Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ra on September 14, 2004, 03:03:01 PM
-
One view from Canada. (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14352624.htm)
-
Off topic
-
And far from criticizing the United States, some people are choosing to go south of the border to pay for operations in private hospitals -- institutions that are forbidden in Canada by the law that set up the publicly funded system.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
And yes Canadians, some Americans do buy cheap socialiost canadian tax payer subsidized drugs from canada, thanks!
-
Back seat moderation
-
Universal healthcare? well it has its good and bad points like any other system. From what i've seen the system gets clogged up with people who have had no preventative healthcare their entire lives, then they come here and require major operations or treatments thus jamming up the hospitals.
But then again there must be something to universal healthcare considering the life expectancy at birth has always been higher here in Canada than in the States, and the infant mortality rate has always been lower here as well.
Heck the infant mortality rate in DC is higher than Havana, go figure.;)
-
since the topic speaks about socialist health care, guess its global meant.
I wanted to point out, in germany my health insurance AOK made this year 1 billion profit. German Health reform a success?
absolutely yes!
R
Gh0stFT
-
Government run healthcare goes against capitalism therefore is socialist/communist. no "industry" should ever be controlled by a government.
Here's a scenario..What if I never need any kind of expensive treatment in my life? Yet I still have to give up my money to ensure someone else gets it? I do not believe in taking care of people not in my family. What did they do to earn it?
-
Havent needed any of our "socialist" healthcare yet (thank cod), but im more than willing to pay taxes for them. Guess I don't mind helping others that are not as fortunate.
-
We already subsidize our 'free' education. I pay school taxes and do not have any children in school. You do too ASTAC.
The problem with subsidizing healthcare (and there are many) falls to the general attitude of people not willing to accept responsibilty for thier own health.
Subsidizing healthcare to pay for people who simply refuse to take care of themselves is not what I would call a good thing.
In some ways, we already do subsidize it, as the escalation of health insurance is a side effect of that.
Same with any insurance.
-
We have socialist medicine in the states, it's just more available in some states than others, it's called welfare. California calls it medi-cal, most other states call it medic-aid. We in the ambulance biz in cali called it the California gold card, any treatment, any time, no bill, can't be turnd away. Sounds like congress's golden fleece retirement... mmmmm
-
oooh, a new one!!!
backseat moderation
I bet Skuzzy has the hugest smile ever when he moderates this stuff!
-
OT: Honestly? You would lose the bet.
Sorry for the off topic remarks ra.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Government run healthcare goes against capitalism therefore is socialist/communist. no "industry" should ever be controlled by a government.
Here's a scenario..What if I never need any kind of expensive treatment in my life? Yet I still have to give up my money to ensure someone else gets it? I do not believe in taking care of people not in my family. What did they do to earn it?
hmm...minimum wage is also uncapitalist, saftey controls are uncapitalist etc. etc.
so your small portion of taxes is going to someone elses healthcare, instead of your larger amount you put into insurance going to someone elses healthcare, whats your point
-
I have mixed feelings. Under our current system there are so many uninsured folks reliant on our doctors and hospitals that when a hospital gets a hold of someone with insurance or money they really sock it 'em. On the other hand, socialize medicine and you see very long waits for treatment like they are experiencing in Canada.
-
on the long waiting lists:
the problem is caused by fewer doctors...higher pay in america is luring our doctors down there. the only solution to this is to offer even higher wages here, which honestly wouldent be to difficult for alberta (the province is getting rich rich rich from the oil) and ontario, but the rest of the country is ***'d...and im not sure why the provinces didnt accept martins proposal, sure its only $66 per person, but there looking at it wrong...put that amount towards luring doctors back up here with higher wages, and it seems like a much larger amount.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Havent needed any of our "socialist" healthcare yet (thank cod), but im more than willing to pay taxes for them. Guess I don't mind helping others that are not as fortunate.
hey Nilsen i needed our "socialist health care" this year for the first time.
I broke my
right bottom leg (Tibia, not the Fibula) while doing acrobatic landing with my paraglider.
i was in hospital for 12 days and couldnt go to work for 6 weeks.
But hey I got my full Payday (sp?), so whats wrong? today i
still have my job and do paragliding :)
I dont want to know how much the whole operation have cost,
somehow i dont really care, i know i dont have to bother.
and ASTAC one question, you asked "What did they do to earn it?"
