I am officially distubed by the truth of U.S healthcare.
07 Aug 2011, 6:21 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Humans tend to have a fallen nature, and one doesn't develop a sudden sense of virtue because they are working in Government.
...or in the insurance, pharmaceutical or health care industries.
Government (in countries with functioning democracies) has one singular advantage over the private sector: it's policy makers are accountable for their decision making on a regular basis.
Corporate leadership responds to one, and to only one metric of success: creating profit for shareholders. And since the most influential shareholders are fund managers (who control significantly more capital all but a very few individuals) typically corporate accountability extends no farther than the next quarterly statement.
You might not trust government--but you do get a choice. Most people do not get a choice about their insurer (assuming that they have one) or about their health care provider. You take the insurance that your employer has purchased on your behalf. You take the doctor who is actually accepting new patients. You take the specialist that your doctor has referred you to. Any choice that you think you might have in health care is largely illusory, and those decisions are made by people who need never be accountable to you in any meaningful way provided that they do not misconduct themselves.
Government's not perfect--not by a long shot. But we are different from private industry in important ways, and the benefits of that should not be dismissed out of hand.
This is where you are wrong, if it is under Government control, there wouldn't be any accountability because the people making the decisions would not be the elected officials, it would be someone whom is unelected and was appointed to that position. There would be no chance for appeal and no accountability. You really think that an elected official wouldn't try to have it so someone else was making the decisions that could get them unseated if it was them doing it.
Insurance companies are also better at catching fraudulent claims than the Government, and there is a reason why I want small businesses to be able to jointly apply for insurance for their employees. An insurance company is less likely to pull any shannigans when they know they could lose a couple hundred paying customers if they started playing games and trying to deny coverage. Also if there is a lot of companies competing, Insurance Companies would be less apt to hose people, because their competitors (as soon as they got wind of it) would use it as a talking point in an advertisement to get people to switch to their company.
Also, believe it or not, Insurance Companies have a rather small profit margin compared to most companies.
A good argument was proposed in that documentary...the governments in many of these countries with universal healthcare are 'afraid' of their people because if they do something that pisses the people off they will protest and maybe even riot...so they kind of have to be accountable.
Here everyone trusts the illusion that we are some how more free than everyone else on the entire planet.....when in reality we are more opressed but instead of the government doing most of the opressing its the corporate system doing most of the opressing. And many are afraid of the government......they don't want to stand up to them because they are afraid of losing what little they do have.
Aren't those countries in dire financial straights because they can't pay for what they promised their people?
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 6:24 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Humans tend to have a fallen nature, and one doesn't develop a sudden sense of virtue because they are working in Government.
...or in the insurance, pharmaceutical or health care industries.
Government (in countries with functioning democracies) has one singular advantage over the private sector: it's policy makers are accountable for their decision making on a regular basis.
Corporate leadership responds to one, and to only one metric of success: creating profit for shareholders. And since the most influential shareholders are fund managers (who control significantly more capital all but a very few individuals) typically corporate accountability extends no farther than the next quarterly statement.
You might not trust government--but you do get a choice. Most people do not get a choice about their insurer (assuming that they have one) or about their health care provider. You take the insurance that your employer has purchased on your behalf. You take the doctor who is actually accepting new patients. You take the specialist that your doctor has referred you to. Any choice that you think you might have in health care is largely illusory, and those decisions are made by people who need never be accountable to you in any meaningful way provided that they do not misconduct themselves.
Government's not perfect--not by a long shot. But we are different from private industry in important ways, and the benefits of that should not be dismissed out of hand.
This is where you are wrong, if it is under Government control, there wouldn't be any accountability because the people making the decisions would not be the elected officials, it would be someone whom is unelected and was appointed to that position. There would be no chance for appeal and no accountability. You really think that an elected official wouldn't try to have it so someone else was making the decisions that could get them unseated if it was them doing it.
