sure you do.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2424  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Additionally, you didn't respond to the issue I raised. Do you or do you not believe that everyone in the US should have affordable health care? If you do, doesn't that make it a "right" by definition? Or are you opposed to that concept?
    I feel they should all have "access" to affordable health care, absolutely. I also believe they should have choices on how they get treated and by whom. And I believe it shouldn't be forced down their throughts by bureaucrats and politicians in DC.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #2425  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I feel they should all have "access" to affordable health care, absolutely. I also believe they should have choices on how they get treated and by whom. And I believe it shouldn't be forced down their throughts by bureaucrats and politicians in DC.
    Great. Now pay for it without managing care.

    And for someone who works in the insurance industry, you should know that fee-for-service doesn't exist anymore, right? That's the "good old days" you yearn for, when there were no controls whatsoever. Insurance companies did away with that, because they couldn't afford it any more. So every insurance company, no matter what one you want to search around for, manages care. Certainly given your position you realize that. And there are no "other options" to finance it. What, community bake sales like that moron Kantor suggests?
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2426  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Great. Now pay for it without managing care.

    And for someone who works in the insurance industry, you should know that fee-for-service doesn't exist anymore, right? That's the "good old days" you yearn for, when there were no controls whatsoever. Insurance companies did away with that, because they couldn't afford it any more. So every insurance company, no matter what one you want to search around for, manages care. Certainly given your position you realize that. And there are no "other options" to finance it. What, community bake sales like that moron Kantor suggests?
    So your logic seems to be; since we've already moved to managed care, why not go all the way to one big plan?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. anthillmob's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    11 Global Posts
    #2427  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I can promise (but would certainly be open to be proven wrong) that you can find no evidence whatsoever that any of the discussed plans would be detrimental to the health care of everyone with insurance. What makes you think that that is the case? Do the restrictions (and denials) that are put on care by many private HMO's and PPO's not count because they are from an insurance company, and therefore they're just fine? The fact is that better control of excessively used and ineffective tests, for example, will actually improve the quality of care. I can give you a lot of references if you want them.

    Additionally, if you want to talk philosophy, the government has always taken from one to give to another,no matter how you p**** the words. The only question is whether health care is different from education and we feel it should be provided, or whether we draw a line at people's health and say we just don't care about that, it's just like having a nice house. It's NOT like having a nice house. You shouldn't have to go bankrupt for an appendectomy. If you don't believe that, fine. But be clear about the specifics of the case at hand, and don't pretend it's really not about health care at all, but redistribution, or a power grab, or any of the other BS descriptions of health care reform trumpeted by opponents. This is about people's health. Simple.
    "I can promise (but would certainly be open to be proven wrong) that you can find no evidence whatsoever that any of the discussed plans would be detrimental to the health care of everyone with insurance. What makes you think that that is the case?"

    Logic and personal experience.

    "Do the restrictions (and denials) that are put on care by many private HMO's and PPO's not count because they are from an insurance company, and therefore they're just fine?"

    Of course they count...... but if you sign up to policy with certain restrictions (presumably tied to the price you pay) then you need to be aware of them.... although I am sure there are plenty of cases which are truly unfair (a weakness with all systems perhaps?).

    "The fact is that better control of excessively used and ineffective tests, for example, will actually improve the quality of care."

    1. I think we differ in our idea of quality of care
    2. This has what to do with the government?

    "I can give you a lot of references if you want them."

    No thanks. Frankly I probably don't have the time to read them and wouldn't agree with them anyway.....

    "Additionally, if you want to talk philosophy, the government has always taken from one to give to another,no matter how you p**** the words."
    This was taken care of by Micael, thanks!

    "The only question is whether health care is different from education and we feel it should be provided, or whether we draw a line at people's health and say we just don't care about that, it's just like having a nice house. It's NOT like having a nice house."

    If you are suggesting that health care is more important than education and therefore if we support education via taxation we should do the same for health care (i.e. where to draw the line). Then my answer is simple...... I think education is very much like health care.... it is something useful to have, some people think it is a right (but it isn't), it seems to cost way more than it delivers and it is clearly in need of reform. Does this mean the solution is more government involvement (and taxpayer money)? NO!

    "You shouldn't have to go bankrupt for an appendectomy."
    Going bankrupt for an appendectomy is bad, but that does not make it right to force somebody else to pay for it.

