RunRyder RC
 4  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 1 page 529 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics › Free Health Care ???
03-07-2008 02:39 PM  10 years agoPost 1
GyroFreak

rrProfessor

Orlando Florida ...28N 81W

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

A short but poignant independent film on government sponsored healthcare systems.
Everyone who plans to vote for our new President in 2008 NEEDS to see this. Regardless of the person for whom they would vote.

http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php

I think about the hereafter. I go somewhere to get something, then wonder what I'm here after ?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 03:42 PM  10 years agoPost 2
SteveH

rrProfessor

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yea, but Billary has a plan to fix that. Yea, right!

The government cannot give you anything without first taking it from someone else.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 04:23 PM  10 years agoPost 3
Stet

rrElite Veteran

Key Largo FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I have a plan

Provide government funded semi-private insurance to the indigent and infirmed. Take that cost off of those who pay for private insurance. Limit the benefits to lifesaving and necessary treatment (no sex changes, no limb re-attachment, no viagra).

Then the government can simply tax society for the cost instead of running it through a convoluted system where the private companies are forced to give free care, then pass the cost to those who pay for their health care, causing costs to go up and up.

This would be better than forcing private individuals into an inefficient health care plan like the one in Canada which I understand is currently in crisis.

keepin' it real

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 05:21 PM  10 years agoPost 4
1stPlace

rrApprentice

Ohio USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Every year, my insurance goes up and the services and choices go down. In the last few years, every time my wife or I have visited the ER, our insurance company sends us a bill that they say was an excessive charge from the hospital. What the hell? Why do I even keep paying them hundreds of dollars every month, if they are going to make us pay the bill anyway?

We don't need health care reform in this country. We do need health insurance company reform! We need to force insurance companies and HMO's to allow us to choose what doctors and hospitals that we will use and demand that they pay the bills!

Diejenigen, die nicht lernen aus den Fehlern der Vergangenheit bestimmt sind, zu wiederholen.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 06:02 PM  10 years agoPost 5
Stet

rrElite Veteran

Key Largo FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The problem is that the government is telling them to give free health care to those who do not have insurance, and to give YOU the bill.

The problem is not the insurance companies, doctors or hospitals. The problem is regulation and the twisted liberal logic that wants to redistribute your wealth to those who scam services for free because they can (and because they have no assets to lose). So your insurance is really to protect your assets.

keepin' it real

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 06:32 PM  10 years agoPost 6
HugeOne

rrKey Veteran

Quebec, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

care plan like the one in Canada which I understand is currently in crisis.
Our health system is doing pretty well, I should even say that it does better than your considering the lack of monetary/human ressources. The private ins. co. lobbies hard to enter Canada, sure they want to make us to believe that our health system is poor and costly. We pay 3000$ per person per year for health cares, U.S. pay over 6000$

IMO, free & private health care cannot coexist.

-Hugo

Raptor e620 w/V-bar, Tango 45-06, Phoenix 85HV, TrueRC 12S1P 4000mAh

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 07:00 PM  10 years agoPost 7
Stet

rrElite Veteran

Key Largo FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

My buddy with a debilitating spinal disk degeneration disorder waited 18 months to get into a pain clinic in Canada.

I also understand that if you are over 55 and need bypass surgery, you are not entitled to it. Correct me if I am wrong here.

There has been some news reported regarding the Canadian system being in some kind of financial trouble, did not pay close attention to the details.

One problem with the US system is that due to the Americans with Disabilities act, virtually no type of care can be denied.

Rationing of benefits is a reality of any system, but since there is no rationing here, costs continue to go up of course. Throw in the massive fraud of government programs (it is staggering how much is ripped off and never prosecuted) again cost goes up, and proves that government systems are less cost effective. So if it goes all government, rationing will be far worse.

Why can't private and public systems coexist? Of course the care from the private system would be better, but the alternative is for everyone's care to be bad. What do people expect if they pay nothing? Health care is not a right defined in our constitution, neither is housing, food or fuel. All critical to sustaining life.

keepin' it real

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 07:26 PM  10 years agoPost 8
HugeOne

rrKey Veteran

Quebec, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

My buddy with a debilitating spinal disk degeneration disorder waited 18 months to get into a pain clinic in Canada.
Lack of financing and human ressources, if we put 4000$/person/year intead of 3000$ those things may be past. But money won't bring in more nurses & doctors, at least not immediately. Of course, no governments have the guts to do it.
I also understand that if you are over 55 and need bypass surgery, you are not entitled to it.
-Wrong "with TV game show sound effects in the background"

My Wife is a nurse, I hear everyday how our health system is doing and it really don't match up to what we hear in the news...

I believe they cannot coexist because when private enter plublic, they take away precious human ressources from the public system.
When public enter private, then it's like you said.

UK have both public and private, maybe someone can shim in...

-Hugo

Raptor e620 w/V-bar, Tango 45-06, Phoenix 85HV, TrueRC 12S1P 4000mAh

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 07:49 PM  10 years agoPost 9
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

HugeOne
We pay 3000$ per person per year for health cares, U.S. pay over 6000$
Whats your tax rate compared to your same income tax in the US?

I have seen reports that there was a big lawsuit in Canada about allowing people to pay for services. This Dr had set up private clinics and arranged for people to come to the US to get services they could not get in Canada.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17...healthcare.html

More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months.

In fact, government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who’d get a doctor’s appointment.

