Today's quizpollFollow

from your link:




ETA: Hey Joph

Edited, Feb 25th 2010 11:41am by stupidmonkey

For whom? Those being covered? I'm sure it would. For me it be more cash out of my pocket. For doctors it would mean no incentive to a decade of extra schooling. For the health care system it would mean less availability.

I wonder what you mean by outperform. I don't wait when I need something done. I am a responsible and productive member of society though, so I shouldn't have to.

Disingenuous, at best. Their customers do receive something in return, which taxpayers would not in a government run health care system.

Intentionally quoted out of context perhaps? Or just slow, who knows. I was referring specifically to the bolded portion of the quote from Jophiel ("at a realistic rate.") I responded as I did specifically refuting the idea of "a realistic rate", which (and Jophiel will accept my apology if I read that wrong) means something significantly lower than what the actual cost would be if risk were applied.

Nobby has, on occasion, eluded to bad days on which he's had to break the news to someone that their procedure simply wasn't in budget. That's the result of government run health care. Sorry, I shouldn't have to suffer to pay for those that won't.

You people keep talking about public/private dichotomy like it is a peaceful coexistence. That may be true in a perfect world, but language written in to the health care legislation that has been put forth and approved so far makes it an unrealistic option in this country. The very best option for health care reform in this country is to get the government restrictions on what can, can't and has to be offered out of the way, and to come up with a reasonable stop-gap for the aged, infirm-ed and lazy.

Oh, I'm familiar with the story. As has been pointed out, going to a specific place for a specific new kind of treatment is common in all parts of the world. Most procedures are developed somewhere after all. So yeah, it's a stupid talking point. Congratulations.

This reminds me of another stupid talking point. There is a small community that is very close to the US border. They made a deal with a hospital in a nearby city in the states to do some of the procedures that they didn't have the facilities to do locally. Due to distances, this was cheaper then trying to send them to a big Canadian city that would have the same resources. The patients are still covered and don't have to pay for their health care, yet somehow this is turned into a criticism of Canadian health care. I had a good laugh when that one was brought up.

Talking points are so boring, especially when they're unfounded. Why not actually address the issue?

Edited, Feb 25th 2010 1:51pm by Xsarus

It seems like this should be the opposite. Wouldn't negotiating internationally to make health care services more efficient and available to citizens be a pro rather than a con to Canadian Health Care?

I have, in multiple posts in this thread. My "talking points" as you call them, are in response to the insipid banter that ensues. The issue at hand is that the government involvement, via mandate & restriction, have turned the health care system in this country in to a joke. A very expensive joke. Removing said mandates and restrictions, while devising a reasonable stop-gap for those who are aged, infirm-ed or lazy, would go most of the way to alleviating the immense burden on people.

Whatta ya got?

All due to choices you have made. Where you live, why you need to pay child support, what you do for a living and how you paid for school.

And I take umbrage at the idea that your poor choices should impact my wallet.

Just not willing to do what it would take to change anything. Like getting a different job, or moving somewhere cheaper to live.

Most radical and innovative surgeries in the US are not covered by our insurance companies, either. They specifically have a clause that prohibits "experimental" surgery, such as that done in research hospitals.

Many of the research hospitals in the US will "donate" their time and facilities in extraordinary cases, like separating conjoined twins, for the sheer practice of it.

However, that money STILL comes out of taxpayers pockets, whether you realize it or not, in the form of grants to those universities for those kinds of services.

Edit: I haven't touched the arrows in this thread, so don't blame me.

Edited, Feb 25th 2010 3:04pm by catwho

How is that strengthening your case? Are you just trying to get more on the table for me to oppose?

Might as well come out and just pay for the preventative care of US citizens, since you're already paying for the elective surgeries of folks from other countries.

Right. Just like in Europe

Do you want a government run health care system or significant government intervention in to the private health care system that would subsidize your health care?