Could America run at a Clinton sized budget?

Originally Posted by John

Us insurance companies do everything in their power to either not pay (hoping the person will die before they have to) or to kick people out of hospitals despite their condition not being cured. No such problem in Canada.

Ohoh! You watched that movie too? Matt Damon looks great with glasses! I think this means we need a class movie day, just so Valley** can see the err of his ways. He won't see it, but it's worth a shot. Plus I get a period of doing nothing, instead of doing real work!

Ohoho. Devilish laugh. Health care is a right. If you don't believe me look to article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

So please stop the prattling of it's a privilege, as it's not. And I think that was the last leg you were standing on.

**Yes, you have been downgraded from Valour (Note the correct usage of a 'u'), you're falsely advertising and leaving a bit to be desired. Like a valley. Not flat like a plain, nor tall like a mountain.

Originally Posted by John

Why not?

Because it is not a basic human need, nor right, it is a service offered by other people, which you should pay for in order to have. Unless you are incapable of doing so for reasons that you didn't bring upon yourself and are out of your control.

Your current system punishes people with birth defects, chronic illnesses that are not their fault, etc.

Indeed, the current US system explicitely acts as if only the rich should be healthy. A rich person smokes all the time, eats nothing but high-collesterol foods, and sleeps around without protection? Well, that's fine, he gets medical treatment for his lung cancer, heart attacks, and STDs.

Poor person happens to be born with a heart defect? Clearly they should just die.

Most people who go to hospitals are not there through any fault of their own. They've been involved in an accident, or have a disease that just appears, or were born with problems, or are suffering from something caused by malnutrition or similar.

Should those people be punished for not being rich?

More poor people do drugs and bad food compared to rich people I would wager. Why would anyone in the middle class want to pay for them? There should be solutions for people who can't afford it, but you shouldn't destroy the insurance market or force government regulation on everyone. If someone brings bad health upon themselves and lack the money to afford insurance, thats their fault.

This system will be rewarding irresponsibility, something which should never happen.

If someone urgently needs care then the wait time is the same.

The less urgently care is needed the longer you wait vs. the US.

Most of the wait time now is, however, simply caused by a lack of doctors and nurses. If more were trained then most waits would plummet.

The US only has an advantage here because most people in the US don't go to see doctors until they can't get out of bed any more, due to the cost.

The problem there is that waiting that long means that something that could've easily been treated in a few days at little cost to the medical system will now take months or years, tying up resources and costing your government far more than it otherwise would.

By forcing people to pay for every treatment you force them to make their conditions worse, which ends up making the US government pay more than if it just covered treatment to start with.

If everyone goes to the doctor for every ache or pain, that would waste so much time and energy in the system. Likely more than that of waiting until you can't get out of bed. Besides the wait time that would com about would easily make up for waiting until you can't get out of bed. At least now we are wasting all that money.

Why exactly does you system lack doctors?

And you are going to be paying for every visit, nothing is free, it all comes from the taxes.

Why not pay for those who are irresponsible? I mean, you do that already.
Your wait times would not appreciably change, I'd wager.
Over regulate? The US currently regulates medical companies more than Canada does.
Create larger government? What, exactly, is wrong with that in this case?
Pay something they don't need? Government health care costs less than health insurance.

We do pay for irresponsible people your right, but that doesn't mean I agree with it nor does that make it ok.

Wait times would increase people would come to the doctor for every ache and pain and back up the system with useless bull****.

Really? How do you know that the US regulates more than Canada?

Thats right you pay for something you don't need, some people don't have health insurance because they think it is a bad investment. You can go your whole life without getting hurt. Besides, no one wants to pay for the irresponsible idiot who drinks himself half to death. That isn't fair to the healthy responsible person. However, being able to pay for your own health insurance lets the healthy responsible person not have to pay for anyone but himself.

Social security in the US is awful because of this bizarre fixation on people getting something they didn't earn. That's why it costs so much, having to run constant background checks on everyone. That's why people who need money can't get it, while others game the system, as soon as you set up convoluted and arcane rules the people who need money can't get it, while the tricksters use the rules against themselves to get free money.

If the US just said: "Alright, if you don't have a job then you get x per week." then it would cost less, be abused far less, and would generally work.

The point is the government is incapable of doing it right. There is no system they run that operates more efficiently than one in the private sector.

They'd spend less because treatment would cost less and all this supplementing of insurance companies could stop.

Why would treatment cost less?

The US does have lower wait times. No argument here. It falls far shorter in every other regard, though.

Can you cite a source for the US falling short in other regards?

So please stop the prattling of it's a privilege, as it's not. And I think that was the last leg you were standing on.

Health Care is a right, someone paying for it for you is not. Sorry no free **** for you! Last leg? Please.

Again John, I would have no problem with a national health care system, but I can't trust my government to run it the right way, which is sad. And of course, 'right way' is subjective.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Health care is a privilege, why should it not be? People think they are entitled to all of these things, when really they aren't. You deserve things when you earn them.

