|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 7, 2009 17:02:05 GMT -5
To answer Sean Hannity: I'd rather pay for my neighbour's birth control than pay for his or her children. I'd rather pay for EVERYBODY'S birth control. In the long run, it's far, far cheaper to provide free or reduced-cost BC to men and women, in addition to comprehensive sex-education, than it is to pay for children. Not that I buy into the whole 'welfare queen' thing (though they may well exist), it's just that a lot of people don't use BC because a) they never learned how it works or how to use it properly, or b) they can't afford to get it, or c) it's hard to come by---or some combination of all three.
Anyway. It's unfortunate that universal healthcare is such a controversial issue. I think the United States is one of the last of the 'first-world' countries that doesn't provide healthcare for all of its citizens. For completely unsound reasons. The cost part has already been talked about, but I think another reason that some people are too unwilling to try it is because of ignorance. They've heard third-hand horror stories about friends in Canada or England who have to wait forever to see a doctor because of *gasp!* socialized medicine, and by the time they actually get to see somebody that simple chest cold turned into pneumonia and they DIED DED. Or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 7, 2009 19:49:47 GMT -5
Well we did have free flu shots in BC, until Campbell figured out he could make more money by selling them to Washington State. The biggest problem with the Canadian system is that there's a severe lack of accountability. The Feds give the money to the Province, the province can put it into general revenues, and (as in BC) give themselves big fat raises. Even if they don't it then goes from the Provincial level, to the health authorities, to the different hospitals, and then finally to the public. There's so many 6 figured incomes being paid through that list I wouldn't even know where to start. Unfortunately, in order to change the system, it would require a change to the constitution. And we couldn't get all 10 provinces to agree on what to order for lunch.Yes, the Achillies heel of our system. See America, universal health care doen't work. Avoid it at all costs.  |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 8, 2009 6:33:50 GMT -5
I never understood why people thought long-lines were a bad thing. Yes, public health insurance means more people are in the line- because it's universal . Nobody is excluded, nobody essentially murdered on the basis of their bad fortune. Similarly, nobody gets cuts in the line ahead of poor cancer-sufferers because they can grease the wheels with money. Triage, not corruption, should decide who goes when.
That's a good thing. But yeah, if you include 300 million people in your system rather than abandoning them to their fate, you're going to need more hospitals and more doctors. Get them.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 8, 2009 8:02:46 GMT -5
I never understood why people thought long-lines were a bad thing. Yes, public health insurance means more people are in the line- because it's universal . Nobody is excluded, nobody essentially murdered on the basis of their bad fortune. Similarly, nobody gets cuts in the line ahead of poor cancer-sufferers because they can grease the wheels with money. Triage, not corruption, should decide who goes when. That's a good thing. But yeah, if you include 300 million people in your system rather than abandoning them to their fate, you're going to need more hospitals and more doctors. Get them. Politicians often point out how poor the response time of the Canadian system is, but you're right. No matter how "bad" the Canadian system is, there's 50 million Americans with no coverage at all. There's a lot more who aren't sufficiently covered, and even if well covered, something like cancer can suck you dry fast in this country. Also, I think people frequently understate the wait times in the US. |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 8, 2009 11:15:33 GMT -5
I never understood why people thought long-lines were a bad thing. Yes, public health insurance means more people are in the line- because it's universal . Nobody is excluded, nobody essentially murdered on the basis of their bad fortune. Similarly, nobody gets cuts in the line ahead of poor cancer-sufferers because they can grease the wheels with money. Triage, not corruption, should decide who goes when. That's a good thing. But yeah, if you include 300 million people in your system rather than abandoning them to their fate, you're going to need more hospitals and more doctors. Get them. Politicians often point out how poor the response time of the Canadian system is, but you're right. No matter how "bad" the Canadian system is, there's 50 million Americans with no coverage at all. There's a lot more who aren't sufficiently covered, and even if well covered, something like cancer can suck you dry fast in this country. Also, I think people frequently understate the wait times in the US. I remember not-to-long-ago the cons were slamming the Canadian system because we shipped a few patients south of the border when we had a sudden spike in cases. (I think it was a cluster of multiple births in one of the western provinces) Rather than throw patients into the street or build another facility due to occasional statistical blip we used some of the US's excess capacity to provide timely medical care. Sounds to me like the system is actually working well. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Mar 8, 2009 11:54:49 GMT -5
.... Politicians often point out how poor the response time of the Canadian system is, but you're right. No matter how "bad" the Canadian system is, there's 50 million Americans with no coverage at all. There's a lot more who aren't sufficiently covered, and even if well covered, something like cancer can suck you dry fast in this country. Also, I think people frequently understate the wait times in the US. Even if Canada had an abysmal system (which from my Canadian friends it does not) that still wouldn't refute a single payer system. Because Canada is only such system in the world. What about the German system? or the French or the British or Taiwan or Australia or Ghana or Cuba or about a hundred other countries? Unfortunately here our society seems to have decided that making money is more important then people. (despite that single payer is actually cheaper) So the talk about lines and availability of machines is a smokescreen. IF lines were really the issue, we would figure out how to make them shorter, not keep millions without any care at all. |
