Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


RangerM

A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Healthcare Plan

Recommended Posts

Many Canadians would argue that it adds to freedom. It's all a matter of perspective.

What about the others? There freedom is then being limited. There's no perspective to it, just a majority dictating the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont government telling my doctor what to do

I dont want government to kill private insurance as this plan would.

I dont want to wait months to get surgery like those up in canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our government is much different than yours it seems. Canadians set almost all of the priorities...and one priority of Canadians is maintaining and improving public health. Any party that advocated otherwise would face certain defeat.

 

Yea well its just the same here. We just dont now Frickin government controling it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the others? There freedom is then being limited. There's no perspective to it, just a majority dictating the minority.

 

Every country is run in such a manner. We can't stop everything because one person is opposed. In this country, and in most others, healthcare, and life, are rights. The government is obligated to provide those two things within reason. That includes sending people to other countries if needed or paying for expensive (although not usually experimental) treatments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont government telling my doctor what to do

 

Who is proposing that? Where does it happen?

 

I dont want government to kill private insurance as this plan would.

 

Well then maybe private insurance should become more cost effective. Canada and the US have the most expensive care in the world. Yours is expensive because of all the profit built in, and ours is expensive because we have to pay staff much more than other countries with similar systems to try to keep them from moving to the US to make more money.

 

The role of profit industry is to make money....no matter the cost in humanity.

 

I dont want to wait months to get surgery like those up in canada.

 

Unless you need a hip or knee replacement (and not even then sometimes), you probably won't be waiting long. It all depends on how doctors assess your condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget the HMO manager who decides your treatment might cost the company too much, so you get "rationed", and the doctor gets told your treatment will not be paid for, and you're SOL.

I haven't. That's why I subscribe to a P.P.O. instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just beef up Medicare for low income earners and the poor, make it a true safety net?

That way people would have a real choice between a national system and private health cover.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All health care is rationed and managed. It is called triage.

 

In the U.S who makes the decisions who gets what treatment and when ? Lets look at them all. HMO's they decide what they are going to cover how much and where it is going to get done for them to cover it. Health care professionals (of course), And the availability of facilities.

 

IN Canada the decision is made by Health Care professionals, and the availability of facilities.

 

As for waiting for months. That was/is an outstanding issue for some regions. But it is a problem that is being addressed. It is not something that will always or has always been. And if she waited 14 months for facilities to be available then she was not determined to be a high priority by her physician. And waited her turn just like all patients do based on medical triage. The great thing is here if you do not like the opinion of your doctor go see anouther and get a second opinion, they may not agree with the original prognosis and expedite the surgery.

 

The Only current issue with our system is wait times for elective surgeries that are non life threatening. That is the only issue we currently have and it is being corrected. And that is only problem in a few regions. Here the wait time for knee replacement surgery is 6 weeks.

 

How many problems are there with the U.S system ? I mean really if the U.S systems only issue was long wait times for non life threating elective surgeries then half the nation would not be calling to scrap the status quo.

 

As for the doctors the CMA greatly opposed Our universal system when Diefenbaker started it in the 1950's.

With basically the same concerns that the AMA has raised.

Now the CMA is one of it's strongest supporters. And routinely inputs to the government to make the system better how to provide a higher levels or care and be more cost effective

 

Also remember the Feds here only provide about 10%-15% of the health care dollars the rest is Funded by the provinces.

The feds are the regulatory body they do not administer, control or direct out health care system all they do is make sure that the provinces do not breach the health act. They are pretty much just the regulators.

 

 

Americans should actually be able to have a better level of care under a single user pay system than the current private for profit with out even cutting health professionals wages. Think about that.

 

The numbers do not lie.

 

The U.S spend 7% more of the GDP on health care than we do plus 31% (almost a 1/3rd) of every health dollar spent in the U.S goes to administrative overhead. Compared to 1% in Canada. There are not 100 million Americans with out health coverage. Cause that what is would take to eat up those over head costs

 

Basically if you replaced all the primary health insurance companies in the U.S With a single insurance payer that was non profit. The money saved would allow for every single person in the U.S to have even better coverage than currant and you would still have money left over. Meaning that the premiums company's and most Americans co pay could be reduced or eradicated. With out even capping or cutting health professionals wages.

 

But when all Americans are covered then the U.S is going to see same the issues all nations have as you will add millions and millions patients to the rank and file that can see the doctors when they deem they need to. Are there going to be facility and health professional shortages. No matter how it is done either private for profit single user pay or universal coverage it will happen.

 

But under a single user pay system there will piles of health care dollars left over that could be quickly invested in to expanding and building new facilities.

 

No matter how the the people the currently do not have health insurance get coverage once they do the health care system in the U.S is going to see shortages. And since the U.S system is an open free market for profit system when health care professionals are in short supply wages will go up just like any other sector, When diagnostic equipment becomes in high demand the cost of the diagnostic will go up as well (that old supply and demand in the free market) and costs will go up in step.

