No, it isn’t “broken”. It simply is what it is, and what it is works very well and in a very timely fashion for a great many people. Yes, there are flaws and there are problems that need to be addressed. What I’m unhapppy about it that no solutions are being proposed other than the government take-over one.
Float us one, then. How would you fix it?
No, what’s being proposed is a government option and tighter controls on insurance companies. Though I would like to see a single-payer system, there are many examples worldwide of systems that combine private and public insurance.
It works well for those people who can afford insurance, as long as they’re going in for routine office appointments and nothing serious. Beyond that, it’s a nightmarish racket that has bankrupted more of your countrymen than anything else.
Government Take Over are buzzwords used by the stupid. Lies floated by the right to make simple people like yourself angry.
The current legislation isn’t a government takeover. If you’d bother to educate yourself you’d know that. But it’s easier to be an ignorant old man who’d rather reflexively hate, right?
I floated a couple upthread. How about rules and regulations to assure insurance agencies operate honestly? How about a government plan similar to food stamps that provides care for the truly needy on those occasions when they actually need it, rather than trying to provide coverage for everyone when only a tiny minority needs it at any given time? There are many ways that problems with the current system could be addressed, but it seems to me that all the left wants to do is put the government in charge of things. They want the government to be in charge of everything…that’s just the way they are. It’s perfectly obvious by comments around here (and some even in this very thread) that people would be perfectly happy with greater suffering due to wait times and greater deaths than 45,000 a year as long the government and not private enterprise was the reason.
Yeah, and what was proposed when Social Security went into effect and what has it become?
Exactly. And many others on the left would like to see a single-payer system too, and once the government gets its foot in the door with a government option they will immediately begin to lobby for that, and therein lies the rub. I said upthread that I’d have much less objection to what is being proposed if I could be confident that things would go no further. But you and I both know that to believe that would be the height of naivety.
And now I really do have to go so I’m out for now.
I take it you’re referring to the Chaoulli decision. In selecting that decision to prove your point, you’d be “sort of correct”: the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) did find that unreasonable wait times compromised the patient’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Where you’d be wrong is that Chaoulli applies only to the province of Quebec–not Canada as a whole. More’s the pity, I suppose, but because Quebec-specific legislation was at issue in Chaoulli, the decision couldn’t apply to the other provinces.
As a Canadian living in Canada, I have to say that I have absolutely no idea who the “president of the Canadian system” is.
It has been said time after time on these boards (and I guess it will have to be said once again) that there is no single “Canadian system.” There are a number of them, because health care in Canada is provincially-run. It is true that there is federal legislation mandating that health care be provided by all provinces and territories to qualified residents, and the federal government also provides funds to provincial health care plans (to some extent). But the ordinary operation of each province’s health care system is taken care of by the province itself: everything from how it’s funded to what it provides. Thus, problems in Vancouver are the problems of the government of British Columbia. Neither the government of Canada nor of any other province can solve Vancouver’s problems, because Vancouver’s problems are not other governments’ responsibilities.
I’ll grant that it is possible that someone important somehow made the remark you’re attributing to the “incoming president of the Canadian system”; but I highly doubt that it is someone who has the authority to speak for health care delivery in all provinces.
What is this, you think just because you actually live there, your expertise exceeds that of a guy who read an article once? Where do you get this thoroughly un-Canadian arrogance? We’re talking Starving Artist here! He gets fan mail of Stephen Hawkings! He sits down with the Encyclopedia Britannica and jots down corrections! And he has a cite! True, its always the same one, over and over and over, but he has one!
You’re out of your league here, pal.
Perhaps you will answer that. Social Security did not compete with insurance companies when it was implemented, and it doesn’t now. Ask how many retirees or disabled people want to get rid of it. Ask how many want to get rid of Medicare. Heck, even curlcoat, who rails against public money being given to people, refuses to opt out of the SSDI she receives.
For 100 years people have lobbied to ‘promote the general welfare’ and many of the same interests that opposed such legislation then are using exactly the same arguments now. Those measures passed, and no one (other than a few nutjobs) want to get rid of them now. There is no reason why UHC should be any different.
No, there are 47 million uninsured citizens. The illegals are NOT included in that number. Got it?
Apart from your comment about the proposed current legislation (my concerns about which I’ve already addressed at least twice), there is not a word in this post that is either accurate or deserving of an answer.
Still, I’ve largely felt the same way about these issues and my philosophy since I was in my teens, and I’m not all that old. 
Besides, attempting to discredit one’s concerns on the basis of their age is ageist, you know. I’m surprised a liberal in good standing such as yourself would resort to such dishonest tactics.
Oh, wait…no, I’m not. Your vaunted moral standards don’t apply when it comes to conservatives, do they? What was I thinking? :smack:
That would be Dr. Annie Doig. Please read her comments in toto here. Note where she says:
*“We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize…”
“We know that there must be change. We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”
“(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable.”
“They have to look at the evidence that’s being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada’s doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you’re getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it.” *
So now we’re down to splitting hairs over provinces, are we? And that unless Dr. Doig is speaking for all Canadian provinces, her words are meaningless, is that it? Somehow when one hears the term “…incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association,” one gets the impression that it’s Canada the association represents.