Insurance companies are also better at catching fraudulent claims than the Government, and there is a reason why I want small businesses to be able to jointly apply for insurance for their employees. An insurance company is less likely to pull any shannigans when they know they could lose a couple hundred paying customers if they started playing games and trying to deny coverage. Also if there is a lot of companies competing, Insurance Companies would be less apt to hose people, because their competitors (as soon as they got wind of it) would use it as a talking point in an advertisement to get people to switch to their company.
Also, believe it or not, Insurance Companies have a rather small profit margin compared to most companies.
A good argument was proposed in that documentary...the governments in many of these countries with universal healthcare are 'afraid' of their people because if they do something that pisses the people off they will protest and maybe even riot...so they kind of have to be accountable.
Here everyone trusts the illusion that we are some how more free than everyone else on the entire planet.....when in reality we are more opressed but instead of the government doing most of the opressing its the corporate system doing most of the opressing. And many are afraid of the government......they don't want to stand up to them because they are afraid of losing what little they do have.
Aren't those countries in dire financial straights because they can't pay for what they promised their people?
You would have to go ask people in countires like Canada, France, England, Sweden probably Germany ect......how they are doing as a whole financially. You do realise these are not third world countries....these are countries that are doing pretty well yet they have more elements of socialism in their countries than we do here.
07 Aug 2011, 6:30 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Humans tend to have a fallen nature, and one doesn't develop a sudden sense of virtue because they are working in Government.
...or in the insurance, pharmaceutical or health care industries.
Government (in countries with functioning democracies) has one singular advantage over the private sector: it's policy makers are accountable for their decision making on a regular basis.
Corporate leadership responds to one, and to only one metric of success: creating profit for shareholders. And since the most influential shareholders are fund managers (who control significantly more capital all but a very few individuals) typically corporate accountability extends no farther than the next quarterly statement.
You might not trust government--but you do get a choice. Most people do not get a choice about their insurer (assuming that they have one) or about their health care provider. You take the insurance that your employer has purchased on your behalf. You take the doctor who is actually accepting new patients. You take the specialist that your doctor has referred you to. Any choice that you think you might have in health care is largely illusory, and those decisions are made by people who need never be accountable to you in any meaningful way provided that they do not misconduct themselves.
Government's not perfect--not by a long shot. But we are different from private industry in important ways, and the benefits of that should not be dismissed out of hand.
This is where you are wrong, if it is under Government control, there wouldn't be any accountability because the people making the decisions would not be the elected officials, it would be someone whom is unelected and was appointed to that position. There would be no chance for appeal and no accountability. You really think that an elected official wouldn't try to have it so someone else was making the decisions that could get them unseated if it was them doing it.
Insurance companies are also better at catching fraudulent claims than the Government, and there is a reason why I want small businesses to be able to jointly apply for insurance for their employees. An insurance company is less likely to pull any shannigans when they know they could lose a couple hundred paying customers if they started playing games and trying to deny coverage. Also if there is a lot of companies competing, Insurance Companies would be less apt to hose people, because their competitors (as soon as they got wind of it) would use it as a talking point in an advertisement to get people to switch to their company.
Also, believe it or not, Insurance Companies have a rather small profit margin compared to most companies.
A good argument was proposed in that documentary...the governments in many of these countries with universal healthcare are 'afraid' of their people because if they do something that pisses the people off they will protest and maybe even riot...so they kind of have to be accountable.
Here everyone trusts the illusion that we are some how more free than everyone else on the entire planet.....when in reality we are more opressed but instead of the government doing most of the opressing its the corporate system doing most of the opressing. And many are afraid of the government......they don't want to stand up to them because they are afraid of losing what little they do have.
Aren't those countries in dire financial straights because they can't pay for what they promised their people?
You would have to go ask people in countires like Canada, France, England, Sweden probably Germany ect......how they are doing as a whole financially. You do realise these are not third world countries....these are countries that are doing pretty well yet they have more elements of socialism in their countries than we do here.
Let's see:
Despite what some people on the forums claim Canada's healthcare system is a mess, my family knows some people in Canada that have had serious problems with the Canadian Healthcare system.
France is having financial problems (not as bad as Greece, but still).
