Author Topic: Socialist health care (Read 2056 times)

Pongo · « **Reply #60 on:** September 16, 2004, 01:13:37 PM »

Twice in the last 10 years I have needed surgery. Both times it was delivered withing 24 hours. This was not life threatening issues mearly broken bones.

vorticon · « **Reply #61 on:** September 16, 2004, 01:17:52 PM »

"The purpose of the Federal govenment in it's original concept was to just provide a general central government for the individual states, to unify and coordinate the country and to provide a common defense. It was never meant to regulate every aspect of everyday life. As the United States is set up by definition each state is a "country". With the states responsible for Governing the people. Since the War between the states the government has grown out of control and has got way too big thus costing way too much. Now with this idea of National healthcare they want to expand the government even more and cost the citizens more money. No matter what scenario is presented, nothing will convince me that National healthcare is the way to go."

its not national healthcare in canada, the government just provides a very small amount of funding, everything else is covered by the provinces...

ra · « **Reply #62 on:** September 16, 2004, 01:22:19 PM »

Quote

its not national healthcare in canada, the government just provides a very small amount of funding, everything else is covered by the provinces...

That's a moot point, ALL funding comes from the taxpayers, not from government, neither provincial nor national. It is a national healthcare system if the provinces have no right to modify it or to not participate in it. Are taxpayers allowed to opt out? If not, it is a national healthcare system.

ra

Torque · « **Reply #63 on:** September 16, 2004, 01:24:11 PM »

Did hell freeze over or what? Laz just became an advocate for socialism?

Any catch the First Ministers' meeting on Healthcare, thay all signed a new ten year plan to improve it. Even Romano said it was a good start but alot of hard work was ahead.

JimBear · « **Reply #64 on:** September 16, 2004, 02:21:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
one thing about socialized medicine that we could adopt and that would make it so that everyone could afford health care insurance in the U.S. is....

we could adopt the socialists practice of not being able to sue the doctor...

between 50-60% of all healthcare costs in the U.S. are related to litigation.

lazs

You are right about the costs added to everyones health bill in the States Laz. The problem with an all or nothing approach to lawsuits to me is this.
You go into the hospital to get your tonsils removed.
They wheel you into the operating room and you come out without your left nut and right foot.
Is it tough titty time for the patient?

Sounds stupidly simplistic but I bet you a wooden nickle it has happened to someone

ravells · « **Reply #65 on:** September 16, 2004, 02:30:50 PM »

One small point that many raving capitalists are missing - public healthcare came about in Victorian Britian because rich people began to twig that many diseases did not respect class barriers.
Perhaps that's a bit cynical, but that's the nub of it. So if someone gets TB or cholera or AIDS or some other very contagious condition, they need treatment fast - otherwise more people will get it.

The Victorians discovered that by providing universal healthcare and sanitation everyone benefitted.

Like GSholtz, I think there's room for both private and public healthcare.

Ravs

ra · « **Reply #66 on:** September 16, 2004, 02:33:39 PM »

It's not the lawsuits for malpractice, it's the sky high awards. Plus the fact that lawyers like John Edwards know how to play a jury like a fiddle and can convince them that the doctor is to blame regardless of the lack of evidence.

People who want to reform malpractice suits don't want to get rid of them entirely. If a doctor removes you left nut instead of your tonsils, he should and will get sued for many $$. Just not one hundred billion dollars!

ra

Sandman · « **Reply #67 on:** September 16, 2004, 02:34:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ra
It's not the lawsuits for malpractice, it's the sky high awards. Plus the fact that lawyers like John Edwards know how to play a jury like a fiddle and can convince them that the doctor is to blame regardless of the lack of evidence.

Sounds like we have an education problem that Edwards managed to exploit.

lazs2 · « **Reply #68 on:** September 16, 2004, 02:35:47 PM »

rav... the U.S. is actually a combination of both public and private healthcare with, unfortunately.... runaway, out of conrtrol, litigation costs... I believe that having an ambulance chaser for vice president is a particularly bad idea considering this.

lazs

ravells · « **Reply #69 on:** September 16, 2004, 02:36:41 PM »

You need judges awarding the damages and not juries.

Ravs

ravells · « **Reply #70 on:** September 16, 2004, 02:41:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
rav... the U.S. is actually a combination of both public and private healthcare with, unfortunately.... runaway, out of conrtrol, litigation costs... I believe that having an ambulance chaser for vice president is a particularly bad idea considering this.

lazs

I appreciate that Lasz, and that's the way I think it should be. The tenor of the post was that public healthcare was an absolutely bad thing.

As for the lawsuits, well, are you going to apply a lower duty of care to doctors than to other professionals? The 'blame' culture has gone mad - I agree. The way to fix this is by legislation. Lawyers will only chase ambulances if there's money in them.

Ravs

bustr · « **Reply #71 on:** September 16, 2004, 03:01:15 PM »

Recent bit on the state of Canada's Health Care Service.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14352624.htm

ra · « **Reply #72 on:** September 16, 2004, 03:06:09 PM »

I wish I'd posted that.

Torque · « **Reply #73 on:** September 16, 2004, 03:22:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bustr
Recent bit on the state of Canada's Health Care Service.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14352624.htm

Hey look one day later.

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=256

"Prime Minister Martin has opened the meeting to live television coverage, so all Canadians have an opportunity to see their leaders at work on one of Canada's most prized social programs.

Above all else, the meeting will require political will and leadership. Putting in place a ten year plan for health care will require cooperation and collaboration by all levels of government, health experts, stakeholders and Canadians themselves."

Torque · « **Reply #74 on:** September 16, 2004, 03:29:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
rav... the U.S. is actually a combination of both public and private healthcare with, unfortunately.... runaway, out of conrtrol, litigation costs... I believe that having an ambulance chaser for vice president is a particularly bad idea considering this.

lazs

Five percent of the doctors cause more than 50 percent of the claims. But the insurance company charge all doctors in a certain class or category the same premium whether they've had ten claims or none.

Hate to imagine if they ran auto insurance like that.