Page 131 of 143 FirstFirst ... 3181121126127128129130131132133134135136141 ... LastLast
Results 2,601 to 2,620 of 2855
  1. #2601  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    But as Ryley noted, if the bureaucrat deems something not cost effective then its not even available for the doctor to suggest. Do I have that right? Or are you saying the doctor can prescribe any treatment no matter the cost?
    Decisions about what is cost-effective are not made by the government. They are made by doctors based on evidence of efficacy, which is exactly as it should be, and even in conjunction with health insurers. Spend a little time looking around NGC - National Guideline Clearinghouse if you want to see lots of examples. I don't want bureaucrats making decisions about my patients any more than they want to do that. But you just keep blaming "the government" as if it was one big bad organization. That's absurd. There are panels of experts who are not paid by the government that help make these decisions, just like in Canada. Really....you should put a sock in it.
  2. #2602  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    But as Ryley noted, if the bureaucrat deems something not cost effective then its not even available for the doctor to suggest. Do I have that right? Or are you saying the doctor can prescribe any treatment no matter the cost?
    Cost effectiveness is certainly strongly considered when laying out default standards. A mindset of cost effectiveness is instilled throughout the system (at least it was in Alberta) from the Dr's down to the cleaning staff. However Canadian Doctors ultimately have accsess to any and all treatments available. The level of care is largely the same (when compared to insured Americans) but the American system generally takes more money for the same result.

    There seems to be a fear in the USA that the Government is some scary evil force that is basically out for it's own best interests and does not care about it's citizens. That wasn't my experience back in Canada nor has it been here so far. In the Canadian public system the day to day cubical bureaucrats in the Provincial Government have a genuine interest to provide the best care possible for everyone in the Province, from the Premier to a street bum. They don't get bonuses by cutting immunization programs or extra holidays for closing hospital beds.

    Do I personally think the Canadian system is better than the American one, yes. But this is largely because I'm Canadian and therefore universal coverage is the first item on my list of must haves. I don't think it would be a good fit in the USA. People distrust their government here, and in my experience, most people don't necessarily care if others aren't covered so long as they are covered for a price they can afford.
    Last edited by ryleyinstl; 03/03/2010 at 08:40 AM.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2603  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Just a host more examples of why your opinion about anything to do with health care is a waste of bandwidth. You clearly don't even understand the variety of health plans that exist. All patients are NOT responsible for costs exceeding the amount that insurance pays. That depends entirely on the kind of health plan you belong to. Doctors and hospitals that accept assignment from Medicare agree to accept totally what Medicare pays. The patients are not billed anything extra. The same is true of most HMO's that have contractual arrangements with physicians. By signing a contract, the physician agrees to accept what is given by the insurance company.
    Considering I was talking about traditional insurance (not Medicare, not HMO--which you might have picked up on by the use of the word "insurance") specifically, your response is off. That's ok--I know you aren't terribly interested or capable of dealing with what is actually said.

    A reasonable person might also take note of where I said "In my experience" which is stated in order to qualify what follows, indicating that it isn't a UNIVERSAL statement, as you seem to have mistakenly assumed. I'm happy to teach you how language works, since you really don't seem able to pick up on these important points.

    I also know you are determined to make little insults in order to trample any view that doesn't match your demands. So, while I'm happy to listen to any actual factual corrections (like the HMO issue, which I hadn't thought of specifically, but the rest--you just demonstrate your pettiness.
    The real waste of bandwidth is having to deal with your responses, due to your inability to respond without dishonesty.

    Of course, in reference to Medicare, you've stumbled into revealing that in fact GOVERNMENT would then be responsible for this situation occurring--which is being blamed on insurance companies. If this GOVERNMENT program is what is screwing hospitals (causing them to "eat" costs or be forced to go with "incorrect" tests, then that says a lot doesn't it.