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 8, 2009 12:23:02 GMT -5
I remember not-to-long-ago the cons were slamming the Canadian system because we shipped a few patients south of the border when we had a sudden spike in cases. (I think it was a cluster of multiple births in one of the western provinces) Rather than throw patients into the street or build another facility due to occasional statistical blip we used some of the US's excess capacity to provide timely medical care. Sounds to me like the system is actually working well. I could see the Republicans spinning that. "Do you really want to send your sick to Mexico?" As long as there are horror stories, I think we'll see Americans shy away. Sure, they're not universally true, and some are only statistical anomalies, but who cares? If we can make a campaign about Joe the Plumber, who isn't a plumber, wouldn't be affected by the tax plan he was complaining about, and was on welfare.... |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 8, 2009 15:46:20 GMT -5
I never understood why people thought long-lines were a bad thing. Yes, public health insurance means more people are in the line- because it's universal . Nobody is excluded, nobody essentially murdered on the basis of their bad fortune. Similarly, nobody gets cuts in the line ahead of poor cancer-sufferers because they can grease the wheels with money. Triage, not corruption, should decide who goes when. That's a good thing. But yeah, if you include 300 million people in your system rather than abandoning them to their fate, you're going to need more hospitals and more doctors. Get them. Politicians often point out how poor the response time of the Canadian system is, but you're right. No matter how "bad" the Canadian system is, there's 50 million Americans with no coverage at all. There's a lot more who aren't sufficiently covered, and even if well covered, something like cancer can suck you dry fast in this country. Also, I think people frequently understate the wait times in the US. Well other than the bad money management, another problem with the Canadian system is that the medical schools limited the number of doctors they would allow to enroll. This was to make sure that even the worst doctor in the world, the one that couldn't diagnose measles in the middle of an epidemic (yes I met one like this) would always have a full plate. If they hadn't of put this limit on the number of doctors in this country we would have plenty. Oh, and our GP's are severly underpaid and overworked, making new doctors either stay for a couple of years and become a specialist or head for the states. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal healthcare, I just believe the Canadian model is not the one to emulate. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 8, 2009 17:13:59 GMT -5
I think we'll see Americans shy away. 82% of Americans want Universal, government-provided health care. They aren't shying away: nearly all of them desperately want in. |
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 8, 2009 18:06:58 GMT -5
I think we'll see Americans shy away. 82% of Americans want Universal, government-provided health care. They aren't shying away: nearly all of them desperately want in. And they still backed off when it was called socialism or "hillarycare." |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 8, 2009 19:24:43 GMT -5
So do U.S. employers have a waiting peroid for new employees before they can opt in to the company health insurance plan? That's pretty much SOP here (six months and limited benefits for a year after that is how my company did it), but I would still have a basic level of coverage thanks to our system so it's not as big a deal as it could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 8, 2009 19:39:34 GMT -5
82% of Americans want Universal, government-provided health care. They aren't shying away: nearly all of them desperately want in. And they still backed off when it was called socialism or "hillarycare." In the case of Hillarycare, it wasn't so much because of "socialism" as it was "people honestly thought that Hillary didn't know what the hell she was doing and so started to panic." Rush actually made the quip that the only thing qualifying Hillary for the task of reforming health care was her marriage to Bill. |
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 8, 2009 20:12:24 GMT -5
Well, if Rush said it, it must certainly be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 8, 2009 20:50:36 GMT -5
And they still backed off when it was called socialism or "hillarycare." In the case of Hillarycare, it wasn't so much because of "socialism" as it was "people honestly thought that Hillary didn't know what the hell she was doing and so started to panic." Rush actually made the quip that the only thing qualifying Hillary for the task of reforming health care was her marriage to Bill. Sky fire, I will remind you of the FSTDT adage: If you don't know what you're talking about, shut the fuck up. |
|
|
|
Post by alwimo on Mar 8, 2009 21:09:40 GMT -5
And they still backed off when it was called socialism or "hillarycare." It reminds me of this recent Gallup Poll. www.gallup.com/poll/116065/Americans-Views-Bank-Takeovers-Appear-Fluid.aspxConducted Feb. 20-22, 2009 by telephone with 1,013 national adults in a split-samples design with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. One randomly selected half of the sample was asked: " Do you favor or oppose the federal government temporarily taking control of major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilise them?" : 54% were in favor, 44% opposed and 3% had no opinion. The other half were asked: " Do you favor or oppose the federal government temporarily nationalizing major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilise them?": 37% were in favor, 57% opposed, 6% had no opinion. I, of course, added the emphasis. |
|