England is having financial problems (and everyone is going spastic that people are trying to get their financial house in order).
Sweden, I haven't heard too much about them one way or the other.
So your claims that Government run healthcare is superior to the free market seems to be rather laughable. When it is government run, that means there is no competition which lowers costs.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 7:15 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Humans tend to have a fallen nature, and one doesn't develop a sudden sense of virtue because they are working in Government.
...or in the insurance, pharmaceutical or health care industries.
Government (in countries with functioning democracies) has one singular advantage over the private sector: it's policy makers are accountable for their decision making on a regular basis.
Corporate leadership responds to one, and to only one metric of success: creating profit for shareholders. And since the most influential shareholders are fund managers (who control significantly more capital all but a very few individuals) typically corporate accountability extends no farther than the next quarterly statement.
You might not trust government--but you do get a choice. Most people do not get a choice about their insurer (assuming that they have one) or about their health care provider. You take the insurance that your employer has purchased on your behalf. You take the doctor who is actually accepting new patients. You take the specialist that your doctor has referred you to. Any choice that you think you might have in health care is largely illusory, and those decisions are made by people who need never be accountable to you in any meaningful way provided that they do not misconduct themselves.
Government's not perfect--not by a long shot. But we are different from private industry in important ways, and the benefits of that should not be dismissed out of hand.
This is where you are wrong, if it is under Government control, there wouldn't be any accountability because the people making the decisions would not be the elected officials, it would be someone whom is unelected and was appointed to that position. There would be no chance for appeal and no accountability. You really think that an elected official wouldn't try to have it so someone else was making the decisions that could get them unseated if it was them doing it.
Insurance companies are also better at catching fraudulent claims than the Government, and there is a reason why I want small businesses to be able to jointly apply for insurance for their employees. An insurance company is less likely to pull any shannigans when they know they could lose a couple hundred paying customers if they started playing games and trying to deny coverage. Also if there is a lot of companies competing, Insurance Companies would be less apt to hose people, because their competitors (as soon as they got wind of it) would use it as a talking point in an advertisement to get people to switch to their company.
Also, believe it or not, Insurance Companies have a rather small profit margin compared to most companies.
A good argument was proposed in that documentary...the governments in many of these countries with universal healthcare are 'afraid' of their people because if they do something that pisses the people off they will protest and maybe even riot...so they kind of have to be accountable.
Here everyone trusts the illusion that we are some how more free than everyone else on the entire planet.....when in reality we are more opressed but instead of the government doing most of the opressing its the corporate system doing most of the opressing. And many are afraid of the government......they don't want to stand up to them because they are afraid of losing what little they do have.
Aren't those countries in dire financial straights because they can't pay for what they promised their people?
You would have to go ask people in countires like Canada, France, England, Sweden probably Germany ect......how they are doing as a whole financially. You do realise these are not third world countries....these are countries that are doing pretty well yet they have more elements of socialism in their countries than we do here.
Let's see:
Despite what some people on the forums claim Canada's healthcare system is a mess, my family knows some people in Canada that have had serious problems with the Canadian Healthcare system.
France is having financial problems (not as bad as Greece, but still).
England is having financial problems (and everyone is going spastic that people are trying to get their financial house in order).
Sweden, I haven't heard too much about them one way or the other.
So your claims that Government run healthcare is superior to the free market seems to be rather laughable. When it is government run, that means there is no competition which lowers costs.
Lol and what about the financial problems facing this country.....oh wait they don't exist that deal Obamas administration came to fixed everything right? Also how does free market work for health care when profit is what drives it.......that just turns healthcare into a privlege for the upper middle class and wealthy.
Also, how lower class and poor citizens are treated says a lot a about a nation.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 7:28 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Humans tend to have a fallen nature, and one doesn't develop a sudden sense of virtue because they are working in Government.
...or in the insurance, pharmaceutical or health care industries.
Government (in countries with functioning democracies) has one singular advantage over the private sector: it's policy makers are accountable for their decision making on a regular basis.