What if it happens that you need the help, have YOU earn it?
I sounds as if it is someting horrible to help others if myself dont need help.
R
GhostFT
-
socialist. yet our system costs less and is more effective then the US system. Most of the people traveling south for treatements are seeking gender specific abortions or boob jobs cause in a capatilist system you can get either done beyond the realms of good taste.
-
Glad to hear you are ok again Gh0stFT. :)
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
hey Nilsen i needed our "socialist health care" this year for the first time.
I broke my
right bottom leg (Tibia, not the Fibula) while doing acrobatic landing with my paraglider.
i was in hospital for 12 days and couldnt go to work for 6 weeks.
But hey I got my full Payday (sp?), so whats wrong? today i
still have my job and do paragliding :)
I dont want to know how much the whole operation have cost,
somehow i dont really care, i know i dont have to bother.
and ASTAC one question, you asked "What did they do to earn it?"
What if it happens that you need the help, have YOU earn it?
I sounds as if it is someting horrible to help others if myself dont need help.
R
GhostFT
I'm earning my healthcare as we speak..I volunteered for the Navy..been doing it for almost 12 years now...will do at least 20..hopefully more..One of the benifits for helping to protech a nation..considering the amount of my life I've given up I have earned it..Socialst healthcare to me means that any bum that has never tried to do anything with their lives..who are probrably already a burden on society is entitled to care..I don't think so...I can maybe see it if there were restrictions on who could get it.
My point is..where do we draw the line..how many aspects of our lives will become completely controolled by the government...Does it stop when we are standing in bread lines and have to have papers to travel from town to town or state to state?
-
Originally posted by medicboy
We have socialist medicine in the states, it's just more available in some states than others, it's called welfare. California calls it medi-cal, most other states call it medic-aid. We in the ambulance biz in cali called it the California gold card, any treatment, any time, no bill, can't be turnd away. Sounds like congress's golden fleece retirement... mmmmm
Bingo.
You what bothers me most about welfare patients? They have no concept of triage. They go to the doctor for EVERYTHING. Cold, flu, you name it... off to the doctor.
A few years ago, my son had an allergic reaction to some unknown substance. The whites of his eyes swelled. It looked horrid. This was new to me, so off to urgent care we went. The treatment was saline solution to wash out the eyes and a dose of Benadryl. It's happened a few times since. Now, I just treat him at home. Were I on government subsidy, it would cost me more to go down to the local Wal-Mart and purchase the Benadryl than it would for me to visit the doctor every time this happens.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I'm earning my healthcare as we speak..I volunteered for the Navy..been doing it for almost 12 years now...will do at least 20..hopefully more..One of the benifits for helping to protech a nation..considering the amount of my life I've given up I have earned it..
Go visit the local Navy clinic. Watch closely how they treat veterans and retirees.
It was one of the reasons I chose to quit rather than retire. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Go visit the local Navy clinic. Watch closely how they treat veterans and retirees.
It was one of the reasons I chose to quit rather than retire. ;)
There are three Generations of Navy in my family...None of them have been treated badly or been refused treatment ..one of my Gradfathers was pretty much a lost cause his last 2 years..yet he received excellent treatment right up to the end..at a VA hospital no less
-
ASTAC,
U.S. has a higher rate of productivity than the UE in general. Many of the UE members insure 30-120 days paid vacation for everyone. You can milk an additional 60-90 days for personal health reasons. Societal Health care for all is the law. Paid retirement and a government subsidised place to live. Up to 75% tax rate on earnings. Higher unemployment. Less incentive to work and be as highly productive as we are.
I guess the only advantage we have is the potential to create more personal fortune through productivity than they have and our higher quality of living due to that productivity. But as for the poor and unisured someone will trot out. In america they have the same opportunity to raise themselves out of it as I did. 1984 I was homeless and eating from trash cans in Berkeley California. Now I'm a server support engineer for Bank of America. Any kind of garbage is gahstly after you really had to eat it. I like where I'm at as a capitolist.
-
Works great on a smaller level,
Last week i got some nasty posion ivy around da ankles. I didn't even have to book an appointment with my regular Doc, i just went down to the local Walk in Clinic (one of three less than five minutes away) and flipped out my card.
Waited all of 5 mins to see the Doc there. He gave me a couple of prescriptions for some cortisone cream and antibiotics. Walked nextdoor to the Pharmacy cost to me $15 and twenty minutes.