    So, let's review so far. Insurance policies (at least those I've dealt with) allow hospitals to simply pass those costs along--they aren't "eating" the cost. However, GOVERNMENT programs like Medicare DO require these hospitals to "eat" these costs, which then acts as a restriction. So...it appears that GOVERNMENT would be the ones tending to cause some test to be chosen that otherwise wouldn't. With insurance (mine at least), doctors just freely pass that extra cost (should it occur) onto me. HMOs...I don't know about that, so I'll just assume whatever you say about them is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sometimes spending more money on a more sensitive test will save money and prevent additional testing if it is used in the first place. And lastly, when you sprain your ankle badly, do you think you need an MRI? After all, that would be the "best" test to find out what happened to your ankle. The fact is that a good physical exam with a follow-up xray if you don't improve is just as good, and costs thousands less. That's why we "offer a test that is inferior in result and cost? ".
    That's all very interesting, but that isn't the example that I responded to.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Really. The more you post, the less it appears you know what you're talking about. Study a bit more and then maybe your opinions will make some sense.
    Well, for you to judge that, you'd have to actually acknowledge what I actually say, which judging by your response, you are either incapable of doing, or choosing not.

    And of course, this exchange between ryleyinstl and myself was really me, responding to what he said with questions more than anything. My OPINION, which has been circling around the fact that we do not have a free market system, and instead suffer under a manipulated system. Of course, you aren't dealing with that, and instead are choosing to pursue a straw-man argument, side stepping what I've actually talked about.

    In other words--you do what you always do--cry and whine that anyone who disagrees with your demands for what you want is wrong. Instead of dealing with those actual opinions, you take something out of context (that is, assuming you read it properly in the first place) and then try to use that piece to attack the person talking, ignoring the issues that you can't or won't otherwise deal with.

    So, thanks again for demonstrating (wasting my time and yours) that you really aren't sincere about dealing with things that you disagree with. It's unfortunate, because as a Doctor, you COULD bring valuable information to this, but your bias doesn't appear to allow for that sort of honest exchange and honest disagreement.

    KAM
  4. #2604  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So you are claiming that Doctors in the United States are performing medically incorrect tests, because insurance companies don't cover the proper one? That's quite a startling claim--that doctors throughout the country are performing inferior tests. That would seem to violate medical ethics--to intentionally provide inferior services.
    I'd call it medically inferior tests, but yes, that's going on. Especially in cases where the patient has no insurance at all. The Doctors have to balance cost recovery with patient treatment. What they are doing is completely legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You said to prevent the hospital from "eating" the costs. What makes you say that? In my experience, a patient is responsible for whatever insurance doesn't cover--they pass those on. I know this from personal experience--they happily charged me for everything that Insurance didn't pay for, so I'm not seeing why this would be different with the tests you speak of.
    In the case of my wife's hospital a certain portion of sick kids do not have insurance or have very poor insurance. At the end of treatment if the bill comes to 100k and the parents work at Arby's there is very little chance the hospital will ever see that money. They write that off.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    What benefit does an insurance company have from favoring a more costly test? How does it benefit them to pay MORE out?
    Good question....sometimes it's just a legacy thing and the billing/coding hasn't kept up with the science. Who knows?

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    What are the odds that the "correct" test would always be the less effective and more expensive? Why would anyone even offer a test that is inferior in result and cost?
    Diagnostic medicine is a complicated crazy thing (that's why my wife is the doctor and not me). There are many factors in the USA that determine what tests are available at what hospitals at what times at what price and what is the most "effective" for a given situation. There are people that figure all that out for a living. The insurance companies also think they have that figured out and sometimes the 2 parties have to fight about it. Generally to the detriment of the sick.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Interesting to note that key point--that the Patient is not included in this--the customer is removed from the process, which helps this occur. Patients are sold the idea that they are given what is most effective/appropriate for them. What you seem to be saying is that isn't the case. That doesn't sound ethical to me. Either they are getting less than effective treatment or boosted costs.
    You basically have that right. However I would say that the doctor and hospital staff are generally trying to give you the very best care that they can while balancing that with your coverage level and ability to pay the extra bill. There have been many times my wife would go the long and more complicated way to try and insure that a patient would have 100% of their care covered. Sometimes the doctors hands are tied and the choice is lower level of care or stick the patient with a bill that will leave them bankrupt. Unethical.....not according to the law.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2605  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Cost effectiveness is certainly strongly considered when laying out default standards. A mindset of cost effectiveness is instilled throughout the system (at least it was in Alberta) from the Dr's down to the cleaning staff. However Canadian Doctors ultimately have accsess to any and all treatments available. The level of care is largely the same (when compared to insured Americans) but the American system generally takes more money for the same result.

    There seems to be a fear in the USA that the Government is some scary evil force that is basically out for it's own best interests and does not care about it's citizens. That wasn't my experience back in Canada nor has it been here so far. In the Canadian public system the day to day cubical bureaucrats in the Provincial Government have a genuine interest to provide the best care possible for everyone in the Province, from the Premier to a street bum. They don't get bonuses by cutting immunization programs or extra holidays for closing hospital beds.