    "But be clear about the specifics of the case at hand, and don't pretend it's really not about health care at all, but redistribution, or a power grab, or any of the other BS descriptions of health care reform trumpeted by opponents. This is about people's health. Simple."
    And here we come to the crux of the problem. It is not simply about people's health but is rather linked to the principles of the society we live in (and might wish to live in). This country has been successful due to its relatively low level of government interference.... although I appreciate this is changing (a reflection of the changing attitudes of the population no doubt). Because of this, I offer you some hope.... or fear depending on ones view point. If this country continues to move in the direction it is at the moment, it is only a matter of time before there is a state run healthcare program..... why? because socialism might suck in practice, but it sure does feel good as a concept!
  8. #2428  
    ummm one lil flaw in your statement.. the one where you say,," going bankrupt for an appendectomy" you state that under the govt run health care you would have to pay for someone else's medical care.... hmmmm k.. i understand that.. but if you pay your prems every month year in year out.. are you not doing the same bloody thing, paying for someone else's illness? now lets go back a little and to another thread on the same topic.. where someone stated it took an hour, and a total bill of 3800 bucks to get 6 stitches on their foot.... well with only a small bit of experience of your system.. (one broken leg while skiing in Colorado) i would possibly suggest.. based on what many have said here, or claim,, that you would not pay 3800 in premiums in a single year. Saying that, is this any different then what your govt is trying to do.. hmmm what difference does it make who you pay?
    One you would pay less in a govt run system..
    two you would pay less in a govt run system..
    three lol you wouldnt have your insurance cut off just because you get sick or hurt.
    plus you wouldnt be lining somebody else's pockets.

    Comon face it, the difference between govt vs private is nada, except that EVERYONE WOULD BE COVERED, more hands make less work.. lol and the added side benefit,, you would have some extra cash in your pocket,, not some suit in a high rise.. lol
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2429  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    We have the most expensive health care system in the world, and have the 37th best system (below Morocco). France, Germany and Sweden all have mixed public / private plans. NOBODY is stating that a public plan would replace the private option.

    Either the government can't effectively run health care, or it will run it so well that private insurance can't compete....you can't have it both ways.
    This is exactly the reason that I keep harping on the WHO's failed ranking system. People still use it to support arguments like this. The WHO itself even admits that they've stopped this ranking system because of the inherent difficulties involved. Yet that doesn't stop people from using the number... 37. Below Morocco, below Saudi Arabia, below Oman. Really?
  10. #2430  
    Ill add one more lil thing,, up here in the Great White North, with our Socialist health care system, I still get to decide which doctor, and my course of treatment. From A to Z I still have complete control. lol
  11. #2431  
    Quote Originally Posted by anthillmob View Post
    And here we come to the crux of the problem. It is not simply about people's health but is rather linked to the principles of the society we live in (and might wish to live in). This country has been successful due to its relatively low level of government interference.... although I appreciate this is changing (a reflection of the changing attitudes of the population no doubt). Because of this, I offer you some hope.... or fear depending on ones view point. If this country continues to move in the direction it is at the moment, it is only a matter of time before there is a state run healthcare program..... why? because socialism might suck in practice, but it sure does feel good as a concept!
    I can't argue with that. Not because it's so correct, but because even in that short paragraph there's so much wrong that I don't even know where to start. in sequence then:

    1) Yeah, our principles are probably at the core of this debate. One side says if it wasn't verbatim included in a 200+ year old vision statement we can't improve on it, and the other says the word "among" actually means we're required to improve it. Since ours was a country based in hope and change, I find it hard to imagine that "the society we live in" currently is the culmination of the direction we were supposed to go.

    2) I can't argue that the roots of our success lie in governmental interference (or not) simply because I reject the premise that we're successful enough to explain ourselves in the first place. On this issue there are at least 46 million people who might disagree with your congratulations, and everyone disagrees with at least some part of our "success", from our tolerance for all religions, our ability to speak freely, our reasonable expectations of privacy, our right to bear arms... Take heart: I agree that our Constitutional reserve of power first to the individuals, then to the various States, and only last to the Federals was a great improvement over the colonial/feudal system of which we were then subjects, but at the same time we were also slave owners and didn't have a standing national military. As soon as we tear down the Pentagon (it would be a great site for a soccer stadium) and disband all branches of military service we can start talking about why we're so successful...

    3) Around some parts we call "changing attitudes of the population" Democracy. It's a good, resilient thing that can a) make good choices, b) make bad choices, and c) fix its own mistakes - if we let it work and don't approach it with the belief that with just a few more minor tweaks we can retire from this business of controlling our own destiny and all head out to the beach. Yep, we'll probably need to fix something else once this is done, but I live in a 130-year old house myself and that's just how it goes. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the system - it will continue with or without our appreciation.

