WELL, WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK BROKE IT, BONEHEAD??? The exact same jerks you want to turn it over to, right?
Posted on 03/12/2006 4:58:03 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Greetings. I have a piece of text I'd like to copy and paste from a topic on another forum (known as Marble Garden, which is where political, philosophical, and sociological threads and debates are posted). I had started a topic (username: Ultra Sonic 007) about health care, asking which system would be better; socialized or private?
One of the forumers there is TheCycle, a Canadian. He just recently posted a long post on the universal health-care system and why it would be a good idea for the US to make the switch to such a system. It was in response to snippets from Michael Savage's book 'The Enemy Within' that regarded health-care. Snippets I posted.
This is where I ask for help.
WELL, WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK BROKE IT, BONEHEAD??? The exact same jerks you want to turn it over to, right?
There was a good Mark Steyn editorial on this perhaps a year ago. It was a personal story how his wife was forced to wait in a canadian hospital waiting room long enough to read an entire book, while she had a miscarrage. Then the clean up crew had the audacity to get mad at her for making a mess on the chair.
The fundamental question is: WHAT gives YOU or ANYONE the "right" to INTERFERE with a PRIVATE transaction between a doctor and a patient? Answer: absolutely NOTHING more than the gun which a petty bureaucrat in a tinpot dictatorship holds against a citizen to extract a bribe before anything gets done. All those fancy arguments can never disguise it. Bureaucrats and their "intellectual" champions (Walter Mitties who want to rule the world and push people around) are STILL nothing more than Wesley Mouches and Floyd Ferrises, now aren't they?
great graphic
Socialist health-care is not healthy. It regresses to hand holding until inevitable death. Any system can watch people die. No one will fault their Doctors that do all they can within their means.
US privately insured health-care more often than not stops death in it's tracks. Our Doctors have the ability to use the best technology and techniques to prolong life at every turn because we pay for it. Socialists settle for death by mediocrity
My wife had an aneurysm a few months ago. She has had many CAT scans and MRI's and is 100% without symptoms now. With any other socialist health-care system the doctors would still be guessing and my wife would be like Capt. Pike.
That should be enough to make you go hmmmm.
And don't know of anybody here that really had to wait in line for anything short of a kidney transplant.
More importantly, in these systems care is given based on medical need instead of the ability to pay.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Get it? Your rights are subsumed to the need of another. The "single payer" is not a single payer at all - that is a comfortable lie designed to obscure the fact that taxpayers are the source of funding. And when something is offered for "free" it will be in high demand - and short supply. The focus on "preventive medicine" is likewise a ruse intended to distract those seeking treatment for real illnesses from focusing on the real world results of universal health care: rationing of service, and a poor quality of care from providers operating without any market incentives.
My friend in NZ hopes his back doesn't start bothering him again because it isn't life-threatening and he's 56 years old so his back ache is a very low priority. The committee, don't you know, so far won't let him get surgery for it.
"Universal" health care differs from "capitalist" health care in that the government allocates care by rationing rather than by having the patients pay what they can afford.
Thank you all for the posts. FR is such a wonderful source of information. :)
TheCycle will be replying later on tonight in response to the shots I just fired back, so I'll re-ping you all for more socialist bilge to filter through. :P
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Sir Winston Churchill
Check out the Free Healthcare? page at therealcuba.com, and then click around to see some other wonders of socialism!
ML/NJ
xxxx
And just one more thing out of curiosity; how come you hear about Canadians coming to the US for health-care, but you don't hear about Americans going to Canada for health-care?
Because they're not covered. It's not like the actual services are free. Each province's medical plan is basically an insurance policy, and to qualify for this policy you need to be a Canadian taxpayer. When you receive treatment that is covered under the plan, the hospital or doctor bills the ministry of health for the services. If you're not covered, and you receive treatment at a Canadian hospital, they'll send you the bill.
xxxx
And later...
xxxx
The government’s primary role is simply to collect money and pay bills, a role that the government can carry out effectively and efficiently.