Sweet!;)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
socialist. yet our system costs less and is more effective then the US system.
If you include the time one must wait for health care, I wouldn't exactly call that more "effective":
As the politicians bicker, Canadians spend more time waiting in line. A study by the right-wing Fraser Institute this month said that average waiting time for treatment in 2003 rose to 17.7 weeks from 16.5 weeks in 2002.
Some delays are much longer. Patients in Ontario who require major knee surgery can wait six months to see a specialist and then another 18 months for surgery.
"When I started work 30 years ago it took three weeks to get a patient into a specialist's office. Now it can take six months. There is a lot of inhumanity built into the system," one unhappy family doctor told Reuters.
-
I can see why the waiting period is shorter in the States cuz 43.6 million Americans have no health insurance and countless more are underinsured.
It's better to have none at all.;)
-
Originally posted by Torque
I can see why the waiting period is shorter in the States cuz 43.6 million Americans have no health insurance and countless more are underinsured.
It's better to have none at all.;)
There must be some common ground that the US health care system, and the Canadian health care system, could meet. Your's is failing, ours doesn't cover enough...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
There must be some common ground that the US health care system, and the Canadian health care system, could meet. Your's is failing, ours doesn't cover enough...
Ours isn't "failing"... it just falls short in some areas. Same with yours. I'd rather have ours than yours, but I agree with ya.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ours isn't "failing"... it just falls short in some areas. Same with yours. I'd rather have ours than yours, but I agree with ya.
I'm not quite sure why you see clothes on the emporer, but if I had to wait 6 months for a specialist, I'd consider that a system that fails.
It took me 2 days to see a specialist, and 2 weeks later I was finished with shoulder surgery. My cost was $100. Employer picked up the rest.
-
by bustr: "U.S. has a higher rate of productivity than the EU in general."
There are many ways to present such data and the method usually depends on the agenda of the presenter. The 'overall' method of using gross GDP is presented in the media for laymen consumption, but not very useful in the real world.
Many EU countries have higher productivity per work-hour than the U.S. The average U.S. worker puts in longer hours, but has fewer benefits and less paid vacation. For all the French bashing that people like to do, the average French worker has a higher productivity per hour than the average American worker.
If you eliminate the word 'socialized' from discussions of healthcare, I think you can discuss it more rationally. It is staggering to think that the average American (who has health insurance) pays $4,000-$5,000 more per year than those in other industrialized nations, yet has no better healthcare for the money.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Many EU countries have higher productivity per work-hour than the U.S.
Don't ya just hate facts and data?
Daimler hints at German job cuts[/size]
DaimlerChryslter gave German autoworkers near its Stuttgart home base an ultimatum:Be more productive or we'll move production line of the 2007 C-class sedan. The company wants to end the five-minutes-per-hour "Steinkuhler" breaks (named after the labor leader). Other signs that the Germany factory worker has peaked include Opel's expanded production of the Zafira family car in Poland rather than Russelsheim (Opel's main German factory), and Siemens workers' agreement to work 40, not 35, hours a week.
Source: Roundel magazine September 2004
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm not quite sure why you see clothes on the emporer, but if I had to wait 6 months for a specialist, I'd consider that a system that fails.
It took me 2 days to see a specialist, and 2 weeks later I was finished with shoulder surgery. My cost was $100. Employer picked up the rest.
Of course 50 million (some say 70) without healthcare is not a failure right? Give them all universal healthcare and lets see how long the wait is.
Aren't medical bills the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the States as well?
Working for Boeing and having guys like Perle in policy positions is just another form of govn't subsidized healthcare system. Then again it would be more like talking resources from others to put you ahead in the line.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Of course 50 million (some say 70) without healthcare is not a failure right? Give them all universal healthcare and lets see how long the wait is.
Aren't medical bills the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the States as well?
Working for Boeing and having guys like Perle in policy positions is just another form of govn't subsidized healthcare system. Then again it would be more like talking resources from others to put you ahead in the line.
Good point. The health care package is calculated into the labor cost of the airplane. The Airlines rolls this down to the consumer eventually, so you paid for my health care. Capitalism.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Good point. The health care package is calculated into the labor cost of the airplane. The Airlines rolls this down to the consumer eventually, so you paid for my health care. Capitalism.