Corporate leadership responds to one, and to only one metric of success: creating profit for shareholders. And since the most influential shareholders are fund managers (who control significantly more capital all but a very few individuals) typically corporate accountability extends no farther than the next quarterly statement.
You might not trust government--but you do get a choice. Most people do not get a choice about their insurer (assuming that they have one) or about their health care provider. You take the insurance that your employer has purchased on your behalf. You take the doctor who is actually accepting new patients. You take the specialist that your doctor has referred you to. Any choice that you think you might have in health care is largely illusory, and those decisions are made by people who need never be accountable to you in any meaningful way provided that they do not misconduct themselves.
Government's not perfect--not by a long shot. But we are different from private industry in important ways, and the benefits of that should not be dismissed out of hand.
This is where you are wrong, if it is under Government control, there wouldn't be any accountability because the people making the decisions would not be the elected officials, it would be someone whom is unelected and was appointed to that position. There would be no chance for appeal and no accountability. You really think that an elected official wouldn't try to have it so someone else was making the decisions that could get them unseated if it was them doing it.
Insurance companies are also better at catching fraudulent claims than the Government, and there is a reason why I want small businesses to be able to jointly apply for insurance for their employees. An insurance company is less likely to pull any shannigans when they know they could lose a couple hundred paying customers if they started playing games and trying to deny coverage. Also if there is a lot of companies competing, Insurance Companies would be less apt to hose people, because their competitors (as soon as they got wind of it) would use it as a talking point in an advertisement to get people to switch to their company.
Also, believe it or not, Insurance Companies have a rather small profit margin compared to most companies.
A good argument was proposed in that documentary...the governments in many of these countries with universal healthcare are 'afraid' of their people because if they do something that pisses the people off they will protest and maybe even riot...so they kind of have to be accountable.
Here everyone trusts the illusion that we are some how more free than everyone else on the entire planet.....when in reality we are more opressed but instead of the government doing most of the opressing its the corporate system doing most of the opressing. And many are afraid of the government......they don't want to stand up to them because they are afraid of losing what little they do have.
Aren't those countries in dire financial straights because they can't pay for what they promised their people?
You would have to go ask people in countires like Canada, France, England, Sweden probably Germany ect......how they are doing as a whole financially. You do realise these are not third world countries....these are countries that are doing pretty well yet they have more elements of socialism in their countries than we do here.
Let's see:
Despite what some people on the forums claim Canada's healthcare system is a mess, my family knows some people in Canada that have had serious problems with the Canadian Healthcare system.
France is having financial problems (not as bad as Greece, but still).
England is having financial problems (and everyone is going spastic that people are trying to get their financial house in order).
Sweden, I haven't heard too much about them one way or the other.
So your claims that Government run healthcare is superior to the free market seems to be rather laughable. When it is government run, that means there is no competition which lowers costs.
Lol and what about the financial problems facing this country.....oh wait they don't exist that deal Obamas administration came to fixed everything right? Also how does free market work for health care when profit is what drives it.......that just turns healthcare into a privlege for the upper middle class and wealthy.
Also, how lower class and poor citizens are treated says a lot a about a nation.
We have a crony capitalism healthcare system, not a free market one. If we had a free market healthcare system, quite a few insurance companies would be out of business because of how they treat their customers.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 7:32 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Humans tend to have a fallen nature, and one doesn't develop a sudden sense of virtue because they are working in Government.
...or in the insurance, pharmaceutical or health care industries.
Government (in countries with functioning democracies) has one singular advantage over the private sector: it's policy makers are accountable for their decision making on a regular basis.
Corporate leadership responds to one, and to only one metric of success: creating profit for shareholders. And since the most influential shareholders are fund managers (who control significantly more capital all but a very few individuals) typically corporate accountability extends no farther than the next quarterly statement.
You might not trust government--but you do get a choice. Most people do not get a choice about their insurer (assuming that they have one) or about their health care provider. You take the insurance that your employer has purchased on your behalf. You take the doctor who is actually accepting new patients. You take the specialist that your doctor has referred you to. Any choice that you think you might have in health care is largely illusory, and those decisions are made by people who need never be accountable to you in any meaningful way provided that they do not misconduct themselves.
