ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:05 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 255 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:46 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Texas
Rucifer wrote:
I don't agree with a lot of your views but I definitely don't consider them the view of a dumbass farmer! I'm a liberal who agrees that the government shouldn't be in one party control! But I do just have to say...the health care bill didn't pass because democrats are spineless cowards. I got to give it to Republicans- they at least took care of their agenda when they ran things. But in the current incarnation, the universal health care bill is something I hope doesn't pass.


I never said the democrats were spineless cowards. They had to have a lot of cajones to try force that bill down our throats when most Americans (across the board from liberal to conservative) opposed it. It didn't pass because it was a bad bill.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:03 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
I'll probably be the one sounding dumb here but, I need to ask as someone who, all my life, has always had access to free healthcare.

So...

What are the downsides? Why wouldn't you want free healthcare?

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:15 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:46 am
Posts: 1429
Location: Manchester, UK
Technically it's not free, it's paid for out of direct taxation with your National Insurance contributions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:29 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Of course...

I'm just trying to understand what the negatives to it are.

If it's just the tax thing, then fair enough.

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:01 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6418
Location: Halifax, NS
I might be wrong but in Canada, we have a philosophy that you look after those that can't look after themselves. This is why we have strong social programs that Americans would not find reasonable. Helath care is the biggest but we subsidise universities more, we have a larger welfare program and we have other entitlements for low-income families that prevent absolute poverty. It doesn't always work. Some lazy individuals take advantage of it and collect benefits while bringing in income from other sources the government doesn't know about. For example, some enterprising young ladies start baby farms as soon as they turn 16.

On the whole, the system seems to apeall to Canadian sensibilities while Americans may feel that we're encouching on individual responsibilities.

Taxation is certainly at stake but I think the ground issue is where you draw the line between public and private responsibilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:07 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
The problem with socializing any industry is that you take away the individual's incentive to be efficient. If some other nebulous third party pays for everything, why bother trying to find a cheaper doctor, or buy cheaper medicine? Ultimately care providers don't have the incentive to provide really exceptional care or really inexpensive care - everything tends toward mediocrity.

Sadly, this is a big problem with health care in the US, already. Very few people actually pay for their own care. The vast majority either get it "free" from the government (Medicare/Medicaid) or get it "free" from their employer. Of course in the former case it comes out of their taxes, and in the latter it's deducted from their salary. But the taking is done regardless of the individual using it. You don't get taxed less because you made healthy choices and avoided needing Medicare/Medicaid. You don't get more money from your employer (that I've ever heard of) if you save the company's medical plan money by being healthy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:53 pm 
Offline
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Posts: 3129
Location: Va Beach, Va
Frogbyte hit on some key points. Another thing to consider is this. Even though I'm a libertarian and don't want to see big Govt taking everything over, I can actually agree with single payer. I think the biggest objection to it here in the US is as to who will run it and how will it be paid for. Right now, prices are way overboard, the insurance companies usually negotiate prices, which leads to tons of fraud and abuse, not to mention the Dr's have to practice defensive medicine because of the ridiculous number of litigations, which leads to unnecessary tests, further driving up prices. Right now, the govt has a terrible track record running any type of business. The postal system is failing, and is in debt. Do you want them as single payer in charge of the health industry? This would lead to high costs, that would eventually be reflected down to the taxpayers. One solution I've heard was for Govt to manage it, but to contract it out to a private non-for-profit organization who could trim costs, as well as to legislate reform to control malpractice legislation, keep costs in terms of medical service and big pharma down. I don't hear that being discussed though.
Tim


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:09 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6418
Location: Halifax, NS
Tim, you're right, it's all about implementation. I think in Canada it was wise to leave health and eductaion to the provinces. By having different jurisdictions with there own programs, each can learn from the others wrt best practices. Having one overreaching agency can lead to blunders that can have enormous negative consequences. Can you imagine a medical crisis of the magnitude of the current financial crisis?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
frogbyte wrote:
Ironman wrote:
By the way, that wasn't a straw man.


I saw the straw man in this case as "you can trust everything that the US govt says because it's not a dictatorship" and that was not my position.

That wasn't a rant, it was a great introduction to the US, hoosegow.

As for "socialism", it is unfortunate that it's become such a contentious word. Labeling government-run health care as socialism is just an axiom. There's no debating that the denotation of the word fits, but the connotation has became inflammatory. I'm not really sure why some react so strongly to the label, though. Ironman is not alone in this regard, but maybe he can explain why it causes such a strong emotional response for him?


It doesn't. Besides that I was not arguing it, I was using it as an example.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
hoosegow wrote:
Rucifer wrote:
I don't agree with a lot of your views but I definitely don't consider them the view of a dumbass farmer! I'm a liberal who agrees that the government shouldn't be in one party control! But I do just have to say...the health care bill didn't pass because democrats are spineless cowards. I got to give it to Republicans- they at least took care of their agenda when they ran things. But in the current incarnation, the universal health care bill is something I hope doesn't pass.