    Do I personally think the Canadian system is better than the American one, yes. But this is largely because I'm Canadian and therefore universal coverage is the first item on my list of must haves. I don't think it would be a good fit in the USA. People distrust their government here, and in my experience, most people don't necessarily care if others aren't covered so long as they are covered for a price they can afford.
    I've got to say I find it interesting that someone (not just you) disagrees with people being wary of government, while being completely distrustful of corporations. In my view BOTH have to be carefully watched.

    We distrust our government, because they waste a lot of our money and serve their own interests in many cases. There is a great reason to distrust them.

    As to your last point--not caring if others are covered. No, that's wrong. The point that I've made, time and time again is why we cannot more efficiently use the MASSIVE amount of money we taxpayers spend on SPECIFICALLY COVERING THE POOR. Who manages this? That's right--government. So, perhaps you can understand why we are distrustful and not eager to give them more money--because they aren't doing a good job with the money they have.

    Let me ask you this--how many people would 300 billion a year cover in Canada? What is the Canadian health budget?

    KAM
  6. #2606  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    People distrust their government here, and in my experience, most people don't necessarily care if others aren't covered so long as they are covered for a price they can afford.
    I believe what made the Unites States so GREAT is that this country was about branching out and doing something on your own....trying to provide for one self. At least, that is how it used to be. Now, more and more people are pointing fingers at others rather than looking in the mirror at themselves. If something goes wrong, well gee, it can't be my fault, it must be your fault. It's like passing everyone in school so no one gets their feelings hurt....or not keeping score in children's sports games so no one feels inferior....everyone gets a trophy....total BS that has now caused so many people to expect...yes EXPECT....things to be handed to them and to not understand failure. Failure sucks and people have taste that failure to understand and to then work harder to not taste it again. To me, relying on the government is failure.....it sucks.....but the more people come to rely on it the more they don't have to point the finger at themselves.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2607  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Do I personally think the Canadian system is better than the American one, yes. But this is largely because I'm Canadian and therefore universal coverage is the first item on my list of must haves. I don't think it would be a good fit in the USA. People distrust their government here, and in my experience, most people don't necessarily care if others aren't covered so long as they are covered for a price they can afford.
    Wow, I'm hoping you didn't mean that as insulting as it came across to me. Are Canadians really more concerned about the health of their fellow citizens than Americans? If so, sign me up. I'm coming up to live in your utopian society.
  8. #2608  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Wow, I'm hoping you didn't mean that as insulting as it came across to me. Are Canadians really more concerned about the health of their fellow citizens than Americans? If so, sign me up. I'm coming up to live in your utopian society.
    Nope...not insult at all. Just my observation. Different societies have different values about different things. Canadians truly view their healthcare system as part of their national identity and have protected it's universality via legislation. That hardly qualifies the country as a utopian society.

    Are Canadians really more concerned about the health of their fellow citizens than Americans?

    Well I'd say the proof of that is in the pudding so to speak.
    Last edited by ryleyinstl; 03/03/2010 at 09:12 AM.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2609  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    I'd call it medically inferior tests, but yes, that's going on. Especially in cases where the patient has no insurance at all. The Doctors have to balance cost recovery with patient treatment. What they are doing is completely legal.
    One note--I used the word "incorrect" in contrast to your use of the word "correct", but I will treat this as a clarification.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    In the case of my wife's hospital a certain portion of sick kids do not have insurance or have very poor insurance. At the end of treatment if the bill comes to 100k and the parents work at Arby's there is very little chance the hospital will ever see that money. They write that off.
    Yes, as the saying goes--you can't get blood out of a turnip. But of course, the point many people have made is that they aren't just "eating" that cost are they--they are charging paying customers more--so my insurance for example has to pay $150 for a test that might have otherwise cost $100 (not accurate numbers).

