Free Health Care (Canada)

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

This is where i was comparing you to a crazy republican. This is an ad hominem attack, specifically, a poisoning the well fallacy.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing that you have a position of wanting better health care. I understand that, and agree with that. But please don't resort to attacking the posters credibility by bringing up discussions of other threads that have no relevance to this one. that's all I'm asking you, to not resort to the same tactics our conservative party loves to use.

that's all.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq...5scio1_500.jpg

[Kaylia]

This is where i was comparing you to a crazy republican. This is an ad hominem attack, specifically, a poisoning the well fallacy.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing that you have a position of wanting better health care. I understand that, and agree with that. But please don't resort to attacking the posters credibility by bringing up discussions of other threads that have no relevance to this one. that's all I'm asking you, to not resort to the same tactics our conservative party loves to use.

that's all.

What the fuck.

[Kaylia]

I'm saying you have no fucking ability to see why we don't fucking care how long you had to wait for whathefuckever, because we're too busy waiting the same amounts for shit we have to pay a bajillion dollars for. No one here feels sorry for you or gives a shit.

You're ridiculously obtuse.

This is where i was comparing you to a crazy republican. This is an ad hominem attack, specifically, a poisoning the well fallacy.

Next time you start a conversation with ad-hominem, for the love of god, don't play the ad-hominem card.



I gave you many opportunities to step up the debate, but you avoided all of them. Thank you, and good bye.

[Psion]

nice of you to only bold the insult, yet not bold the fact that there was an argument as to WHY you were obtuse, in the very same sentence, no less.

We honestly do not give a shit about your bitching about your healthcare when compared to ours. ours is terrible. your's isn't perfect, far from it, but it's still worlds better than what we have to deal with.

[Kaylia]

nice of you to only bold the insult, yet not bold the fact that there was an argument as to WHY you were obtuse, in the very same sentence, no less.

Because I made no argument over the last 11 pages, and you're not insisting on that one ad-hominem directed at you due to your "psi energy" beliefs, which are...let's be honest, batshit insane.

[Psion]

at this point, the thread is getting derailed. I no longer give a shit about this tired old argument. let's bury it and get back on track, shall we?

I was agreeing with that point because it summed up my own feelings nicely, if not precisely the same. i've already pointed out that you have made other arguments, and my beef was not with those. there. end of discussion, let's end this.

[Kaylia]

This thread isn't getting derailed. All there is people taking a single quote, stripe it of its context, and rage that you used the word "money" and "healthcare" in the same sentence.

[Haruhi]

From someone who works in the private sector of healthcare (a privately owned pharmacy) "free" healthcare is a double-edged sword. Obviously people benefit from it and it has positive effects such as the medicaid plans for people who can't afford rx insurance. It's never good when someone has to choose between their prescriptions and groceries for this week. However, it has its drawbacks as well. It is sorely abused and exploited, which could be fixed by altering the qualifications when applying. And on a more personal note, it feels like maybe 1/3rd of people utilizing the state-aid plans are actually appreciative. While the other 66% see it as something they are entitled to.
I've had patient's refuse to buy their child's amoxicillin or emergency inhalers because the copay is 50 cents instead of it being free. Then drive off in their escalade... When I see someone refuse something that costs us $181.09 aaac to acquire because "it should be free" when its only 50 cents I feel a little sick. Not to mention sad for their kid(s). You could argue that of that 66% those people probably have inherently abrasive personalities and not to read into it much. but its just so drastic when compared to private insurance where people are as a percentage generally more appreciative and understanding. Thus my only fear with universal healthcare would be the spreading or increase of the entitlement attitude, a possible degradation of the quality of care patients would receive overall and repercussions of all the reimbursement rates originating from the same third party, in this case, the state.

[Mazmaz]

Sorry, explain to me why feeling entitled to being taken care of health wise in a rich, 1st world country is bad again? What exactly is the point of being a rich country if you're not using that money to take care of your citizens? What else are countries doing with all the riches they make?

[Aoshi]

Inventing fancy new ways to blow things up... repeatedly

[Haruhi]

Currently, healthcare is not a right in the U.S. You could say its more of a luxury than anything else. It's a service that is provided by businesses whose goal is probably purely profit. The incentive for patient care is thus on a basic level: profit. Incentive is the difference between when you go the city hall to get your driver's license or some other state provided service and when you get a meal at a restaurant; the restaurant wants to get your order out in a timely manner so you'll keep giving them your business, whereas the 1 hour line to get your driver's license renewed is so long probably because there's no where else you can use as an alternative. So they probably are not in a huge hurry (at least that is how it is where I live, hopefully a useful example). As for the responsibilities of a prosperous country, probably the biggest priority would be maintaining the economic stability and ensuring secure borders and safety from threats, so you can go on being a prosperous country for as long as possible. The care of the citizens is important; you probably won't be very prosperous for very long if everyone is dying and/or dissatisfied with the current system. However, the current system relying on independent private care providers seems to be functioning at least decently at this point in time, whereas a drastic change such as cutting out most of the private sector in favor of a centralized government plan has very large inherent risks.

[Kaylia]

It doesn't matter if you're poor, rich, smart or dumb, if you're proud to be a parasite, you shouldn't feel entitled to any help. I'm glad to pay for anyone who tries their best, but it's hard to care for the one that have little respect toward public asset.