Government's not perfect--not by a long shot. But we are different from private industry in important ways, and the benefits of that should not be dismissed out of hand.
This is where you are wrong, if it is under Government control, there wouldn't be any accountability because the people making the decisions would not be the elected officials, it would be someone whom is unelected and was appointed to that position. There would be no chance for appeal and no accountability. You really think that an elected official wouldn't try to have it so someone else was making the decisions that could get them unseated if it was them doing it.
Insurance companies are also better at catching fraudulent claims than the Government, and there is a reason why I want small businesses to be able to jointly apply for insurance for their employees. An insurance company is less likely to pull any shannigans when they know they could lose a couple hundred paying customers if they started playing games and trying to deny coverage. Also if there is a lot of companies competing, Insurance Companies would be less apt to hose people, because their competitors (as soon as they got wind of it) would use it as a talking point in an advertisement to get people to switch to their company.
Also, believe it or not, Insurance Companies have a rather small profit margin compared to most companies.
A good argument was proposed in that documentary...the governments in many of these countries with universal healthcare are 'afraid' of their people because if they do something that pisses the people off they will protest and maybe even riot...so they kind of have to be accountable.
Here everyone trusts the illusion that we are some how more free than everyone else on the entire planet.....when in reality we are more opressed but instead of the government doing most of the opressing its the corporate system doing most of the opressing. And many are afraid of the government......they don't want to stand up to them because they are afraid of losing what little they do have.
Aren't those countries in dire financial straights because they can't pay for what they promised their people?
You would have to go ask people in countires like Canada, France, England, Sweden probably Germany ect......how they are doing as a whole financially. You do realise these are not third world countries....these are countries that are doing pretty well yet they have more elements of socialism in their countries than we do here.
Let's see:
Despite what some people on the forums claim Canada's healthcare system is a mess, my family knows some people in Canada that have had serious problems with the Canadian Healthcare system.
France is having financial problems (not as bad as Greece, but still).
England is having financial problems (and everyone is going spastic that people are trying to get their financial house in order).
Sweden, I haven't heard too much about them one way or the other.
So your claims that Government run healthcare is superior to the free market seems to be rather laughable. When it is government run, that means there is no competition which lowers costs.
Lol and what about the financial problems facing this country.....oh wait they don't exist that deal Obamas administration came to fixed everything right? Also how does free market work for health care when profit is what drives it.......that just turns healthcare into a privlege for the upper middle class and wealthy.
Also, how lower class and poor citizens are treated says a lot a about a nation.
We have a crony capitalism healthcare system, not a free market one. If we had a free market healthcare system, quite a few insurance companies would be out of business because of how they treat their customers.
Well I guess I am not seeing what the major difference between free-market and capitalism is.....one=government and market being seperate but still would leave just as much room for monopolies and corporate corruption. What we have is very simular except the government is being paid by these huge corporations to pass laws in their favor......it kind of resembles facism.
07 Aug 2011, 7:37 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Humans tend to have a fallen nature, and one doesn't develop a sudden sense of virtue because they are working in Government.
...or in the insurance, pharmaceutical or health care industries.
Government (in countries with functioning democracies) has one singular advantage over the private sector: it's policy makers are accountable for their decision making on a regular basis.
Corporate leadership responds to one, and to only one metric of success: creating profit for shareholders. And since the most influential shareholders are fund managers (who control significantly more capital all but a very few individuals) typically corporate accountability extends no farther than the next quarterly statement.
You might not trust government--but you do get a choice. Most people do not get a choice about their insurer (assuming that they have one) or about their health care provider. You take the insurance that your employer has purchased on your behalf. You take the doctor who is actually accepting new patients. You take the specialist that your doctor has referred you to. Any choice that you think you might have in health care is largely illusory, and those decisions are made by people who need never be accountable to you in any meaningful way provided that they do not misconduct themselves.
Government's not perfect--not by a long shot. But we are different from private industry in important ways, and the benefits of that should not be dismissed out of hand.