Ok i get it now the taxes from those 50 million without healthcare are used for a bailout of Boeing which in turn paid for your healthcare.
Ah, Capitalism the best Democracy money can buy.;)
-
Theres no doubt our coverage for all Americans is failing. Just as yours is failing to provide timely aid, and eventually will fall short on funding (which leads to poor health care services)
Here is a good article on the hundreds of bills that congress has considered this year alone
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa184.html
Summary:
With the exception of the tax-incentive approaches, most major health care reform proposals would dramatically increase government involvement in the health care market place. The result would almost inevitably be increased costs and decreased access to care.
Sounds familiar, eh?
Only solutions that build on a free market in health care will ultimately be successful in controlling costs and increasing access to care. Government involvement in health care has been steadily increasing for 30 years, with disastrous results. It is time to seek solutions in the power of the free market.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Of course 50 million (some say 70) without healthcare is not a failure right?
You mean 50 million without heath INSURANCE? That's not the same as 50 million without healthCARE, or US patients would be heading for Canada, not the other way around.
IMHO the 3 biggest problems with US health are:
-lack of market forces. Most Americans have good health insurance provided by their employer. They go to the doctor and receive only a tiny bill for whatever services are rendered. They don't care how much the services really cost, so there is no incentive to shop around, and no incentive for health providers to compete for patients. It's just a tug of war between the insurance companies and the doctors.
-law suits. It's insane, help us. Doctors pay sky-high insurance rates, and they are afraid to forego any tests which may end up getting them sued. A doctor risks his career every time he delivers a baby.
-illegal aliens. At least 10 million and counting. When they get hurt or sick they end up on the public dole.
There are lots of other problems, of course. But I doubt universal health care would work in the US. I'm not too sure it works all that well anywhere else either.
-
I agree completely about facts and data, Ripsnort. Smug sarcasm and the posting of nonempirical 'news' will change neither the facts, nor the data.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
My point is..where do we draw the line..how many aspects of our lives will become completely controolled by the government...Does it stop when we are standing in bread lines and have to have papers to travel from town to town or state to state?
Breadlines were invented before Communism.
And you just try flying, taking a train, or driving across the country with no ID.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
We already subsidize our 'free' education. I pay school taxes and do not have any children in school. You do too ASTAC.
The problem with subsidizing healthcare (and there are many) falls to the general attitude of people not willing to accept responsibilty for thier own health.
Subsidizing healthcare to pay for people who simply refuse to take care of themselves is not what I would call a good thing.
In some ways, we already do subsidize it, as the escalation of health insurance is a side effect of that.
Same with any insurance.
That's true Skuzzy however it could be argued that some people don't care for their kids education a least bit, while others engage actively, and teachers waste an awful lot of productive time on the first lot.
Therefore it is almost the same as heathcare situation you were refering to.
No silver bullet yet :(
-
The "silver bullet" is to accept that some people were born stupid. Others were raised stupid.
Now you can turn your back on them, or pay for them. That's what the whole thing boils down to, really.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Many of the UE members insure 30-120 days paid vacation for everyone.
I would love living in UE ! what a good place it is !
Seriously did you look up your affirmation ?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Don't ya just hate facts and data?
You seriously think we all work at Daimler ?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
IMHO Canada's mistake is to outlaw private hospitals. While I am all for tax funded state run hospitals there is no need to make it a monopoly. Private hospitals works very well as a "buffer" when state run hospitals are out of capacity, and they can better specialize for those rare cases that a general hospital is ill equipped to handle. The state could still pay for the treatments with tax money if necessary.
That's how it's done here. I always go to a private and pay 50€ instead of 10€ on the public. That way I get atleast some return for my tax money. The public healthcare centers are horrible places with rude and unprofessional staff and sometimes even doctors.
-
Healthcare shouldn't be an industry.
Companies supplying the healthcare system should not be government-controlled, by healthcare itself should be.
There are many, many reasons for this. And I'm not gonna say any more than that.
-
You've gotta be kidding me. Many doctors (and staff) around here are very rude people.
On one occasion (things like this happen often, but this is the true stand-out), a doctor we didn't even know came to my dad's side and, with a rude, snarling voice, told him never to come to the ER again.
He'd been to the ER 35 times that year, due to very serious heart and kidney problems (finally they've been fixed --- to a point), and this ass**** comes in and calls him a "liar" who's doing this just to take up space in "his" hospital.