Currently, healthcare is not a right in the U.S. You could say its more of a luxury than anything else. It's a service that is provided by businesses whose goal is probably purely profit. The incentive for patient care is thus on a basic level: profit. Incentive is the difference between when you go the city hall to get your driver's license or some other state provided service and when you get a meal at a restaurant; the restaurant wants to get your order out in a timely manner so you'll keep giving them your business, whereas the 1 hour line to get your driver's license renewed is so long probably because there's no where else you can use as an alternative. So they probably are not in a huge hurry (at least that is how it is where I live, hopefully a useful example). As for the responsibilities of a prosperous country, probably the biggest priority would be maintaining the economic stability and ensuring secure borders and safety from threats, so you can go on being a prosperous country for as long as possible. The care of the citizens is important; you probably won't be very prosperous for very long if everyone is dying and/or dissatisfied with the current system. However, the current system relying on independent private care providers seems to be functioning at least decently at this point in time, whereas a drastic change such as cutting out most of the private sector in favor of a centralized government plan has very large inherent risks.

One thing I would like to know is why everyone think it would lower the operating cost significantly. Not many workers will agree to get a pay cut, and the pharmaceutical industry sitting on top of its throne isn't going to lower the price for the government. The opposite might also happen since the government's pocket is much larger.

You do remove one layer worth of greed, but switching to another system that made its proof somewhere else isn't necessarily going to make the price drop as much as some would hope on a short/medium term, and on a long term, you have to hope it will be well managed by the state

[Restrat]

The pharmaceutical companies actually lower their prices for your government already

[Linliel]

No disrespect to Brittish people, but I wouldn't let Brittish doctors examine me even if it meant dying. Their health care is horrible. Brittish people can't get ANYTHING right.

Errrr what the fuck? lol

[Linliel]

"Forever" was obviously not meant to be taken literally. What matter is to find a system that is as resistant as it can be to economical instability and can be maintained longer than other alternative.

Universal healthcare isn't the only way to make sure that everyone get access to actual healthcare, and your argument that "others have done it right" doesn't imply that they are actually "doing it right", just "better than us".





You're the one who is putting word in my mouth. I warn you of the potential danger of a universal healthcare system when misused, I ask for a debate to see if there isn't a more viable alternative and you jump to my throat.

Not once did I say that it can't be maintained in optimal condition, but I do have the right to wonder what these "optimal condition" implies, and or feasible they are.

You can't even maintain a logical argument. You want to find a system that is as resistant as it can be to economic instability? Look at the UK, Australia, various other European countries. They're running perfectly well, and are perfectly feasible. There you go. Happy? Great. Just because Canadians can't get their act together doesn't mean others can't. Go learn from them rather than doom-and-glooming UHC in general.

[Shojin]

Errrr what the fuck? lol

For real. Fucking Swedes.

As someone who was born and raised in England and has been living in the US for the past 7 years, god do I fucking miss the National Health Service. My wife had a bunch of fillings put in recently and got hit with a 2k or so dental bill.

[Tyche]

It doesn't matter if you're poor, rich, smart or dumb, if you're proud to be a parasite, you shouldn't feel entitled to any help. I'm glad to pay for anyone who tries their best, but it's hard to care for the one that have little respect toward public asset.




One thing I would like to know is why everyone think it would lower the operating cost significantly. Not many workers will agree to get a pay cut, and the pharmaceutical industry sitting on top of its throne isn't going to lower the price for the government. The opposite might also happen since the government's pocket is much larger.

You do remove one layer worth of greed, but switching to another system that made its proof somewhere else isn't necessarily going to make the price drop as much as some would hope on a short/medium term, and on a long term, you have to hope it will be well managed by the state

Serious question, you're debating healthcare but you don't understand how going to a universal system would cut operating costs?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Errrr what the fuck? lol

One does not simply spell British wrong 3 times in one sentence.

[Kaylia]

Serious question, you're debating healthcare but you don't understand how going to a universal system would cut operating costs?

I don't believe you could easily replace a system that as been in place for so long. The change would have to be gradual and done over many decades, and the cost increase would be significant during that time.

I also hope you realize that you're comparing yourself to countries who developed their healthcare during their own economic boom. The situation in USA is quite different, and the results aren't as easily predictable. I may be wrong, but I can't think of another country that was in a similar situation before making the switch.


Secondly, it's not the "operating costs" that would be reduced, I can assure you we have a lot more people pushing pen in our hospital. While we may not be a good example of a successful UHC, do you really think your country would do better? On one side, you tell me that "everything suck here", and on the other you tell me "we will be more efficient". USA already spend 50% more on healthcare ($/gdp) than canada in 2006, and the average cost for an operation is 40% more. What kind of number do you expect to see after the shift? Even if the operation cost is diminished to the same level as our, your UHC system cost would be far more significant ($/gdp) than any other industrialized country once everyone has been given the level of healthcare you want.

Anyway, what inflate the price the most beside greedy pharmaceutical corporation are greedy private insurance . They are the source of nearly every problems in most aspects of the society (economy, health, housing), and that's something that need to be regulated better. That's where money will be saved and cost will be reduced.

Without shifting to a public system, you could probably make thing much better by changing that. At least, that's what I would try first.

[Kaylia]

The pharmaceutical companies actually lower their prices for your government already

Not really.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publi....aspx?id=16338
The generic drug companies and pharmacy retailers are not the cause of high prices for generic drugs. The public reimbursement policies of provincial drug plans are the real villain. To make matters worse, the provinces are taking the wrong approach to fixing the problem. Instead of setting the price of generic drugs at arbitrary levels, government policies should be focusing on creating a system that produces competitive prices.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2324591/
Canadians are among the biggest consumers of pharmaceuticals in the world, the costs for which are also among the highest in the world. And yet, despite these consumption and cost patterns, coupled with patent protection for brand-name pharmaceuticals, Canada lags way behind in the volume of research and development.


http://www.fraserinstitute.org/resea....aspx?id=16661
TORONTO, ON—Canadians are paying almost twice as much for generic prescription drugs as Americans because government drug plans distort retail prices and prevent manufacturer discounts from being passed on to consumers, concludes a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public policy think-tank.



But you guys will be fine. America isn't a greedy place.