The government told him that the wait would be four and a half months. So he went to Baker, who arranged to have the MRI done within 24 hours—and who, after the test discovered a brain tumor, arranged surgery within a few weeks.
private-sector health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private clinics are opening at a rate of about one a week.

This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture." Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008.

Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals.
Canada is getting privatization. Sweden and the UK is encouraging it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...html?cmp=EM8705

A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care.

It calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. "We can't afford a state monopoly on health care anymore," says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the federation. "We have to examine private alternatives as well."
There is no such thing as "Free" health care.
Some things that need to happen.
1. Basic coverage for those that can't get insurance. We have this now, Hospitals do not turn people away.

2. A focus on a healthier lifestyle. Smoking, drinking, and sitting on your butt watching TV are all bad for you. Society should not pay for stupidity.

3. Government should provide tax cuts to company's to provide health care. This is still invasive, but more aligned with the US's background and concept.

4. Medical reform. 100 bucks for a Tylenol is insane. Insurance that Dr's pay is insane. Both stupidities drive up costs.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 10:55 PM  10 years agoPost 10
helo_chris

rrVeteran

goodlettsville, tn

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/i...s/28canada.html

Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment.

But a Supreme Court ruling last June — it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists — appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.

"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.

"There is a fine line between cutting edge and bleeding edge.."

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-07-2008 11:33 PM  10 years agoPost 11
Stet

rrElite Veteran

Key Largo FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So bring your Canadian dollars to the US for the care you need before your cancer becomes inoperable.

Delayed health service is denied health service.

The original Hillary Care program back in the day was going to criminalize doctors' working outside the system.

If the system is so perfect, why would any doctor want to work outside the system anyway?

If the government is running it, it goes without saying that it will suck. Just ask anyone in the VA System.

I have had my own experiences living in another country with similar state run health care. Of the three times I went to the hospital, every time the doctors were on strike. I was lucky I lived through it.

keepin' it real

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-08-2008 12:22 AM  10 years agoPost 12
wlfk

rrVeteran

uk

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Britain's health care is 'free at the point of use'. Obviously we pay for it through taxation but it means that when the worst happens you don't need to worry about how to pay for it. We have very good acute services - if you are in a road accident or there's a suspicion you have cancer you will be seen very quickly. Chronic services are far from ideal - if you have a kid with a disability you may not get that much help.

It's not so much that private health care is encouraged, as public health care is now sometimes being provided by private companies, but it is still paid for publicly. Private health care is still available of course - and always was. I'd make an exception for dentistry - which is effectively only privately available for most people.

One thing that can be said for the NHS (National Health Service) is that it is very economically efficient. Many procedures are provided at significantly lower cost than in many other systems, presumably in part because there is no incentive to order tests and procedures that are not indicated. As the largest company in the world, it has the purchasing power to get good discounts on drugs and materials. Because the patient is still a patient and not a customer, the doctors have a greater power to refuse treatments that are not medically indicated - which I've heard can be a significant problem in systems where the patient can choose a different doctor.

A growing problem is that many new drugs (e.g. infertility treatments, anti-cancer drugs) are so expensive that there is no way the NHS will be able to pay for them all in the future. So something will have to change. Hard as it may sound, sooner or later we make come to a point where we have to say to people 'we might be able to save you, but can't afford to try'. We are already at a stage where we sometimes have to say 'we could probably save you from a lifetime of pain, but can't afford to try'.

I don't see any problems with public/private healthcare co-existing. What I do see a problem with is the choice that is currently being introduced into public healthcare. Half of all surgeons have below average ability, but nobody wants to be operated on by a below-average surgeon. I can see the point in choosing a hospital that's closest to you, but how can Joe Public possibly make a sensible choice about which hospital to attend on any other basis? What 'choice' actually means is that pushy middle class people get slightly better care, at greatly increased cost and complexity whereas less educated people can get a raw deal.

Personally I see the NHS continuing on a more limited basis in the UK. Some treatments will ultimately simply have to be rationed because they are so expensive. And in my opinion rightly so. I think we need to spend more on schools and parks and healthy environments, and less on healthcare per se. In a joined-up universe we would spend more on giving schoolkids healthy diets and encouraging them to walk to school, and reap the benefits by spending less on treating people who developed diabetes due to obesity. It's very difficult to say to someone 'we could offer you this treatment which is potentially life-saving, but we think it would be better spent on free school meals' but effectively this is exactly what we should be doing, though perhaps with a bit more delicatesse. Ideally, having healthcare provided by the state should mean more joined up thinking; in practice I don't think this is really happening except on a very crude level.

Ideally I would also like to see the NHS fund more research into cheaper forms of healthcare. For example, drugs A and B might be very similar. Both are developed to treat disease a, but drug B was developed recently and is much more expensive because it is still under patent. It has also been shown to treat disease b very effectively. It seems very likely that drug a would treat disease b pretty well because both are chemically similar, but because this has never been properly tested doctors aren't meant to prescribe it for this purpose. The ones I have in mind are Lucentis/Avastin which can be used to prevent blindness, but this scenario is quite common. At the moment, private healthcare providers generally don't have any incentive to do research of this kind and drug companies certainly don't.

K

A bit like a kite, but 500 times more expensive

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 1 page 529 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics › Free Health Care ???
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 4  Topic Subscribe

Monday, June 25 - 12:52 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online