Of course, my dad really went at him after he said that (very loud yelling, not hitting). We never saw the moron again.
And in those days, we were on Medicaid, since we had no income whatsoever. Still, the 11 doctors my dad had kept sending bills (3 of them triple-billed, which is very illegal). There's a lawsuit, but it's currently on hold, since our lawyer is a lazy ass.
This is part of the experience we've had with this capitalist healthcare "industry". An industry that doesn't seem to give a **** about people who really need medical attention, and are just out to make ****loads of money.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I'm earning my healthcare as we speak..I volunteered for the Navy..been doing it for almost 12 years now...will do at least 20..hopefully more..One of the benifits for helping to protech a nation..considering the amount of my life I've given up I have earned it..Socialst healthcare to me means that any bum that has never tried to do anything with their lives..who are probrably already a burden on society is entitled to care..I don't think so...I can maybe see it if there were restrictions on who could get it.
My point is..where do we draw the line..how many aspects of our lives will become completely controolled by the government...Does it stop when we are standing in bread lines and have to have papers to travel from town to town or state to state?
A slightly paradoxical attitude from someone whose healthcare and chosen lifestyle is entirely government-run and government-subsidized and government-controlled. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. :)
-
Originally posted by Fruda
You've gotta be kidding me. Many doctors (and staff) around here are very rude people.
Well you don't have much of a public sector there? I was talking about public health care centers in Finland, where the staff is under a heavy load and are paid next to nothing, and in many cases are underqualified. I do my best to avoid bothering them. The best place to be for a health care person is in private sector and this is reflected in their attitude. OTOH larger hospitals in here are just fine.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
A slightly paradoxical attitude from someone whose healthcare and chosen lifestyle is entirely government-run and government-subsidized and government-controlled. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. :)
Gee..of course the military is government run...thats the way it is everywhere. I just don't want the government to control and subsidize EVERYTHING.
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.
There would be an exception though..offer it as a cheap health insurance policy where those who elect to use it pay in for their own policy..It could be affordable that way and wouldn't force all citizens to be a financial burden to the government/taxpayers.
-
Originally posted by bustr
U.S. has a higher rate of productivity than the UE in general. Many of the UE members insure 30-120 days paid vacation for everyone. You can milk an additional 60-90 days for personal health reasons. Societal Health care for all is the law. Paid retirement and a government subsidised place to live. Up to 75% tax rate on earnings. Higher unemployment. Less incentive to work and be as highly productive as we are.
Bustr, I am Italian of the South Italy, and reading your post I feel enraged.
Now, you MUST tell me where is the place you are talking about, I want to move there NOW !!! :mad:
At the moment I work for 1k € each month, have 16 days of paid vacations (when, is choosen by the employer), If I am sick, and call a day out the office, they send to my house the legal medic (it's like a medical police) to check if I am really sick, and he is not friendly, I pay for the Societal Health care, but receive almost none, the unenployement rate in the range 20-30 yrs is around 50%, the average is around 24-25%, so I have to thank my employer, because he "let" me work for him 10-11 hours a day, without ANY extras (the contract say 8hrs a day), and fine me €s for 5 minutes of late entry at work.
And there are NOT houses paid by the government, except for the government members themselves.
Tell me where this EU Paradise you are talking about is, so I can move there ASAP.
-
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
-
Not only suits against the doctors....suits against pharnasuitical companies...
Hell most lawsuits should be outlawed...."pain and suffering" type awards and such
-
sholtz... there are no restrictions on lawsuits against doctors in norway? you have multi million dollar lawsuits in norway?
In the U.S. doctors pay the same or slightly more than they make on average for litigation insurance. is that the case in norway?
In the U.S. would we want, as taxpayers, want to pay out for the litigation brought by ambulance chasers like kerries running mate?
lazs
-
There aren't any restrictions on lawsuits against doctors/hospitals etc in the UK.
As to frivolous lawsuits, a nurse in the UK recently got a £350,000 ($630,000) compensation payout because she developed an allergy to latex.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
between 50-60% of all healthcare costs in the U.S. are related to litigation.
Got data?
-
shlotz... I actually agree with you on this. American juries give such high awards because they are not really taking the money from anyone... they are taking money from the evil insurance company.
They don't think it affects them.