Can you guarantee that the U.S system will continue to work 50 years from now if we do nothing to change it? You’re asking for a burden of proof for other countries that you don’t seem to require of ours.
Also, you summarily dismiss the German and Swiss models with a simple “we’re not Germany”, which doesn’t really explain why it couldn’t apply to us.
I’m curious if you can tell me what constitutes a government takeover. I assume a “public option” is out. But does a Universal Mandate requiring everyone (who has enough money) to buy some form of insurance, like we require all drivers to carry auto insurance, constitute a takeover?
What about rules prohibiting the “pre-existing condition” exclusion that locks so many people in with their current plans?
What about rules that prevent insurance companies from charging more money based on gender?
It’s a good one, why not use it?
Besides, I was challenged over it.
It seems like there ought to be principles we could take from other areas and employ them to this situation. Take for instance your computer. My, they get better and better, don’t they? And what’s weird, they get cheaper and cheaper too. How does that work?
Competition. There are lots of companies out there manufacturing them and competing to sell you one.
Does that already apply? In some ways, probably: pharmaceutical companies compete with each other, for example, to discover the next wonder drug. And if I needed some surgery, but say it wasn’t emergency surgery, I could get quotes from various hospitals and choose…I imagine people kind of do that, but that they lean toward the finest treatment they can get, which often costs more.
How else could we apply that to medicine? Well, my GP is my GP. I could probably call the insurance people and demand to be changed, but it isn’t like I can change every time I feel like it. If he’s terrible, I’ll change but otherwise I’m stuck with him so he has no competition.
I know some people will find out that they need major surgery and actually fly to eastern Europe, where it’s much cheaper, to have it done. Maybe insurance could underwrite some of that, at least help out—they’d probably come out ahead on the deal anyway. It could be a pain to fly all the way over there etc. but if you’re saving tens of thousands of dollars, many will give it a try.
One possible effect: the cost of surgery here would be lowered. I’ll speak for myself but many probably would agree: I suspect the high cost is driven by a big profit motive. If a hospital has no competition, then there’s no incentive to provide the best deal they can. If more people went elsewhere for surgery, maybe they’d cut their rates.
I remember, too, seeing the deal about prescriptions from Canada/Mexico etc. If the product were REALLY the same, that would cost less. I read a story somewhere about a woman taking umpteen meds who would cross the border to Mexico, pick them up…and then she got caught, the cops destroyed them, etc. Maybe the health insurance companies could find some secure, legit out-of-country providers and prescription drugs. I’d expect the major pharmaceutical companies to scream but it’s an idea…and Walgreens would possibly clip their markup rate. Compare for instance a bottle of Centrum at Walgreens vs. what you can buy it for on the net.
Finally, it’s interesting to note that the VA has provided my (retired military) brother will whatever care he has needed. 1) It’s not like the government has zero experience with administering health services, and 2) the customers basically get what they need from it. He’s praised it many times but that’s about as much as I know about it.
Yes. We must split hairs over provinces, because they provide the health care.
The Canadian Medical Association is no more influential on Canadian federal and provincial governments than the American Medical Association is on American federal and state governments. Canadian physicians are not employed by the government; they are private entrepreneurs who merely bill the government health insurance plan for services rendered to patients. Dr. Doig can say what she pleases, and her fellow members of the CMA may agree with her; but in the end, the best that can be said is that Dr. Doig heads up a special-interest group that plans to lobby for changes. Neither Dr. Doig nor the CMA has any legislative authority to change the existing system or to regulate it.
But in 20, 30 or 50 years, it might be broken. According to your logic, that is a iron-plated reason to chuck it all.
While our system is broken and unsustainable . We have plenty of evidence showing how well the government can cover people. We have Medicare . We have the V.A. They don’t cull out the patients that actually need care. Actually their demographics are those in greatest need. All we have to do is pay them to take patients who are not depleting their resources and they will be more solvent.
The insurance companies have to be taken out of the equation. they are the problem, not the solution.
Old is descriptive. You’ve fallen into a cycle where you simply are unable to or unwilling to learn anything. Your views have cemented into a stiff and unbending plaque of stupidity that shields your brain from anything that doesn’t agree with your ignorant world view.
You aren’t pathetic because you’re old, you’re an old pathetic heap that lets his blurry view of yesterday act as a filter for viewing today.
The current legislation isn’t a government takeover. You’re a liar if you say it is. As for the slippery slope argument, you can make that with anything. Twenty years from now we could have a single payer system whether we have the current legislation or not. This will do nothing to make that more likely.
None of which has anything to do with anything. My position is that UHC is fundamentally flawed and that the problems Canada is having are illustrative of that belief. I used Dr. Doig’s comments about conditions in a profession that she has worked in for over thirty years as substantiation of those problems. The point is that the Canadian health care system is deeply flawed and in dire straights. The fact that Dr. Doig isn’t a legislator in no way negates her observations.
Again, there is not a whit of substance in anything you’ve said. Not even about the current legislation not being a government takeover, because I’ve never said it was and I even told you so directly. And then you use that allegation to accuse me of lying.
You’re not worth the time it takes to point out what an idiot you are…and yet here I am doing just that.
Go figure.