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Good question....sometimes it's just a legacy thing and the billing/coding hasn't kept up with the science. Who knows?
    I'd suggest that the answer is relevant to understanding the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Diagnostic medicine is a complicated crazy thing (that's why my wife is the doctor and not me). There are many factors in the USA that determine what tests are available at what hospitals at what times at what price and what is the most "effective" for a given situation. There are people that figure all that out for a living. The insurance companies also think they have that figured out and sometimes the 2 parties have to fight about it. Generally to the detriment of the sick.
    Perhaps, but again--in the case where hospitals simply pass costs beyond insurance on (to the patient) like in MY insurance plan, how is the doctor restricted from choosing the test they think is best? I've got all sorts of billing where the insurance company says "We pay X" the doctor chose something that cost more than X, and I got the bill. Now, I have to add a disclaimer to help with others understanding. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF MY EXPERIENCE WITH INSURANCE. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A UNIVERSAL STATEMENT.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    You basically have that right. However I would say that the doctor and hospital staff are generally trying to give you the very best care that they can while balancing that with your coverage level and ability to pay the extra bill. There have been many times my wife would go the long and more complicated way to try and insure that a patient would have 100% of their care covered. Sometimes the doctors hands are tied and the choice is lower level of care or stick the patient with a bill that will leave them bankrupt. Unethical.....not according to the law.
    I'm sure that some doctors and hospitals are very sensitive to this issue--perhaps most of them even. However, certainly not all.

    But again--we're not talking here about the actual costs and whether they are reasonable or not. We've stated that it costs more per capita in the US for health services. Why? What does Test A cost in Canada compared to the US? Is there a major difference? If so, why?

    KAM
  10. #2610  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Let me ask you this--how many people would 300 billion a year cover in Canada? What is the Canadian health budget?
    KAM
    Healthcare is administered Provincially so spending will very by Province and Territory. When I left Canada (nearly 3 years ago) the collective total used to fund heathcare was less then 300 billion (in Canadian Dollars).
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  11. #2611  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    But again--we're not talking here about the actual costs and whether they are reasonable or not. We've stated that it costs more per capita in the US for health services. Why? What does Test A cost in Canada compared to the US? Is there a major difference? If so, why?
    KAM
    This is an interesting question. It's my understanding that the Federal and Provincial Governments negotiate better prices based on purchasing things for 35 million people at one time. Drugs, beds, testing equipment..... As such they have considerable buying power.

    Additionally, in a situation where there are no profits to consider, things will cost less generally. The Crown is not interested in making money nor is there any mechanism that would allow for it.
    Last edited by ryleyinstl; 03/03/2010 at 09:13 AM.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2612  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Nope...not insult at all. Just my observation. Different societies have different values about different things. Canadians truly view their healthcare system as part of their national identity and have protected it's universality via legislation. That hardly qualifies the country as a utopian society.

    Are Canadians really more concerned about the health of their fellow citizens than Americans?

    Well I'd say the proof of that is in the pudding so to speak.
    OR... maybe there's just a disagreement about how 300,000,000 people can get quality care. Seems more plausible, and more productive, than passing a value judgment on all Americans doesn't it? After all, if we can blame it on the American value system then we don't have to answer any of the hard questions.
  13. #2613  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Considering I was talking about traditional insurance (not Medicare, not HMO--which you might have picked up on by the use of the word "insurance") specifically, your response is off. That's ok--I know you aren't terribly interested or capable of dealing with what is actually said.

    A reasonable person might also take note of where I said "In my experience" which is stated in order to qualify what follows, indicating that it isn't a UNIVERSAL statement, as you seem to have mistakenly assumed. I'm happy to teach you how language works, since you really don't seem able to pick up on these important points.


    Of course, in reference to Medicare, you've stumbled into revealing that in fact GOVERNMENT would then be responsible for this situation occurring--which is being blamed on insurance companies. If this GOVERNMENT program is what is screwing hospitals (causing them to "eat" costs or be forced to go with "incorrect" tests, then that says a lot doesn't it.

    So, let's review so far. Insurance policies (at least those I've dealt with) allow hospitals to simply pass those costs along--they aren't "eating" the cost. However, GOVERNMENT programs like Medicare DO require these hospitals to "eat" these costs, which then acts as a restriction. So...it appears that GOVERNMENT would be the ones tending to cause some test to be chosen that otherwise wouldn't. With insurance (mine at least), doctors just freely pass that extra cost (should it occur) onto me. HMOs...I don't know about that, so I'll just assume whatever you say about them is correct.


    KAM
    Very interesting, but not surprising, that your summary is exactly 100% incorrect.

    First, there are more people enrolled in HMO's than in PPO's or any other kind of health insurance plan. I can't help it if you aren't aware of what the majority of Americans use for insurance.