(Me replying to that quote)
This line is laughable. At least, when it comes to the government's involvement with health-care in the US.
Which is something I explained in that long-ass post up there (Ultra's note: the initial post at the top of the thread)-- most of the inefficiency is caused by having to satisfy the multitude of clerical demands of a litany of different insurance policies and the companies who provide them. I will address your earlier comment about government efficiency tomorrow evening.
xxxx
Well FReepers...anything else?
The argument needs no rebuttal save this: The "needs" of others are not a claim on my productivity or property, nor are my "needs" a claim on theirs.
Remember, "A is A"
Well, if they are getting it for free in Canada why are they coming to the U.S. and paying cash?
most of the inefficiency is caused by having to satisfy the multitude of clerical demands of a litany of different insurance policies and the companies who provide them.
Define inefficiency. I mean, are you saying it's inefficient because there are private insurance companies? If so, what mechanism do you suggest to hold government employees accountable for bad performance? You can always fire your insurance company. It's a bit harder to fire a civil service protected bureaucrat who is going to get paid whether you see a doctor or not.
Or are you saying it's inefficient because unnecessary work is being performed and time is wasted before health care is provided? They why would you want to add governmental layer and spend unnecessary money and waste needed time.
Or are you saying the insurance companies are doing unnecessary work? I reject that. The insurance companies are tracking compensation for health services and getting rid of them would require adding government workers (who could never be fired, see above.) Anyway, the greatest efficiencies occur in fee for service with no middleman, but you are not suggesting that.
I will address your earlier comment about government efficiency tomorrow evening.
Looks like he's on the run.
So simple. Worth repeating.
Thanks for the ping and your contribution.
Thank you, but you should read Ayn Rand. Mine is just a paraphrase.
All you need to know about government provided (mandatory participation) "health care" is that in Canada, your dog can get an MRI 8x faster than you can get an Xray. No BS.
xxxx
The reason you pay more for health care in the USA is because there is no government price fixing which inevitably results in poorer service by less qualified individuals using older equipment and technology.
Price fixing? I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you have an example or two of what the Canadian government does more efficiently than the private sector (doesn't matter what type of industry it is, be it medical, school, etcetera)?
I received my refund cheque within 14 days of filing my tax return. I still haven't gotten my cheque from Canon, and it's been like two months since I sent in the mail-in rebate for my scanner.
The basic problem is that once health care becomes a political matter, your voice in it is effectively subordinated to what bureaucrats determine is in your best interests.
I'll forgive you for saying this only because you don't live in Canada and are unfamilliar with the political climate here. But basically, with the sole exception of oil-rich Alberta, every government in the history of this country that has tried to screw with healthcare, or toyed with privatization, has been kicked out by the electorate on this sole issue.
The government determines how much it will pay doctors and health care providers.
Wrong. In the case of doctors, each provincial government works out an annual agreement with the Canadian Medical Association, which is the professional association representing all the MDs in the country (it's basically a union, only it calls itself something else), and creates payment schedules for everything from a routine checkup to a triple-bypass. If for any reason the CMA is not satisfied with the agreement, they withdraw services. In other words, the doctors go on strike.
Everyone else -- nurses, assistants, technicians, receptionists, even housekeepers -- is unionized and pretty much does the same thing. Recently the BC government tried to cut the nurses' pay and they nearly provoked a general strike. In fact, basically everyone who works in the public sector is unionized and fully protected from the kind of unilateral decision-making you just described.
Decision-making will be driven by pressures to control costs and cut corners through rationing.
Only if the system is underfunded. Besides, it's not like a for-profit organization doesn't do that every time the shareholders decide they're not making enough money.
If you need a hip replacement procedure done, you can wait years for that or any other medical care deemed elected by bureaucrats.
Not true. A patient's need is always assessed on a case-by-case basis by an experienced healthcare professional.
Taxes will rise to fund the health care system.
My taxes have been holding steady ever since I started paying them.
And apparently, even the former Canadian Prime Minister's doctor thinks your country's universal health-care system needs work.
