No, it shouldn’t be the goal at all. Quite the opposite.
The “Nanny State” robs individuals the incentive to do for themselves and think for themselves, all on the dollar of those of us who can do both.
What is your answer to the situation I presented about my brother-in-law. The man could have supported himself his entire life. He refused. Should receive the same benefits as someone who is simply down on their luck? If so, why?
How about someone like me? What if I do something heinous at work and get fired? Should your tax dollars go to maintain my health care when it was my own actions that lost it in the first place? I say no.
I’m sorry, but this is laughable. Bureaucrats are concerned with following and or enforcing the rules. If the rules are well made, then doing so will entail efficient distribution of resources. If not, then not.
While I agree that there is a different incentive structure I disagree as to the tendancy of outcomes. Many government bureaucrats will be quite concientious and spend considerable amounts of mental effort to see that the resources they are in charge of are used to the best effect. Meanwhile, many private insurance bureaucrats will do the same. And it goes without saying that there are the other kind of bureaucrats on both sides. My only point is that if you want to change which bureaucrat is in charge of you, you have to get lots of Canadians to agree with you. (I know you guys are supposed to be nice and all but I suspect this is not always easy) Me, I only have to make some phone calls. This is what I mean by my choice.
Also, it should be noted that I don’t think very many insurance bean counters get to keep whatever money they do not spend.
I feel compelled to say * that I am not now nor have I ever been a* bureaucrat.
Absolutely not. I noticed in some of the studies we discussed earlier that many Canadians do not understand private health care systems having grown up without it, but I never said that Canadians are ignorant, blind or foolish. I simply pointed it out as one more reason why you might have more difficulty influencing your government bureaucrat than I do influencing my insurance bureaucrat.
My appologies. If you will review my last couple posts, you will see more typos and gramatical errors than are easily explained. I can only plead excessive lateness and having too much fun to edit my posts. I certainly should have said Queen
Well, I think it might be. I only meant that people who live here 6 months out of the year might put off medical treatment which is easier to get here. IOW just because they were here for other reasons does not mean they did not come here for medical treatment also. Especially when we are talking about ellective procedures. If the study had limited themselves to emergency care or sudden illnesses, I could see the point. But they did not. I just found it interesting that the study sought to ignore any medical treatment these people get here as “coincidental” or irrelevant unless their only reason for coming here was that treatment.
Of course just because they had medical treatment here does not mean they “fled” the Canadian system either. I think the situation is much more complicated than that.
And actually, I was not trying to “dismiss” the cite at all. I think I did thank the poster for it. I was not trying to claim that it was inacurate, just that one of its features seemed fishy. For instance, I also found it interesting that one of the articles I posted tried to imply that the Canadian system was imploding because 350 doctors left a particular province.
I say yes. Reluctantly, but yes. I disagree with these politics. I do understand them – I used to be a Rush Limbaugh listening conservative until about '94 and then reassessed my viewpoint.
The problem with making exceptions is deciding who is worthy of health care and who is not. Spiritually and philosophically I believe everyone is. Not everyone chooses their lot in life. In order to take of people down on their luck, we have to make the sacrifice of paying for people who truly don’t deserve it. Otherwise, I see no practical way to pay.
I have no problem for paying for your health care, even if you are an asshole loser, as long as my paying for you guarantees that my children and their children and my friends and my relatives are all covered. If I lose my job and have an accident whilst uninsured, I want to be cared for. I know several people who work 3 or 4 part time jobs, yet cannot afford health care because part-time work does not offer these benefits. Should these people be bereft of coverage? No.
I firmly believe that the amount of people mooching off the system is dwarfed by the amount of people uninsured and underinsured who work either full-time or part-times jobs which do not offer them insurance, or are currently between jobs.
For all the mindless, pointless bullshit I pay for in taxes, I might as well get something I can use.
pervert, The first link talks about the results of a study which, it appears, the authors at least attemted to design objectively. Just because it reached a certain conclusion based on the results of that study doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s skewed towards proving a point. As far as certain uses being coincedental it was pretty clear to me what he was talking about. He was talking about emergency or urgent care. Such care was unlikely to have resulted due to someone travelling south because of a waiting list. If you break your leg, for example, you’re not likely to travel south across the border because of an orthopedics waiting list.
I didn’t include the second link in order to give numbers. I gave it as a refutation to the idea that there even are authoritative numbers. The point is that people make claims about huge waiting lists while there is apparently little or no hard data to back them up. The people making these claims need to show the numbers, not the other way around. From that link:
So, at least according to Mr. Evans, there is little or no hard data backing up the claims of huge waiting lists. And It tends to be anecdotal.
Thanks again. I missed that paragraph. I posted earlier that I was not trying to dismiss the study. I also have not seen hard numbers showing vast defections from Canada. I think I asked if anyone had them.
It did seem odd that they relied on telephone conversations with “likely” ellective procedure providers, but obtained discharge records from hospitals for emergency procedures. But I did not perform an in depth analysis of any kind.