    4) Wait, whoa - "STATE RUN HEALTHCARE PROGRAM"?!? Maybe that's shorthand for "changes that I don't know how to describe" but only a small handful of fringe radicals are talking about a STATE RUN HEALTHCARE PROGRAM - and by that I mean the arch-conservatives who invented it as an agitprop strawman to instill fear about death panels and the like in people who don't bother or are unable to comprehend the actual proposals for themselves and form their own opinions. I will say though that those radicals do know their constituencies...

    5) Double wait-whoa - again with the SOCIALISM strawman? See #3 (et al) above, and anyway"socialized" isn't a synonym for Socialism any more than a country is made up of counts. (That was a much dirtier quip until I spelled it out...) Offering universal access to health insurance via a government-managed option is hardly socialized medicine OR Socialism. It's designed to preserve that crusty Constitutional principle of "life, liberty, and the perfuit of happiness" for everyone.

    (and)

    6) Socialism is actually quite grim as a concept, which is why it doesn't survive well in a Democracy. Socialism virtually requires at least a lack of other options if not downright dictatorship, and even then only succeeds as long as the population allows it. A wise Socialist leader then would do well to take excellent care of the population so they're "fat and happy" with everything - quite different from our leaders taking care of business and looking after their own profits. The world has about as many wise Socialists as it has altruistic Capitalists. (Not zero, but not enough of them to make a difference...)

    7) Regardless of the outcome, I'll proudly point to this period as a sign that we haven't yet lost our way, that we can still debate weighty and important matters as a country and arrive at practical and clever solutions with minimal bloodshed and bonebreak, and if they fall short of our greatest dreams at least they may also fail to reach our darkest fears. I hope you'll join me in that.
  12. #2432  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Yet that doesn't stop people from using the number... 37. Below Morocco, below Saudi Arabia, below Oman. Really?
    Why not? Other than some inherent nationalistic belief that our country has to be better by definition, what data are you using to say our health care is better?

    Perhaps this is a better question that may get to the heart of the ideological vs data-driven divide. Forget Morocco and whether we're 37th: Is our health care better than France or Sweden? If your answer is no, why do you believe this? If your answer is yes, then why would we not want to create a health care structure that utilizes their effective practices?
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2433  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Why not? Other than some inherent nationalistic belief that our country has to be better by definition, what data are you using to say our health care is better?
    I'm looking at the WHO's own indicators. You can go there and look for yourself. I'm not saying that the WHO's indicators are always appropriate, but if even they don't support their own overall country ranking then I'd say there's a problem.

    Perhaps this is a better question that may get to the heart of the ideological vs data-driven divide. Forget Morocco and whether we're 37th: Is our health care better than France or Sweden? If your answer is no, why do you believe this? If your answer is yes, then why would we not want to create a health care structure that utilizes their effective practices?
    Better in what respect? That's a hard one to call without qualification. Different countries face different health care challenges and ranking them one-to-one in various health indicators does not always give the complete picture. For example, France is closer to the US demographically and its health indicators are closer to the US than Sweden's. Weighted based on all factors, I'm not sure who would have the best.
  14. #2434  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Better in what respect? That's a hard one to call without qualification. Different countries face different health care challenges and ranking them one-to-one in various health indicators does not always give the complete picture. For example, France is closer to the US demographically and its health indicators are closer to the US than Sweden's. Weighted based on all factors, I'm not sure who would have the best.
    I'm not sure I'd agree that France's indicators are all that close to ours. As of 2007:

    Life Expectancy:
    France 81
    Sweden 81
    US 78.1

    Infant Mortality:
    France 4
    Sweden 2.5
    US 6.7

    Per Capita expense (US$)

    France $3601
    Sweden $3323
    US $7290

    Cost as % of GDP
    France 11
    Sweden 9.1
    US 16%

    If you don't know if their system is better than ours, what data informs your decisions? If you don't trust WHO, you don't value trust indicators such as life expectancy or infant mortality in your considerations, then what is your measure?

    If the data doesn't give a complete picture, then please give some indicator that shows a picture of how our system is better than theirs (other than "degree of American-ness"), and/or why we can't learn from their example.

