Until the HMO decides not to cover some med and you get to spend a month arguing with them. :-p
BTW, how in high hell do you get to see a doctor on the same day?
But it means you can get hurt and drugged up as much as you want. That would be important for people like me who HMOs hate because I rack up about ten thou a year in meds and hospitalizations, and my HMO loathes me. If they didn’t have to pay for it, I think they would send someone to break my knees O_o
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel strongly one way or the other - they both have their pluses and minuses, and I think a combination of both systems would be nice.
Depends on where you live. Can you in good consience tell me and others that the added tax on gas where you live , is actually going to what its supposed to be doing. The op wanted to know how to get reasonable gas prices , part of the price you pay at the pump is in Taxes.
I like number 11 , the best. Nimbys who halted the construction of Freeways in the Greater Toronto Area , assumed that traffic would stay constant , now its coming back to bite em in the ass.
HMO’s are a whole debate unto themselves. They were an invention of Congress and suffer some of the same evils that socialized medicine create. They remove personal responsibility for health care as well as the knowledge of dollars spent.
I would much rather have the money my company spends on behalf for HMO’s so I could buy health INSURANCE instead. It would 1/3 of the cost to me. I would use some of the remaining 2/3’s on doctor’s visits and still have a wad of cash left over. For me it would equate to probably be about $2500 a year in my pocket.
Your experience with knee breaking HMO cost-cutters is a basic function of cost management. Whether you do it, an HMO does it, or a Government does it effects the outcome of care over time. If you do it then you think twice about spending $85 on a doctor’s visit for a cold (I’m guilty of that sometimes). An HMO will look at medical diagnostic costs (X-rays, MRI’s etc…). Governments will simply grind you down with a waiting game. I’m not a health care expert but I’ve read about the qualifications for simple things like a kidney transplant in countries using a socialized system. You are not automatically on a list if you need it. Your age and health is factored into who gets what.
I’m not against the concept of socialized medicine it’s just that I know what will happen in the long run. If there is a middle ground of a nationalized health insurance program (versus health maintenance) I would be interested in hearing about it. I still think people need to be accountable for their day-to-day lives. The problem with Governments invoking a national HMO is the inevitable run-away costs involved. It is a self-fulfilling social program. People who could afford to pay their way are taxed to the point where they can no longer do so. They become dependent on a system that will give less care as time progresses.
By the way, I hope you get well. Even as a child I’ve always thought of myself as wealthy because I’m basically in good health. And I do appreciate it.
Shush, you! It’ll all be gone next summer, I promise you!
Actually, it would be really, really stupid to invade Canada for cheaper gas, since under NAFTA you already get it as cheap as if Alberta’s oil were in Montana instead of Alberta. Maybe even cheaper, since labour costs are a tad lower here.
Not, mind you, that I’ve noticed any shortage of stupidity in the executive branch of your government recently.
The place to invade is Saudi Arabia. They hold the majority of the world’s oil reserves and they’re the major source of funding for Al Qaeda. The population is mostly concentrated in urban areas, the land is mostly empty desert. We coudl easily take the oilfileds and hold them, compared to many other places. And by siezing all of Saudi Arabia’s assets we would destroy the majority of Al Qaeda funding. Win win win win win.
The Arab world would hate our guts for it, so what else is new?
Out here in CA, the crude oil could be freaken FREE and it wouldn’t cut prices. The problem out here is not enough refinery capactity, and the huge cost of ethanol that the GOP makes us buy becuse the farm belt votes Republican. :mad:
It’s a stupid question; if it’s urgent, then straight away. Obviously. If it’s minor then a day, maybe two.
Fwiw, the UK is no comparision as until last year we only put 7.7% of GDP into health care - the US puts 14%.
Fairer/truer comparison lies with countries that put in similar GDP e.g. Germany and France - they both use less GDP than the US for 100% coverage of the population at a better standard than the US (which is, what 34th in the world on the UN list).
Justlfy it in your mind all you like, the US system is shit, the people are utterly ripped off and no country in the world wants any part of it.
I suppose then the huge lines of dudes asking to be let in the USA, and the hordes of aliens that sneak in or are caught at the border tyring desperatley to get into a nation that “no country in the world wants any part of” is simply my imagination? :rolleyes:
What the fuck does a debate about Healthcare have anything to do with Oil prices? Start your own thread, OK?
[QUOTE=Celyn]
btw - please don’t invade Scotland - we do have oil, but oh really not enough for the U.SA. to invade. Honest.QUOTE]
Scotland, eh? Oil and haggis.
If you want to compare the amount of money spent you have to also compare the services rendered. That’s where the 34th comes in because it is based on percentage of GDP. You are also using health care spending in a discussion of monetary power. If you want to discuss monetary power then you need to use the economic version of the Human Development Index. By that scale the US is ranked 7th and the UK is ranked 13th. We have more discretionary income in the US and we can spend it on things like health care.
And if the US system is shit then you might want to let the Canadians know about it. They come over here for operations rather than wait in Canada. They are ranked 3rd on UN health index.
The funny thing is, the Canadians are financing US pharmaceutical needs with their tax subsidized drug prices (of American drugs). Americans cross the border and buy their drugs in Canada. Thanks guys.
I’m not trying to pump sunshine up your ass but completely socializing an industry is not going to increase your standard of living unless you are a deadbeat. There is a place for Government involvement but if left unchecked it will lead to rationing of services.
I can’t BELIEVE we got a juicy topic about what foreigners we gonna kill next and you guys wanna argue health care programs. Getcher own damn thread.
Y’know, Iceland doesn’t have much oil, but it has loads of geothermal energy. Plus, loads of blond women to serve as our slavegirls once we take over. Who’s up for it?
If you brits took a tenth of the immigrants we do into your dinky little island, you’d be cheek-by-jowl overnite. Shoot, just the Canadians coming down here are more than you dudes get…
Sure, public healthcare is related to taxation. So are Food stamps, $500 hammers, Schools, the war on drugs, Social Security and the jellybeans GWB eats.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
Cast your little eyes up there unto the OP. Read the Op. Understand the OP. Grok the OP. In case you missed it- the topic is “What country do we have to go to war with to get reasonable gasoline prices?” See anything about taxes? Anything about Healthcare? So stop hijacking this thread to brag about the oh-so-great healthcare you Brits get- which if things are so great over there- why do far more Brits immigrate to the US rather than us to England? Don’t answer- here. Start another thread. It’s easy to do. :wally
I’d be happy to debate Public healthcare. Or Taxes in general (I admit gasoline taxes- which have NOTHING to do with healthcare- are relevant here), or even why the USA is better that Britain.