I’m willing to believe that mass defections are something of a myth.
How much of a guarantee do you need? Is it ok if the number of doctors and hospitals falls drastically over the next few years? Is it ok if we no longer develope leading edge diagnostic equipment? Or if we only have a few of them? How much are you willing to give up in terms of service in order to get this coverage?
Yes, the number mooching is small compared to the number not participating. What are all of those non participants going to do when they can get medical care for free? Do you really expect that the demand for services will not increase drastically? And if you don’t, then what is the significance of the uninsured number? If these people do not need medical care and therefore won’t clog any national system, why do they need one?
How much of an increase in taxes is OK? Would it be ok if your take home was decreased by half, a third, or a quarter? What exactly is the number we are talking about. The 1991 study which many liberals bandy about (and which claimed we could basically get it for free) assumed very small or no increse in demand. Do you have any other sources claiming that the costs would be low?
I understand completely that you want to be cared for. I do too. I do, however, have a problem with your request for me to pay for it.
Any of the rest of you who think we should pay more to help the indigent, how much of your money do you donate to local hospitals? You do know that they do not always recoup losses from helping indigent people? Why don’t you simply start a charity to pay some of these costs?
That has been the exact situation for my dad on more than one occasion, except that one of the times I was still a dependent, so make it three kids. But we got by, and it’s not because we were “lucky”.
My dad got swindled out of most of his life savings by some jerk who owns the Happy Joe’s pizza chain in Illinois, who promised him if he invested in the advertising agency he was then working for that he and the other fellas would become partners. In the end, he was left with empty promises, an empty savings account, and the agency was dissolved. He was out of work for a year and without insurance, we moved to Kansas (ugh!) found new work, and tried to get back on our feet.
Just a year and a half ago, his position was “reorganized” away. This after having just purchased a home in Maryland. He was out of work until just recently, and had to sell the home and start to rent. Again, he (and my mom and two brothers) went without insurance for over a year, and I mentioned what happened in an earlier post.
And of course, I myself have been without insurance for 3 years now.
People get by all the time without medical insurance. It is a simple fact that insurance companies do not stay in business by paying out more in benefits than they take in with premiums. This means that most people will lose money by having health insurance. So it can’t be a necessity, it’s a net loss. In the long run, it only benefits the statistical anomalies, those unlucky few who are hit with severe misfortune. The people who make it through the times when they’re uncovered aren’t “lucky”, they’re the norm. The Grim Reaper doesn’t show up on your doorstep the moment your insurance lapses. I’ve been there, my family’s been there, lots of families have been there.
It’s not a matter of stigma, it’s that strangers are often NOT merciful.
I came from a good family, nicely middle-class, went to college - then, during a period of unemployment I became one of “those” people. No drugs, no mental illness - just good old-fashioned lack of employment. All cured when I finally got a job with a living wage. It was an educational experience.
Most strangers are NOT kind. Charity often comes with strings attached, or eroneous assumptions. I was turned away from places because I had no children - I guess single women never need help. I was turned away from places because I wasn’t the right religion. I was turned away from places because I wasn’t the right color. Thanks God I was young and healthy at the time.
Charitable medical care comes with assumptions - such as the OB/GYN who was being soooo generous giving me an exam but kept asking questions like “Look, it’s OK to admit it - I won’t report you to the police - how often do you turn tricks?” Excuse me? I wasn’t having any sex with anyone but I guess the assumption was if I was poor I was also a whore. All those nice people offering me “substance abuse treatment” - “I don’t need treatment I need a job - can I rake your yard/mow your lawn/shovel snow off your sidewalk this winter?”
I wasn’t a loser, I was a person down on my luck through circumstances I couldn’t control. I got back on my feet, I’m now the main breadwinner of my family, and I have enough left over for my expensive hobby. Not everyone indigent today is a “loser”, nor will they necessarially be a “loser” tomorrow. PK and RexDart have obviously never had this sort of calamity happen to them or their families. If it ever does, it will be one hell of a shock.
At present I do have very nice private health insurance. In fact, I work for the industry. Nonetheless, I’d like to see some sort of national safety net for everyone. That doesn’t automatically mean top dollar and fancy elective procedures for everyone, but someone with a broken leg should have it set, someone with an infected cut should be able to get antibiotics. And more importantly, someone with TB has to be treated because that disease can spread if it isn’t. We didn’t eradicate smallpox by making the poor of the world pay for their vaccinations.
I never claimed the costs were low and, frankly, I’m willing to pay plenty more in taxes if this means universal health. I do understand I’m in the minority, but for the life of me I cannot put money over the security of health. I also believe it is in our general interest to keep the population healthy and stop the spread of disease.
I’m not going to argue with your “we should all take care of ourselves” mentality. This is what our country’s values are very much based on. I just think that we’ve gotten to the point were a little more collectivism might be in order. I’ve just seen too many hardworking, deserving people swept aside by the system, and I don’t think it’s necessary. The Europeans and Canadians have been able to figure out a system that more or less works, and you’re telling me we can’t? This ain’t the wild west anymore.