This is where you are wrong, if it is under Government control, there wouldn't be any accountability because the people making the decisions would not be the elected officials, it would be someone whom is unelected and was appointed to that position. There would be no chance for appeal and no accountability. You really think that an elected official wouldn't try to have it so someone else was making the decisions that could get them unseated if it was them doing it.
Insurance companies are also better at catching fraudulent claims than the Government, and there is a reason why I want small businesses to be able to jointly apply for insurance for their employees. An insurance company is less likely to pull any shannigans when they know they could lose a couple hundred paying customers if they started playing games and trying to deny coverage. Also if there is a lot of companies competing, Insurance Companies would be less apt to hose people, because their competitors (as soon as they got wind of it) would use it as a talking point in an advertisement to get people to switch to their company.
Also, believe it or not, Insurance Companies have a rather small profit margin compared to most companies.
A good argument was proposed in that documentary...the governments in many of these countries with universal healthcare are 'afraid' of their people because if they do something that pisses the people off they will protest and maybe even riot...so they kind of have to be accountable.
Here everyone trusts the illusion that we are some how more free than everyone else on the entire planet.....when in reality we are more opressed but instead of the government doing most of the opressing its the corporate system doing most of the opressing. And many are afraid of the government......they don't want to stand up to them because they are afraid of losing what little they do have.
Aren't those countries in dire financial straights because they can't pay for what they promised their people?
You would have to go ask people in countires like Canada, France, England, Sweden probably Germany ect......how they are doing as a whole financially. You do realise these are not third world countries....these are countries that are doing pretty well yet they have more elements of socialism in their countries than we do here.
Let's see:
Despite what some people on the forums claim Canada's healthcare system is a mess, my family knows some people in Canada that have had serious problems with the Canadian Healthcare system.
France is having financial problems (not as bad as Greece, but still).
England is having financial problems (and everyone is going spastic that people are trying to get their financial house in order).
Sweden, I haven't heard too much about them one way or the other.
So your claims that Government run healthcare is superior to the free market seems to be rather laughable. When it is government run, that means there is no competition which lowers costs.
Lol and what about the financial problems facing this country.....oh wait they don't exist that deal Obamas administration came to fixed everything right? Also how does free market work for health care when profit is what drives it.......that just turns healthcare into a privlege for the upper middle class and wealthy.
Also, how lower class and poor citizens are treated says a lot a about a nation.
We have a crony capitalism healthcare system, not a free market one. If we had a free market healthcare system, quite a few insurance companies would be out of business because of how they treat their customers.
Well I guess I am not seeing what the major difference between free-market and capitalism is.....one=government and market being seperate but still would leave just as much room for monopolies and corporate corruption. What we have is very simular except the government is being paid by these huge corporations to pass laws in their favor......it kind of resembles facism.
Yeah there can be monopolies, but there can also be upstart companies that take off and break a company or company's hold on the market.
Fox News is actually a good example of this because it singlehandedly busted up the leftwing's monopoly on the Television News Media.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 7:42 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Humans tend to have a fallen nature, and one doesn't develop a sudden sense of virtue because they are working in Government.
...or in the insurance, pharmaceutical or health care industries.
Government (in countries with functioning democracies) has one singular advantage over the private sector: it's policy makers are accountable for their decision making on a regular basis.
Corporate leadership responds to one, and to only one metric of success: creating profit for shareholders. And since the most influential shareholders are fund managers (who control significantly more capital all but a very few individuals) typically corporate accountability extends no farther than the next quarterly statement.
You might not trust government--but you do get a choice. Most people do not get a choice about their insurer (assuming that they have one) or about their health care provider. You take the insurance that your employer has purchased on your behalf. You take the doctor who is actually accepting new patients. You take the specialist that your doctor has referred you to. Any choice that you think you might have in health care is largely illusory, and those decisions are made by people who need never be accountable to you in any meaningful way provided that they do not misconduct themselves.
Government's not perfect--not by a long shot. But we are different from private industry in important ways, and the benefits of that should not be dismissed out of hand.