 

The U.S really has little alternative but to trash the for profit free market health care system in order to keep costs in check and provide adequate facilities. If the intention is to make sure every single person in the nation is going to have adequate coverage.

 

Either the status quo will have to remain, or the powers that be will have to move closer to a universal system and that will include in part socializing medicine and the personal. Any thing less than that will open the door for a potential complete melt down for health care in the U.S as you all know it.

 

 

Matthew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add that knee replacement median wait time is between 8 and 25 weeks depending on facility in my province at the current time.

Edited by suv_guy_19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why, of all things, health care should becomes a guaranteed right provided by taxpayer money and government run? As I understand it, the benefits from it will only affect a small amount of society and there are far more fundamental needs in life than guaranteed free medical attention. Given the limited nature of medical resources, the cost from Moral Hazard of of "free" medical care would also be high.

 

The whole, 'it would better if it were run by the government because of profits' reason doesn't fly. Not only does it contradict economics, but if that were the case the government should run everything, not just health care. Using Canada as an example due to higher efficiency doesn't make sense either, sometimes smaller systems are less complicated and less expensive to run. Systems with high marginal costs, like Medicine, are much more likely to experience diminishing returns to scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all things, I would say that healthcare is perhaps the most important service. People are all equal as human beings no matter status and money and all deserve the chance to live. And again, in very few countries does the government actually run health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many Canadians would argue that it adds to freedom. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

Here is one Canadian who doesn't see it that way, especially in to-day's climate of bigger government following the economic crisis. We are in unchartered territory, and who knows where we are headed? One thing for sure is that what we need is less government involvement, not more if we are going to come out of this. Canada is stuck with socialist health care, so what will happen here with government funds drying up is worse care across the board. At some point, it gets so that you are better off taking your chances with your own immune system than risking your life at a government sponsored health care facility. It is a personal decision based on your own individual condition. Obviously, if you are in dire straits, you have to go. Personally, I enjoy good health, and for myself, I have a better chance of staying that way by avoiding our health care system. I never get check-ups because I don't trust any diagnosis by someone who works for the government. They mis-diagnosed many women for breast cancer, and gave thousands of people bad blood and they got AIDS and hepatitis. They created superviruses by over-prescribing anti-biotics. Hundreds of deaths from these viruses in Canadian hospitals were covered up. When my wife was pregnant for my first child, she went to the hospital complaining of abdominal pain. The doctor came to me to get me to convince her to sign a paper for surgery to abort the baby, and remove her appendix and gall bladder. I refused, and she signed herself out and I took her home. My daughter is now 36 years old and my ex-wife still has her gall bladder and appendix. I see putting one's self in the care of a doctor in Canada as a death sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone explain to me why, of all things, health care should becomes a guaranteed right provided by taxpayer money and government run?

Could you explain to me why, of all things, health care should not become a guaranteed right provided by taxpayer money and government run?

 

there are far more fundamental needs in life than guaranteed free medical attention.

There are? Please list. Once you've run out of health, you've run out of life.

 

Given the limited nature of medical resources,

Says who? Please define how these resources are limited?

 

the cost from Moral Hazard of of "free" medical care would also be high.

33 million Candians seem to think that the Moral Hazard is worth it. Maybe being North of the border makes you MH-resistant. Maybe it's the water?

 

The whole, 'it would better if it were run by the government because of profits' reason doesn't fly.

Why? Please specify why.

 

Not only does it contradict economics,

Again, we need proof of what you contend.

 

but if that were the case the government should run everything, not just health care.

In your mind, perhaps. Some things work better when they are run by the government, and some things don't.

 

Using Canada as an example due to higher efficiency doesn't make sense either, sometimes smaller systems are less complicated and less expensive to run. Systems with high marginal costs, like Medicine, are much more likely to experience diminishing returns to scale.

It might not make sense to you, because you don't want it to make sense. It's very simple, really: get rid of all the office-people shuffling insurance forms for all those health insurance companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name one thing that the government runs that is not screwed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It might not make sense to you, because you don't want it to make sense. It's very simple, really: get rid of all the office-people shuffling insurance forms for all those health insurance companies.

1. And replace them with government workers doing all the paper shuffling?

 

2. Do you think we should of let GM collapse?

 

3. Like Trim asks, can you name something the government runs efficiently and cost effectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Name one thing that the government runs that is not screwed up.

 

Canada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you explain to me why, of all things, health care should not become a guaranteed right provided by taxpayer money and government run?

 

 

There are? Please list. Once you've run out of health, you've run out of life.

 

 

Says who? Please define how these resources are limited?

 

 

33 million Candians seem to think that the Moral Hazard is worth it. Maybe being North of the border makes you MH-resistant. Maybe it's the water?