Why don’t we dissolve the police if we should all take care of ourselves?
Why don’t we dissolve the public school system if we should all take care of ourselves?
Why don’t we get rid of social security, the military, and state hospitals if we should all take care of ourselves?
Why is it that it’s alright to have all of these services–some basic, some not–but the most basic one is left to the dog-eat-dog world of natural selection?
I spent my first two years of grad school without health coverage. I didn’t have a car either, so I tried to save money by commuting to school on my bike. Five miles each way. Through the slums of Newark, NJ. About twice a month I would go into the field (literally) and do research. Better not trip over that fallen log, monstro! Money for sprained ankles doesn’t grow on trees, you know!
While all of this was happening, I was dealing with anxiety and depression. Thank goodness that my school had a free counseling program, or I don’t know what would have happened to me.
I could have gotten some health insurance, but then I wouldn’t have been able to eat. It wasn’t a hard decision to make.
I hope more people read what rjung wrote above. Wise words indeed.
Well, that’s one thing. However, I would really appreciate it if you would quit dropping hints that people without insurance or who are unemployed are ALL a bunch of deadbeat losers. Granted, some are. But a lot of us are not.
Re-read what you wrote here.
Understand that a lot of the bullshit government programs you pay taxes for started off as good intentions, only to grow to absurd proportions.
Even services that are absolutely neccessary (and in some cases, Constitutionally required) like law enforcement, military, etc. are, in some areas, bloated and over funded.
Starting a new government program, in the case of health care one that will involve no less than 1/7th our total economy, is asking for another bureaucratic 800 pound gorrilla. No thanks!
Well, since the police along with the courts are the arbiters of force, they kind of perform the one legitimate government service.
K. I’m not really enamoured of the public school system. It has disolved into a vast politically correct experimental system in which education is secondary. Luckilly though, we made public education the norm rather than the exception. So any mistakes we make are rapidly promulgated throughout the country. New math anyone? :rolleyes:
K. I’m all for this as well.
Well, as I said, its not alright. Also, since when is medical care “the most basic one”??? Wouldn’t that be food? Are you actually suggesting collectivising the farms? Perhaps you should go and look up the recent history of the Ukraine for their take on this idea.
You see, this is the essential fallacy of the socialized medicine argument. It does not “mean universal health”. It does not mean anything of the kind. It simply means that the government will be in charge of who gets healt care and who does not.
Also I should note, that under the current system you are allowed to value your money and your “security of health” in any way you want. The only thing you are not allowed to do (and exactly what you are trying to do) is to value my money over your “security of health”.
Is some level of health care benefits a human right?
This does not presume that everyone gets the same level of benefits, but is there there some minimal care that we as a society are obligated to provide to our members, similar to the concept that we provide a basic education, basic police protection, etc?
What is the most efficacious way to fund healthcare?
Whether or not some minimal standard of healthcare is a right, some level of healthcare will be provided. And we all pay for it either directly or indirectly in jack up bills. This level is currently extremely inconsistent but includes providing healthcare to those who cannot pay (they often show up in Emergency Rooms where their care is obligated and end up stiffing the providers who pass it along to the best that they can). This level is currently provided with great expense, inflated by the adminstration costs that are significantly less in countries with national health care.
No this isn’t car insurance (although at least all are mandated to have some minmal car insurance and a higher percentage have that than health insurance!); it is something that we are going to pay for one way or the other. Currently we do not ration care; we irration care.
As a private doc national healthcare is against my self interest; I still endorse it as better than what we got.
Well, I would encourage you to read up on the realities, doc. It is by no means certain that national health care is “better” than our private health care.
Regarding the “right” to health care: If such a right exists, what right do you have as a doctor to charge for it at all? Can I charge you for respecting your right to free speech? Basically, this position confuses right with need. Clearly people need medical care. But they do not have a right to it. (except in the sense that they have a right not to be denied it if they get it). Food is a good comparison here. Everyone has a certain right to food. But this does not mean that we force farmers to give food to poor people.
This is another misleading statistic. There are costs included in the number for the United States which are not included in the figures for National Health plans. For instance the amount of money spent on collecting taxes is not included in the administration costs of National health care plans. While the amount of money spent collecting insurance premiums certainly is included.
As I mentionned many times, the “waiting list” thing is a british and canadian issue . It’s not the unavoidable result of a socialized healthcare system, but plainly the result of an underfunded socialized health care system. Many countries have such a system and no waiting lists.
As I mentionned many times, the “waiting list” thing is a british and canadian issue . It’s not the unavoidable result of a socialized healthcare system, but plainly the result of an underfunded socialized health care system. Many countries have such a system and no waiting lists.
but I suspect this is not always easy) Me, I only have to make some phone calls. This is what I mean by my choice.