    I'm really struggling to understand why folks can't give credit to other countries' positive qualities, and possibly learn from them. It's not treason...really, it's not.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  15. #2435  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    This is exactly the reason that I keep harping on the WHO's failed ranking system. People still use it to support arguments like this. The WHO itself even admits that they've stopped this ranking system because of the inherent difficulties involved. Yet that doesn't stop people from using the number... 37. Below Morocco, below Saudi Arabia, below Oman. Really?
    I don't think anyone has stated that their ranking system is "failed". They simply indicated that the system is too complex for one universal ranking system. But the important point that arguments such as this ("we're not 37...there are other countries we should be higher than") masks the reality that our system isn't even close to those in countries such as France or Sweden on any indicator used by statisticians or health authorities.

    We need to face the fact that there may be an area or two that America isn't the best at, and maybe we'll learn a thing or two. As a country, this blind reliance on national pride and gut patriotism (as well as this silly fear of being labeled "socialist" if we actually take care of our populace), in the face of overwhelming evidence, is blinding us from learning from other systems.
    Last edited by Bujin; 09/26/2009 at 03:45 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2436  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I'm not sure I'd agree that France's indicators are all that close to ours. As of 2007:
    I said that their indicators are closer to ours than Sweden's are. And their demographics are closer to ours than Sweden's.

    If you don't know if their system is better than ours, what data informs your decisions? If you don't trust WHO, you don't value trust indicators such as life expectancy or infant mortality in your considerations, then what is your measure?
    The point I was trying to make is that, even if we do buy WHO health indicators (which, as I've mentioned before, are problematic), it doesn't give a complete picture of the health care delivery system. Don't you think that's a fair statement?

    If the data doesn't give a complete picture, then please give some indicator that shows a picture of how our system is better than theirs (other than "degree of American-ness"), and/or why we can't learn from their example.
    Why would you ask this question in this way? Again?

    I'm really struggling to understand why folks can't give credit to other countries' positive qualities, and possibly learn from them. It's not treason...really, it's not.
    Saying I'm not sure which health care system is the best is not the same as--in fact, is very different than--not giving any credit to other countries' positive qualities. I've said in this forum that we can learn from other systems, such as those in France and Germany. We should learn from their successes as well as their mistakes. Reading the proposals under consideration, I'm concerned that we are not trying to learn from those systems. Moreover, I'm extremely concerned about a publicly subsidized health care system in light of the current administrations plans for integrating illegal residents.
  17. #2437  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    The point I was trying to make is that, even if we do buy WHO health indicators (which, as I've mentioned before, are problematic), it doesn't give a complete picture of the health care delivery system. Don't you think that's a fair statement?
    It may not be a complete picture, but it is a picture (especially since nobody has offered other "pictures" that contradict WHO's indicators). What health indicators would you use, if not infant mortality, life expectancy, cost, etc.?

    You dispute the "37th" rating...I get that. Do you dispute the actual data about infant mortality, health care accessibility, life expectancy, and cost? Or just that those indicators aren't a good measure of health care? If it's the latter, what indicators are more valid?

    Why would you ask this question in this way? Again?
    In short, I asked again because you haven't answered it. You discount the World Health Organization's indicators because you don't like them (although such indicators as listed above are pretty much the standard), but you have offered no alternative information to support the efficacy of our system.

    Moreover, I'm extremely concerned about a publicly subsidized health care system in light of the current administrations plans for integrating illegal residents.
    If you have read the proposals, you would know that this is not true. Does the fact that illegal immigrants are specifically forbidden from receiving benefits matter at all? Misleading GOP Health Care Claims | FactCheck.org
    Last edited by Bujin; 09/26/2009 at 08:38 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18. #2438  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It may not be a complete picture, but it is a picture (especially since nobody has offered other "pictures" that contradict WHO's indicators). What health indicators would you use, if not infant mortality, life expectancy, cost, etc.?
    Actually, I have offered an alternate picture on infant mortality. This does not de facto dispute WHO data, but it certainly offers an alternate explanation for the difference in numbers.
    In short, I asked again because you haven't answered it. You discount the World Health Organization's indicators because you don't like them (although such indicators as listed above are pretty much the standard), but you have offered no alternative information to support the efficacy of our system.
    That could be because effectiveness does not always play a large part in our system.
    If you have read the proposals, you would know that this is not true. Does the fact that illegal immigrants are specifically forbidden from receiving benefits matter at all? Misleading GOP Health Care Claims | FactCheck.org
    This provision does not mean that illegal immigrants would not receive care. It means they would not be eligible for 'affordability credits'. If an illegal immigrant shows up at the emergency room, would they be turned away? If not, who would pay for the benefits they receive?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2439  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It may not be a complete picture, but it is a picture (especially since nobody has offered other "pictures" that contradict WHO's indicators). What health indicators would you use, if not infant mortality, life expectancy, cost, etc.?