    Link

    Second, as I clearly stated, HMO's (which are insurance companies) make hospitals and doctors eat costs just the same as Medicare when doctors sign contracts with them. Got that? Again, I can't help it if you choose a plan that allows your insurance company to avoid paying for all your care. The vast majority of HMO's do.

    And the "important point" is that "your experience" is limited to the point that your arguments are vapid. I'm glad you are in a learning mode, however. Believe me, it's sorely needed.
  14. #2614  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    This is an interesting question. It's my understanding that the Federal and Provincial Governments negotiate better prices based on purchasing things for 35 million people at one time. Drugs, beds, testing equipment..... As such they have considerable buying power.

    Additionally, in a situation where there are no profits to consider, things will cost less generally. The Crown is not interested in making money nor is there any mechanism that would allow for it.
    Yeah, we had a shot at that once. Unfortunately the kind of "health care reform" the republicans want is Medicare part D, in which the government gets to provide drugs for Medicare patients, but Medicare is barred from negotiating lower prices from the drug companies. Almost sounds....anti-American, doesn't it? But we MUST protect special interests at all costs.
  15. #2615  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    OR... maybe there's just a disagreement about how 300,000,000 people can get quality care. Seems more plausible, and more productive, than passing a value judgment on all Americans doesn't it? After all, if we can blame it on the American value system then we don't have to answer any of the hard questions.
    Perhaps. I'm glad to see the USA has decided to look at it at least. Canada's system is not perfect but offers an alternative idea for study. The USA certainly has an opportunity to best it and most others if they so choose. I hope they do.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  16. #2616  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    But we MUST protect special interests at all costs.
    Yes, just like the democrats protect attornies?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  17. #2617  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yes, just like the democrats protect attornies?
    I'd like to think that attorneys aren't needed because our health care system is so safe...but I can give you lots of examples that say it ain't so. However, since republicans really seem to think that doctors can't make significant mistakes, and need more protection than patients do, go for it. It just won't make any difference in cost reduction, as proven in Texas.
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2618  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    This is an interesting question. It's my understanding that the Federal and Provincial Governments negotiate better prices based on purchasing things for 35 million people at one time. Drugs, beds, testing equipment..... As such they have considerable buying power.
    The Government in the US is the single largest payer by far for medical expenses--as much as 50% I believe. They certainly have considerable buying power--more than any insurance company can come close to.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Additionally, in a situation where there are no profits to consider, things will cost less generally. The Crown is not interested in making money nor is there any mechanism that would allow for it.
    Well, there is profit in the Canadian system--doctors make profit at least--they live on it. CLARIFICATION ADDED (In the US) Insurance companies make profit as well--a relatively small amount, but certainly a middle man. Government of course has all sorts of costs (which they report differently than a private company BTW).

    That's one benefit I see to reducing the involvement of both insurance companies and government in doctor-patient interactions. As i have mentioned many times before, I would like to see a reduction (to the maximum extent possible) in indirect payer schemes--one of the benefits is reduction in overhead costs (and also insurance company profits). As a reminder, my idea was to eliminate indirect payer from "common" medical care.

    After all--the government are spending over 300 billion a year on the poor, and STILL not covering them. It seems clear to me that this money isn't being spent wisely.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/03/2010 at 10:56 AM.
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2619  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Very interesting, but not surprising, that your summary is exactly 100% incorrect.
    Oh, 100% incorrect. Yes, I'm sure that is the case if you follow your straw man, but of course that is dishonest and intellectual cowardice, but you know--I've come to expect that.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    First, there are more people enrolled in HMO's than in PPO's or any other kind of health insurance plan. I can't help it if you aren't aware of what the majority of Americans use for insurance.
    Well, perhaps what you said would be relevant if I made some sort of statement about the percentage of people in various programs. I'm not sure why you are unable to deal with what I say and keep pursuing your straw man, addressing what I DIDN'T talk about. Likely just another demonstration of your dishonesty.

    I wasn't talking about HMOs, so stop answering as if I was. If you can't deal with what is said honestly, then kindly "put a sock in it."