This is where you are wrong, if it is under Government control, there wouldn't be any accountability because the people making the decisions would not be the elected officials, it would be someone whom is unelected and was appointed to that position. There would be no chance for appeal and no accountability. You really think that an elected official wouldn't try to have it so someone else was making the decisions that could get them unseated if it was them doing it.
Insurance companies are also better at catching fraudulent claims than the Government, and there is a reason why I want small businesses to be able to jointly apply for insurance for their employees. An insurance company is less likely to pull any shannigans when they know they could lose a couple hundred paying customers if they started playing games and trying to deny coverage. Also if there is a lot of companies competing, Insurance Companies would be less apt to hose people, because their competitors (as soon as they got wind of it) would use it as a talking point in an advertisement to get people to switch to their company.
Also, believe it or not, Insurance Companies have a rather small profit margin compared to most companies.
A good argument was proposed in that documentary...the governments in many of these countries with universal healthcare are 'afraid' of their people because if they do something that pisses the people off they will protest and maybe even riot...so they kind of have to be accountable.
Here everyone trusts the illusion that we are some how more free than everyone else on the entire planet.....when in reality we are more opressed but instead of the government doing most of the opressing its the corporate system doing most of the opressing. And many are afraid of the government......they don't want to stand up to them because they are afraid of losing what little they do have.
Aren't those countries in dire financial straights because they can't pay for what they promised their people?
You would have to go ask people in countires like Canada, France, England, Sweden probably Germany ect......how they are doing as a whole financially. You do realise these are not third world countries....these are countries that are doing pretty well yet they have more elements of socialism in their countries than we do here.
Let's see:
Despite what some people on the forums claim Canada's healthcare system is a mess, my family knows some people in Canada that have had serious problems with the Canadian Healthcare system.
France is having financial problems (not as bad as Greece, but still).
England is having financial problems (and everyone is going spastic that people are trying to get their financial house in order).
Sweden, I haven't heard too much about them one way or the other.
So your claims that Government run healthcare is superior to the free market seems to be rather laughable. When it is government run, that means there is no competition which lowers costs.
Lol and what about the financial problems facing this country.....oh wait they don't exist that deal Obamas administration came to fixed everything right? Also how does free market work for health care when profit is what drives it.......that just turns healthcare into a privlege for the upper middle class and wealthy.
Also, how lower class and poor citizens are treated says a lot a about a nation.
We have a crony capitalism healthcare system, not a free market one. If we had a free market healthcare system, quite a few insurance companies would be out of business because of how they treat their customers.
Well I guess I am not seeing what the major difference between free-market and capitalism is.....one=government and market being seperate but still would leave just as much room for monopolies and corporate corruption. What we have is very simular except the government is being paid by these huge corporations to pass laws in their favor......it kind of resembles facism.
Yeah there can be monopolies, but there can also be upstart companies that take off and break a company or company's hold on the market.
Fox News is actually a good example of this because it singlehandedly busted up the leftwing's monopoly on the Television News Media.
And Fox News is one of the worst news networks every, I mean they attacked freaking spongebob of all things. But still I am left with no access to medical treatment unless I want to owe more money then I have ever even seen at one time.
07 Aug 2011, 7:49 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Despite what some people on the forums claim Canada's healthcare system is a mess, my family knows some people in Canada that have had serious problems with the Canadian Healthcare system.
The three canadians i consider personal friends, whom i have known for almost 20 yeras, don't seem to know anybody who have had problems with canadian health care.
So, be specific. Please.
07 Aug 2011, 7:59 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Despite what some people on the forums claim Canada's healthcare system is a mess, my family knows some people in Canada that have had serious problems with the Canadian Healthcare system.
The three canadians i consider personal friends, whom i have known for almost 20 yeras, don't seem to know anybody who have had problems with canadian health care.
So, be specific. Please.
Guess it depends on what you need done.
Long waiting lines are the worst flaw in the system. The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, calculated in 2003 the average Canadian waited more than four months for treatment by a specialist once the referral was made by a general practitioner. According to the Fraser Institute's work, the shortest median wait was 6.1 weeks for oncology (cancer) treatment without radiation. In some provinces, neurosurgery patients waited more than a year. A simple MRI requires, on average, a three-month wait in Canada.