    You dispute the "37th" rating...I get that. Do you dispute the actual data about infant mortality, health care accessibility, life expectancy, and cost? Or just that those indicators aren't a good measure of health care? If it's the latter, what indicators are more valid?
    I do dispute some of those indicators. Infant mortality rates, for one, have been manipulated because not every institution in every country uses the same WHO criteria to report this data. The UN even concedes this point and has attempted to smooth out the data based on other factors. That's not to say that all the data is unreliable by any means, but its use in direct country to country rankings without qualification is where I believe it fails.

    In short, I asked again because you haven't answered it. You discount the World Health Organization's indicators because you don't like them (although such indicators as listed above are pretty much the standard), but you have offered no alternative information to support the efficacy of our system.
    I don't know that one exists. But we have 50 states and both private and public systems that we can already use as a basis for rating our health care. That doesn't mean we can't learn from other countries, as I said, but we should steer clear of blanket, unqualified comparisons.

    If you have read the proposals, you would know that this is not true. Does the fact that illegal immigrants are specifically forbidden from receiving benefits matter at all?
    That's not what I said. Whether or not illegal immigrants are covered by any of the proposals won't change the fact that if/when they are legalized, they will be covered. Is there any restriction on this in any of the proposals?
  20. anthillmob's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    11 Global Posts
    #2440  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    ummm one lil flaw in your statement.. the one where you say,," going bankrupt for an appendectomy" you state that under the govt run health care you would have to pay for someone else's medical care.... hmmmm k.. i understand that.. but if you pay your prems every month year in year out.. are you not doing the same bloody thing, paying for someone else's illness? now lets go back a little and to another thread on the same topic.. where someone stated it took an hour, and a total bill of 3800 bucks to get 6 stitches on their foot.... well with only a small bit of experience of your system.. (one broken leg while skiing in Colorado) i would possibly suggest.. based on what many have said here, or claim,, that you would not pay 3800 in premiums in a single year. Saying that, is this any different then what your govt is trying to do.. hmmm what difference does it make who you pay?
    One you would pay less in a govt run system..
    two you would pay less in a govt run system..
    three lol you wouldnt have your insurance cut off just because you get sick or hurt.
    plus you wouldnt be lining somebody else's pockets.

    Comon face it, the difference between govt vs private is nada, except that EVERYONE WOULD BE COVERED, more hands make less work.. lol and the added side benefit,, you would have some extra cash in your pocket,, not some suit in a high rise.. lol
    "you state that under the govt run health care you would have to pay for someone else's medical care.... hmmmm k.. i understand that.. but if you pay your prems every month year in year out.. are you not doing the same bloody thing, paying for someone else's illness?"

    Not quite. One might look at it as one is making a bet with the insurance company that one will, at some stage, accrue more in healthcare costs than the cost of the insurance. Or that one is buying peace of mind. What the insurance company does with the money you pay them is irrelevant to the transaction. However, I can see your point of view. That said, even if they were almost identical, there would still be one key difference..... one is voluntary and the other is not. There is nothing wrong with paying for another's healthcare (and I would argue it is a virtuous thing to do).

    "Saying that, is this any different then what your govt is trying to do.. hmmm what difference does it make who you pay?"

    It makes a big difference, particularly when a government gives you no choice in the matter. While trying to improve the health care system is clearly the aim, it is also important to consider the role of government in society.

    "One you would pay less in a govt run system.."

    I disagree.

    "two you would pay less in a govt run system.."

    I still disagree :-).

    "three lol you wouldnt have your insurance cut off just because you get sick or hurt."

    I am not sure that is a prevalent as you think...... either way, while this might improve, it would be compensated by losses in other ways....

    "plus you wouldnt be lining somebody else's pockets. "

    Of course I would, although it might be different peoples pockets :-). Besides, I have no problem lining peoples pockets..... most of us do this almost continually on a daily basis!


    "Comon face it, the difference between govt vs private is nada, except that EVERYONE WOULD BE COVERED, more hands make less work.. lol and the added side benefit,, you would have some extra cash in your pocket,, not some suit in a high rise.. lol"

    Again, I dispute that I would have "extra cash in my pocket" and have no problem with people making money.

    "Ill add one more lil thing,, up here in the Great White North, with our Socialist health care system, I still get to decide which doctor, and my course of treatment. From A to Z I still have complete control. lol"

    I can appreciate that..... different people see things differently and I am glad you enjoy the system you have.

Posting Permissions