Considering the fact that if you are not alive or healthy enough to earn things, you cannot be entitled to them, of the many things that people have to earn before being entitled to it, healthcare is not one of them. If you keep a man healthy, there is much else he can contribute to society, therefore healthcare must be treated as a right. In fact, as I have previously discussed with you privately, anything that is not "surplus" to your needs, i.e. your wants, is to be earned. Clearly there are certain conditions, but I'm keeping my post short as I'm using a laptop with a tiny keyboard which I'm not used to and don't have access to my main computer.

And in response to your above, you can hardly dispute that an efficient healthcare system is not run the "right way" could you? There may not be one exact right way, but of the many wrong ways, surely efficiency is not one of them unless you WANT it to fail?

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Considering the fact that if you are not alive or healthy enough to earn things, you cannot be entitled to them, of the many things that people have to earn before being entitled to it, healthcare is not one of them. If you keep a man healthy, there is much else he can contribute to society, therefore healthcare must be treated as a right. In fact, as I have previously discussed with you privately, anything that is not "surplus" to your needs, i.e. your wants, is to be earned. Clearly there are certain conditions, but I'm keeping my post short as I'm using a laptop with a tiny keyboard which I'm not used to and don't have access to my main computer.

And in response to your above, you can hardly dispute that an efficient healthcare system is not run the "right way" could you? There may not be one exact right way, but of the many wrong ways, surely efficiency is not one of them unless you WANT it to fail?

I'm sorry, I believe that what I said may not have been clear, I am speaking of health care coverage. Sorry for the misconception. As far as I am aware, in American you cannot be denied medical care. And someone here quoted that health care is a human right.

Your right, I can't dispute that an efficient system is not run correctly, nor do I want the system to fail, I do not think that the US government is capable of making a nation health care system what it should be without ruining it with politics, regulation and more politics. There is no US system that is more efficient than a private industry and I doubt that will change.

Uninsured?

What do you guys think about this?

I have to say I agree with FoV on putting healthcare in government hands. That being said we need to greatly cut the price of healthcare and make it illegal to deny someone healthcare because of a pre-exsisting condition. Really this should be the most heavily regulated industry in the US.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

More poor people do drugs and bad food compared to rich people I would wager.

Drugs? I doubt it very much. Drugs cost money they don't have.

Poor food? Also unlikely. It costs more than healthy food. Malnutrition is probably an issue, though.

If everyone goes to the doctor for every ache or pain, that would waste so much time and energy in the system. Likely more than that of waiting until you can't get out of bed. Besides the wait time that would com about would easily make up for waiting until you can't get out of bed. At least now we are wasting all that money.

People don't go to the Doctor for every ache and pain, because it still costs time, and you still have to book appointments ahead of time.

Doctors don't get their time wasted, but neither are they forced to try and save people on death's door.

Why exactly does you system lack doctors?

Depends on who you ask.
We didn't train enough, we trained too many so they all left, pay is lower than the US (no longer true), patient load is higher than the US (this is true), lack of incentive for doctors here vs. incentives offered elsewhere, over regulation of medical schools leading to reduced graduation rates...

No one can agree on what the problem is.

And you are going to be paying for every visit, nothing is free, it all comes from the taxes.

Indeed, but I pay less in taxes to support the Canadian Health Service than you do in Health Insurance.

The point is the government is incapable of doing it right. There is no system they run that operates more efficiently than one in the private sector.

Really? Why do you assume that the private sector does a better job than the government?

All private companies have as a goal is making money. They probably do run your healthcare system to generate more money for themselves than the government would, but that's hardly a benefit for the patients, is it?

And lots of countries have "socialized healthcare" without the government bungling it. Just like most companies have government-run mail companies.

Why would treatment cost less?

More efficiency, milder cases being treated before they become severe, fewer attempts at cutting costs from essentials, etc.

Can you cite a source for the US falling short in other regards?

You already have. 37th vs 30th.

Poor food? Also unlikely. It costs more than healthy food. Malnutrition is probably an issue, though.

you've never done any body building have you?

No.

However, I'm not talking about high-protein food, or whatever, just unprepared ingredients from a grocery store, which do cost less than prepared food.

Originally Posted by John

Drugs? I doubt it very much. Drugs cost money they don't have.

Poor food? Also unlikely. It costs more than healthy food. Malnutrition is probably an issue, though.

You don't have to be rich or even middle class to have and do drugs.

People don't go to the Doctor for every ache and pain, because it still costs time, and you still have to book appointments ahead of time.

Doctors don't get their time wasted, but neither are they forced to try and save people on death's door.

In America you can be saved on death's door, are you saying you cannot in Canada? Then why are waiting times so backed up in Canada? Is there any reason?

Depends on who you ask.
We didn't train enough, we trained too many so they all left, pay is lower than the US (no longer true), patient load is higher than the US (this is true), lack of incentive for doctors here vs. incentives offered elsewhere, over regulation of medical schools leading to reduced graduation rates...

No one can agree on what the problem is.

So something is making Canada lack doctors, while America is not, why do you think that would be?

Indeed, but I pay less in taxes to support the Canadian Health Service than you do in Health Insurance.

Because your whole country pitches in correct? Meanwhile I would be buying health insurance for myself, and potentially family and if I am not mistaken, I can choose what exactly I want, and that affects how much I will pay. Right? In Canada can you choose what benefits you receive?