If... we socialized the imalpractice insurance... say, taxes paid for the insurance of doctors... people would tend to not give out large awards knowing it was coming right out of their pockets. Ambulance chasers like kerries running mate would then tend to not file so many lawsuits and the whole thing would get better.
doctors could drop rates... health insurance groups could drop their rates.
best of both worlds. U.S. health care at socialist costs.
lazs
-
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.
-
"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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
You need judges awarding the damages and not juries.
Ravs
-
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
-
Recent bit on the state of Canada's Health Care Service.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14352624.htm
-
I wish I'd posted that.
-
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."
-
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.:rolleyes:
-
torque... if that were true then those doctors either are doing all the high risk operations or are incompetent or both....
either way... you don't have to go to socialized medicine to fix that.
lazs
-
I tell you what..lets do it..Free helathcare for all.....hell lets add free food for all...lets not stop there free money for all..that way noone is sick..no one is hungry and no one has to work..Oh but wait...where will the money come from?
_________________
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I tell you what..lets do it..Free helathcare for all.....hell lets add free food for all...lets not stop there free money for all..that way noone is sick..no one is hungry and no one has to work..Oh but wait...where will the money come from?
_________________
From the rich oppresive evil corporations.
-
Originally posted by ravells
You need judges awarding the damages and not juries.
Ravs
That does not work either. I sat on a civil case where the women abused her health, completely ignored her doctors recommendations and advice. She was sueing as she had a heart attack and blamed the doctor for it.
The jury awarded her $1.00. The judge overturned it and awarded her $6,000,000.00.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
From the rich oppresive evil corporations.
If noone works there will be no corperations..no doctore for the healthcare..no farmers for the food.:D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
That does not work either. I sat on a civil case where the women abused her health, completely ignored her doctors recommendations and advice. She was sueing as she had a heart attack and blamed the doctor for it.
The jury awarded her $1.00. The judge overturned it and awarded her $6,000,000.00.
The other thing about American jurisprudence is the prevalent idea of punitive damages. The concept on your side of the pond is that damages are not always meant to compensate but also act as a deterrent. This is what may have happened in your case, Skuzzy. Hence the idea there that a burglar can sue for falling through a skylight etc.
That said, Texan judges (and we are very familiar with them in the aviation insurance industry) tend to be a law unto themselves - utterly unpredictable. (I think you live in Texas, skuzzy, but correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't know the facts which applied to your case,but often there's a great difference to what juries see as culpable (lawyers can pull heartstrings) and what judges find culpable (they have seen all the lawyers' tricks before).
Ravs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
From the rich oppresive evil corporations.
GO IRON!
ravs
-
Ok, more details Ravs and an apology for being a bit off topic.
Ravs, you are correct about the system in Texas. We call it the Bubba system. Laws are irrelevant in a court room in Texas.
In the case I sat on, the person who was awarded the damages was an alcoholic (showed up drunk in the courtroom), she had been out the night before the heart attack partying and had just gotten home (4am or so) when her heart attack started.
She put it off as heartburn, but was (admittedly) too drunk to notice. It was not until about noon the next day before she called the doctor.
When she called the doctor, she described the situation as an intense case of heartburn. Anyway,...I do ont want to write a book about it.
The upshot was this; The judge had already agreed with the attorneys, before the trial, to award a minimum of $6M dollars, if the jury came back with less.
-
That judge and those attorneys should be put in irons and meet Bubba himself, then that name would have some sense...
-
Between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year in hospitals as a result of medical errors. Even by the lower estimate number medical errors are the 8th leading cause of death in the States, ahead of car accidents, breast cancer, and AIDS.
Capping damages and injuries is just another form of socialism.
Or did Bush just sell you guys a bunch or sour grapes again?
"President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits"
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=133
-
Oh, the reason we came back with a $1 figure, was due to the way the 'charge' was written. The 'charge' is what the jury is to use as to what we were finding for.
The way the charge was written, basically asked us to find if she had a heart attack or not. Then to award damages based on the quality of life she lost due to the heart attack.
Back to your discussion. Sorry again.
-
Well, Skuzzy you're an intelligent, educated man, and I would say more so than most people who sit on juries.
Perhaps the judge's award was the 'Texas factor' - he probably had an interest in awarding the damages he did, but most judges are more conservative.
NOW! I expect you delete these last few posts for being off topic!
Yours and mine!
;)
Ravs