Long waits for critical care are an uncalculated cost of the Canadian health care system. A price tag could easily be calculated by determining how much patients would be willing to pay to reduce or eliminate these waiting times. We do this calculation on a regular basis in the United States in determining the charges for all services provided. In the U.S., we choose to pay higher prices in order to get more immediate care; in Canada, patients have no choice but to wait.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... o-model-us
Then we have:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/leboe ... uten1.html
Interview with Candian Doctor:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqJ14_4rxR8[/youtube]
Another Video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIUAnsPaRk[/youtube]
07 Aug 2011, 8:31 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Long waits for critical care are an uncalculated cost of the Canadian health care system. A price tag could easily be calculated by determining how much patients would be willing to pay to reduce or eliminate these waiting times. We do this calculation on a regular basis in the United States in determining the charges for all services provided. In the U.S., we choose to pay higher prices in order to get more immediate care; in Canada, patients have no choice but to wait.
The central argument being made here is distorted.
Critical care - e.g. gonna die if you don't see someone soon - does happen on a faster schedule.
"is this mole cancerous" less so.
07 Aug 2011, 8:41 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Long waits for critical care are an uncalculated cost of the Canadian health care system. A price tag could easily be calculated by determining how much patients would be willing to pay to reduce or eliminate these waiting times. We do this calculation on a regular basis in the United States in determining the charges for all services provided. In the U.S., we choose to pay higher prices in order to get more immediate care; in Canada, patients have no choice but to wait.
The central argument being made here is distorted.
Critical care - e.g. gonna die if you don't see someone soon - does happen on a faster schedule.
"is this mole cancerous" less so.
Yeah and if it is cancerous, you could end up with far more serious health issues while your medical system says they'll get around to it.
07 Aug 2011, 8:49 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Long waits for critical care are an uncalculated cost of the Canadian health care system. A price tag could easily be calculated by determining how much patients would be willing to pay to reduce or eliminate these waiting times. We do this calculation on a regular basis in the United States in determining the charges for all services provided. In the U.S., we choose to pay higher prices in order to get more immediate care; in Canada, patients have no choice but to wait.
The central argument being made here is distorted.
Critical care - e.g. gonna die if you don't see someone soon - does happen on a faster schedule.
"is this mole cancerous" less so.
Yeah and if it is cancerous, you could end up with far more serious health issues while your medical system says they'll get around to it.
It seems like only conservative Americans are "experiencing" problems with our health care system which is basically almost universally popular here. Even amongst conservative Canadians (who'da thunk?!)
07 Aug 2011, 8:51 pm
Vigilans wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Long waits for critical care are an uncalculated cost of the Canadian health care system. A price tag could easily be calculated by determining how much patients would be willing to pay to reduce or eliminate these waiting times. We do this calculation on a regular basis in the United States in determining the charges for all services provided. In the U.S., we choose to pay higher prices in order to get more immediate care; in Canada, patients have no choice but to wait.
The central argument being made here is distorted.
Critical care - e.g. gonna die if you don't see someone soon - does happen on a faster schedule.
"is this mole cancerous" less so.
Yeah and if it is cancerous, you could end up with far more serious health issues while your medical system says they'll get around to it.
It seems like only conservative Americans are "experiencing" problems with our health care system which is basically almost universally popular here. Even amongst conservative Canadians (who'da thunk?!)
Cute however, if you honestly believe that, I've got some land to sell you on the surface of Saturn.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 9:00 pm
Still waiting on finding out what someone in my situation is supposed to do in this fraud of a healthcare system we have in this country...I suppose I could apply for medicaid and maybe not be denied this time. But sometimes things happen in the dark and people like me end up worse than we were before.
At least now I can afford food and things I enjoy, should I end up in the ER for any reason I am quite sure they will come take more than I have. and half of what I have has to be paid back anyways considering I live on college loans and grants.