Really? Why do you assume that the private sector does a better job than the government?

All private companies have as a goal is making money. They probably do run your healthcare system to generate more money for themselves than the government would, but that's hardly a benefit for the patients, is it?

And lots of countries have "socialized healthcare" without the government bungling it. Just like most companies have government-run mail companies.

The private sector does a better job than the government because their employees, their business leaders and whoever else makes up the company, all are trying to be the best their is. They have to maximize efficiency to maximze profit. How does that come around? Customer satisfaction. They have to satify their customers for them to keep coming back and buying their product, therefore they will cater to the wants of the people more than the government will who have no incentive to cater to the people in the first place. They Also cannot fire their employees as far as I am aware, they have very good job security in the government right now, as such why would and employee in the government work as hard as someone in the private sector who could at any moment be replaced by someone better for not doing an on par job?

The companies are the ones who have an much stronger incentive to do the best, the government has little, accept to keep the people just content enough to not **** everything up.

More efficiency, milder cases being treated before they become severe, fewer attempts at cutting costs from essentials, etc.

As I am aware, how can mild case be treated before is escalates when the wait times on average are 17 weeks, (if I am not mistaken.)

You already have. 37th vs 30th.

Did you not read my post where I spoke of the criticism that surrounds that survey and the fact that it is 10 years old? I think it is time for a new source don't you?

Also, what did you think about that link I posted? (I'll repost it if you would like.)

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

You don't have to be rich or even middle class to have and do drugs.

True enough.

In America you can be saved on death's door, are you saying you cannot in Canada? Then why are waiting times so backed up in Canada? Is there any reason?

You can also in Canada, but not every case is a person who is almost-dead because they waited a year to get that strange lump looked at because they couldn't afford to do so sooner.

So something is making Canada lack doctors, while America is not, why do you think that would be?

I honestly have no clue.

Because your whole country pitches in correct? Meanwhile I would be buying health insurance for myself, and potentially family and if I am not mistaken, I can choose what exactly I want, and that affects how much I will pay. Right? In Canada can you choose what benefits you receive?

You cannot choose benefits, no, but you're still paying less than you would in the US.

The private sector does a better job than the government because their employees, their business leaders and whoever else makes up the company, all are trying to be the best their is.

No, they're trying to be the richest there is. Quite a difference there.

They have to maximize efficiency to maximze profit. How does that come around? Customer satisfaction.

Customer Satisfaction and Efficiency almost never overlap.

The US system also doesn't need to worry itself about customer satisfaction. It's not as if unsatisfied customers can just not get medical treatment and still be fine.

so you get corners being cut right, left, and centre.

The companies are the ones who have an much stronger incentive to do the best, the government has little, accept to keep the people just content enough to not **** everything up.

I think the recent mini-depression shows quite nicely that companies don't care about customers.

As I am aware, how can mild case be treated before is escalates when the wait times on average are 17 weeks, (if I am not mistaken.)

Wait times depend entirely on what you're waiting for.

I had to wait about a month to get an MRI for a trivial problem that was in no way life-threatening and that did not seriously impact my quality of life.

That's fine with me. Had the MRI turned up something serious then further tests would've been done pretty much instantly.

Did you not read my post where I spoke of the criticism that surrounds that survey and the fact that it is 10 years old? I think it is time for a new source don't you?

I don't know any off the top of my head. But I'll have a look tomorrow.

Also, what did you think about that link I posted? (I'll repost it if you would like.)

I haven't read it yet, I'll try and find time this weekend.

Originally Posted by John

You cannot choose benefits, no, but you're still paying less than you would in the US.

I understand, but when you purchase health insurance and customize it to fit your needs, it does something that your health care system cannot. That is one reason I think having private insurance is nice nice because there is no one size fits all.

No, they're trying to be the richest there is. Quite a difference there.

And generally to be the richest you have to be better at what you do than your competition, I am aware of business practices that are sometimes used and are to be condemned, I acknowledge this. But generally, that is how it works, competition.

Customer Satisfaction and Efficiency almost never overlap.

The US system also doesn't need to worry itself about customer satisfaction. It's not as if unsatisfied customers can just not get medical treatment and still be fine.

so you get corners being cut right, left, and centre.

No, but then if you are dis-satisfied, you can't do anything about it. You can't stop buying their product because they are forcing you to buy it.

I think the recent mini-depression shows quite nicely that companies don't care about customers.

And they are paying for it.

Wait times depend entirely on what you're waiting for.

I had to wait about a month to get an MRI for a trivial problem that was in no way life-threatening and that did not seriously impact my quality of life.

That's fine with me. Had the MRI turned up something serious then further tests would've been done pretty much instantly.

And if something have developed in that wait time?

Originally Posted by John

No.

However, I'm not talking about high-protein food, or whatever, just unprepared ingredients from a grocery store, which do cost less than prepared food.

a 2100 calorie box of little debies oatmeal cookies for $1.25 disagrees.

You've got some rather different pricing at your grocery stores, then.

Here there's no tax on unprepared foods, and they cost far less than prepared ones anyways.