 

 

Why? Please specify why.

 

 

Again, we need proof of what you contend.

 

 

In your mind, perhaps. Some things work better when they are run by the government, and some things don't.

 

 

It might not make sense to you, because you don't want it to make sense. It's very simple, really: get rid of all the office-people shuffling insurance forms for all those health insurance companies.

 

Thanks, glad I reread the posts I would have said the same thing....but less tactfully!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. And replace them with government workers doing all the paper shuffling?

 

2. Do you think we should of let GM collapse?

 

3. Like Trim asks, can you name something the government runs efficiently and cost effectively?

You really are rather good at being obtuse, when you want to be.

 

1. And replace them with government workers doing all the paper shuffling?

Yes indeed. It's called economy of scale: fewer over-paid CEO's and board pirates lining their private pockets, fewer offices, lower overhead.

2. Do you think we should of let GM collapse?

And this has what to do with health care?

3. Like Trim asks, can you name something the government runs efficiently and cost effectively?

Sure: scientific research, occupational health and safety, food inspection, hydro-electric projects, the list goes on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canada

 

 

The government does not run Canada, yet. That would be Communism. As far as you are concerned, we are already there. All we need is one more Liberal government with Obama guiding its way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a representative democracy. We elect the government is charged with the administration of the country. They 'run' the country.

 

Ok now, we derail almost every thread, so lets not derail this one.

Edited by suv_guy_19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have a representative democracy. We elect the government is charged with the administration of the country. They 'run' the country.

 

Ok now, we derail almost every thread, so lets not derail this one.

 

 

When you have "institutions" that remain in place regardless of which party is in power, the despots behind the scene who run these institutions become more powerful than the government. The Prime Minister, or President becomes a puppet. Our power to "elect" who we want is gone. We need to get rid of these institutions, not create more.

 

Control over our health care is too much power to give to an un-elected institution. There is too much opportunity for corruption and power grabbing. Fake or deliberately started pandemics, for example, could rob us of billions in tax dollars. We could have mind-altering drugs forced on us if they declared Conservatism to be a mental illness. I don't want the government to have the power to profit from my illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Control over our health care is too much power to give to an un-elected institution.

 

 

I agree...and we did that a long time ago here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edstock, I'm not trying complaining about the Canadian healthcare system. That's none of my business. What I don't get is why, of all things, some people have made guaranteed health care a bigger quest than what are in my opinion more important things, like good housing, safety, etc. That's not question what Canada does , it's me wondering aloud because I have friends in the US that have made government healthcare their cause of the century.

 

Resources are limited. Damned straight, there wouldn't be people having problems getting healthcare coverage if it wasn't a limited resource. My relatives in the UK (two of which are doctors) complain about how they don't have the ability to care for everyone and they have huge waiting lists for certain procedures.

 

Moral Hazard, people overuse things when they don't have to pay for them directly. I don't like the idea of this in an industry were limited resources already are a problem.

 

Profits? More efficiency? This point isn't about the ideals of a welfare state, so I'll stick to efficiency and output. The whole idea of government run programs is that the subsidy from the program makes improvements to society that aren't possible without government intervention, not that the institution as a whole will be better. The military and police forces let you go about your life with much less threat to loss of life and property. Society flat out doesn't work if you have to waste time and constantly worry about losing the resources you worked hard to get. The treasury department allows people to trade with a known commodity (money). Currency is essential for a modern economy, and if the currency isn't stable, bad things happen. Education massively increases the productivity of all of society. Healthcare would have a positive impact too, what I'm not convinced on is that the impact would be any better than if the money were spent else ware, mainly because it's biggest advocates use efficiency as the primary argument. Efficiency of the program isn't a positive, the net benifit to society as a trade off from the inevitable loss of efficiency is.

 

Economies of scale? That's the wrong argument to use in the medical industry. Economies of scale is about fixed costs. Everything about the medical industry is marginal costs, including administration. The only fixed costs are the buildings and some of the instruments they use. It's not an economy of scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really are rather good at being obtuse, when you want to be.

 

 

Yes indeed. It's called economy of scale: fewer over-paid CEO's and board pirates lining their private pockets, fewer offices, lower overhead.

 

And this has what to do with health care?

 

Sure: scientific research, occupational health and safety, food inspection, hydro-electric projects, the list goes on and on.

Because I asked a few questions?

 

You can say yes but that's not the case for every government entity I have been in(unemployment, SS and DMV). The best thing is I know a guy who works(or that is what is percieved) for the DMV and he has no problem telling me what a joke it is.

 

Nothing to do with healthcare just about jobs. Some of you complained about the jobs lost if GM was to go under. What about all the paper shuffling jobs that would be lost?

 

Like you say, could we have proof of this list that goes on???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no efficiency if the government is running it, no matter what "it" is. The government exists to gain more and more power for itself and take more and more freedom away from the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×