    What I was comparing was my non-HMO insurance (as an example) contrasted with Medicare. I notice that you claim that this is "100% incorrect", but fail to actually address the claim. Instead you talk about HMOs and percentages of people in them, completely ignoring the actual statement--you simply declare it "100% incorrect." You'd think if that were the case, you could easily address the actual statement, but of course you did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Second, as I clearly stated, HMO's (which are insurance companies) make hospitals and doctors eat costs just the same as Medicare when doctors sign contracts with them. Got that? Again, I can't help it if you choose a plan that allows your insurance company to avoid paying for all your care. The vast majority of HMO's do.
    I told you I wasn't talking about HMOs. I already acknowledged that I didn't know how it worked with HMOs and said I'd accept whatever your claim was (baring other information). So, yeah, ok--thanks for running your mouth about something that I didn't say. BTW--that's a waste of bandwidth you are so concerned about.

    The point remains--although you are doing your best to avoid what this means, that MEDICARE (the government system you demand we follow) is causing Hospitals to "eat" the costs (by your own admission). In terms of the conversation that you felt the need to jump into (with your dishonest little tactics) is that when doctors or hospitals are forced to "eat" the costs, it influences what services they provide. That I believe was a point that ryleyinstl was making. So, thanks for CONFIRMING my point as being correct, and demonstrating your little prattle (that I'm 100% incorrect) is absurd.

    So, clearly--I'm not "100% incorrect: at all--you just cannot deal with the actual points I make, and insist on throwing up a smokescreen talking about what I didn't say. I know you are probably used to blathering on and bullying people, but your childish nonsense isn't of interest to me. Its merely annoying prattle I have to deal with in order to have a conversation with people who are attempting to do so honestly.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And the "important point" is that "your experience" is limited to the point that your arguments are vapid. I'm glad you are in a learning mode, however. Believe me, it's sorely needed.
    I'm always in a learning mode. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have a "honest mode." So, I was talking about non-HMO insurance (as I clarified, and which you apparently still can't deal with), and stated that in fact the costs are passed along to consumers. That is a fact, yet you ridiculously claim that what I said is "100% incorrect." That claim is of course factually incorrect, because what I said is true.

    Unfortunately, you have this practice of constant distortion of what one says, ignoring various pieces, making up others and attributing them to me, and then of course answering claims I didn't make (straw men). This level of dishonesty is really pathetic, and I wish you would stop, because honestly, I'm tired of constantly being put in the position of refuting your lies.

    If you can't resolve in your own little head that others don't want to accept what you demand, and have reasons for it (that you ignore conveniently) then I can only suggest that you deal with those issues away from me.

    I'm also very confused why you seem to have this inability to deal with views that don't conform to your own. That's a significant character flaw I think. You demonstrate this need to attack and attempt to belittle people that disagree and because you apparently cannot address facts that you dislike, you instead rely on straw-men non-arguments in order to distract and evade. If you are concerned about bandwidth, I suggest you stop wasting time with such dishonest practices.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/03/2010 at 10:47 AM.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2620  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Nope...not insult at all. Just my observation. Different societies have different values about different things. Canadians truly view their healthcare system as part of their national identity and have protected it's universality via legislation. That hardly qualifies the country as a utopian society.

    Are Canadians really more concerned about the health of their fellow citizens than Americans?

    Well I'd say the proof of that is in the pudding so to speak.
    Well, what is that pudding exactly? In the United States between Medicare and Medicaid we spend about 20% of our entire budget on paying for medical services for the poor and elderly. What percentage is it in Canada? I did a quick look on Wikipedia and it says 16.7% that same chart lists the US at 18.5 (for reference).

    So, it seems if you follow the money, we spend more of our budget on Healthcare than Canada does, and of course we are only covering a fraction of the population. Would you say that it is fair to say that compared to Canada what we spend isn't the issue? We spend a higher percentage, but we cover less people (meaning we individually pay even more for our own coverage).

    Now, doesn't this point to a flaw in HOW the money is spent? It seems that you are claiming that somehow the United States just doesn't care, but again, following the money we do. We pay plenty--we just don't get good (efficient) return.

    Doesn't this say that the issue is how the money is being spent? Essentially, we've got a government that is spending more for less compared to Canada. What about the US government is leading it to be so inefficient and ineffective? That is certainly something to address before giving them even more influence over the system it seems.

    I'd really hate to think that my fellow Americans are suffering, because our government is such a disaster. But of course, considering that people want to deny that the government shares the blame in our healthcare problems, it isn't surprising. These enablers should be called out for protecting this abuse of the American Taxpayer AND the people they are supposed to be helping.

    An important note here--this is GOVERNMENT spending on healthcare.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/03/2010 at 11:21 AM.

Posting Permissions