There's not a single individual in this country who doesn't disagree that it needs work. That doesn't stop people from being glad to have it. I mean, my spoken French needs work -- my pronunciation is slow and my vocabulary is limited -- but I'm still proud to be bilingual.
What you're arguing (consolidating entire industries and making everyone goverment workers) is called Communism and it has failed in every instance that it has been tried.
First, you didn't read my post -- I actually recommended against making physicians and nurses government employees. You also demonstrate a lack of understanding of both communism and Canadian healthcare. Canada does not have a government funded and operated monopoly, it's a series of taxpayer-funded insurance schemes for hospital care and certain doctors’ services, supplemented by private insurance and out-of-pocket payments for other health services. It is not, by any reasonable stretch, communism.
But if the care is free, then why are Canadian citizens coming down to the US to pay for medical services with cash?
Because some procedures (hip replacements, for example) have long waiting lists, and people are treated in order based on need. (And before you start typing, remember that how badly someone needs a procedure done is determined by experienced healthcare professionals, not by the big, bad, bureaucratic government.) People who have the money will often go down to the States to have it done so they don't have to wait. Rich people have this idea that they should be able to get what they want, when they want it, rather than getting in line like everyone else.
xxxx
He does not seem to be as fiery as he usually is; usually his tongue is rather sharp, if you get my drift.
Shall we continue?
No.
I don't think you should continue with this.
"And TheCycle has replied once more! "
You are not currently contributing on this discussion about health care in North America.
Take a deep breath.
"The reason you pay more for health care in the USA is because there is no government price fixing which inevitably results in poorer service by less qualified individuals using older equipment and technology."
I'm not sure we do pay less. We pay in our taxes.
Do you have an example or two of what the Canadian government does more efficiently than the private sector (doesn't matter what type of industry it is, be it medical, school, etcetera)?
No.
" I received my refund cheque within 14 days of filing my tax return."
Which tells us what?
"The basic problem is that once health care becomes a political matter, your voice in it is effectively subordinated to what bureaucrats determine is in your best interests."
Exactly.
" Only if the system is underfunded."
Throw more money at it.
"If you need a hip replacement procedure done, you can wait years for that or any other medical care deemed elected by bureaucrats."
Absolutely true.
" My taxes have been holding steady ever since I started paying them."
Where do you live?
Rich people have this idea that they should be able to get what they want, when they want it, rather than getting in line like everyone else.
Ouch.
You are doing a good job of acting like a socialist Ultra Sonic 007.
Do I have to type slow?
I received my refund cheque within 14 days of filing my tax return. I still haven't gotten my cheque from Canon, and it's been like two months since I sent in the mail-in rebate for my scanner.
It is mission of neither Canon nor Canada to return money. You acquired your scanner when you paid the cashier. We can't say that about health care can we?
I'll forgive you for saying this only because you don't live in Canada and are unfamilliar with the political climate here. But basically, with the sole exception of oil-rich Alberta, every government in the history of this country that has tried to screw with healthcare, or toyed with privatization, has been kicked out by the electorate on this sole issue.
If your happy, I'm happy, but I'm pretty confident that the health care decisions are not voted on but decided by a bureaucrat.
Wrong. In the case of doctors, each provincial government works out an annual agreement with the Canadian Medical Association,
In other words, the government determines health care.
Decision-making will be driven by pressures to control costs and cut corners through rationing. . . Only if the system is underfunded. Besides, it's not like a for-profit organization doesn't do that every time the shareholders decide they're not making enough money.
That's not really true. If a service is desired, the market will provide unless regulation makes it impractical. Anyway, not ever medical practice has shareholders.
And apparently, even the former Canadian Prime Minister's doctor thinks your country's universal health-care system needs work. There's not a single individual in this country who doesn't disagree that it needs work.
Clearly, your mind is starting to open.
Rich people have this idea that they should be able to get what they want, when they want it, rather than getting in line like everyone else.
Middle class Americans don't have to wait in line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.