I never said the democrats were spineless cowards. They had to have a lot of cajones to try force that bill down our throats when most Americans (across the board from liberal to conservative) opposed it. It didn't pass because it was a bad bill.


But a lot of Democrats are spineless cowards. Either that or they are just owned by special interests just like the entire GOP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:08 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Well, sooner or later someone's going to have to show some spine and actually cut the budget down to size, or the global credit system is going to collapse under the weight of US govt debt. Probably at some point we're going to have to significantly increase the age of eligibility for Social Security / Medicare.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
hoosegow wrote:
Ironman wrote:
I haven't heard these horror stories.


Just because YOU haven't personally heard these horror stories, doesn't mean they are not true. Seems kind of funny that the Canadian Prime Minister chose to come to the US for his heart surgery instead of using that ultra fine Canadian health service.

Quote:
Most Canadians seem to be happy with their health care.

As are most Americans.

[quote}Healthcare=socialism is nothing but right wing propaganda paid for by the insurance companies who have been getting rich ripping people off for a long time.

I have never been ripped off by my insurance company and quite frankly I don't know anyone who has. I have always gotten the service I paid for

Quote:
That is exactly the problem in this country. All the sheeple are completely fooled by this propaganda put out there to keep corporate interests in power.

And then you have all the sheeple that are completely fooled by the propaganda on the left saying how horrible health care is.

Quote:
I wish people would learn critical thinking. They need to learn about the bill and what is really in it. Rather than just getting 100% of their knowledge from GOP talking points.


I wish sheeple would learn critical thinking. They need to learn about the bill and what is really in it, rather than getting 100% of their knowledge from liberal talking points. If they saw what is really in it, they'd be scared to death.

C'mon Ironman, you are better than this. You are better than resorting to petty name calling.[/quote]

point 1
It's hearsay anyway.

point 2
Except for thousands of uninsured people.

point 3
That is because you don't have any serious medical problems. Not everyone is so lucky.

point 4
For the most part the position on the left is just that we spend way more on health care but several countries have better care than us. It does not say our health care is horrible. The occasional wacko aside of course. The GOP on the other hand has many members of Congress frothing at the mouth about death panels and socialized medicine. There are no death panels and the bill only affects health insurance.

point 5
This already seems to have degenerated into a "yes it has." "no it hasn't" situation. So I see no point in continuing this point.

point 6
Fair enough. The labels do seem rather deserved though from how uninformed people seem to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:43 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Texas
Quote:
point 1
It's hearsay anyway.

point 2
Except for thousands of uninsured people.

point 3
That is because you don't have any serious medical problems. Not everyone is so lucky.

point 4
For the most part the position on the left is just that we spend way more on health care but several countries have better care than us. It does not say our health care is horrible. The occasional wacko aside of course. The GOP on the other hand has many members of Congress frothing at the mouth about death panels and socialized medicine. There are no death panels and the bill only affects health insurance.

point 5
This already seems to have degenerated into a "yes it has." "no it hasn't" situation. So I see no point in continuing this point.

point 6
Fair enough. The labels do seem rather deserved though from how uninformed people seem to be.


point 1
What are you saying is hearsay?

point 2
If you feel compelled to give your hard earned money to a charity that gives free health care to people, great. I might even throw a couple of bucks their way myself. I personally have a soft spot for soldiers, puppy dogs and mentally handicapped adults. I'm not trying to force the US Government to tax other people to donate to my moral causes. I also don't want them forcing other people's morals on me.

point 3
And I work partially to pay for my health insurance in case I do develop serious medical problems.

point 4
Other countries having it better than us is a matter of opinion, not fact, which we can disagree on. The health care bill also effects taxes which I believe I pay too damn much already. The federal government has no business sticking their nose in health care (as well as other stuff we won't get into). I don't see anywhere in the constitution where health care is guaranteed.

point 5
Agreed

Point 6
The uninformed dwell on both sides of the fence.

Like I said, you and I probably won't agree on much politically. We have two opposing beliefs on what the purpose of government is. I imagine we could argue until one of us dies (the smart money is on me going first) with neither one of us convincing the other to budge towards an agreement. I respect your position and I actually understand it. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
Hoosegow, your points mostly seem to be about cost, who pays what, people getting free care, etc. So I will address that since it is the heart of the matter.


The fact is we already pay for people to have free health care. Whenever someone is treated in the emergency room and can't pay, that gets passed on to US. However it is the least efficient way to do this. It is also unfairly distributed and the increases in costs are not sustainable.

The only other option to some kind of reform is just to let people die. However that doesn't really work since we are a social species that live in groups.

If however, you think I am creating a false dichotomy, please let me know what your option is. Pragmatically I just don't think we have much choice.


I think your view is also clouded by "us vs them" thinking, where you dehumanize out groups. That, I think is the underlying flaw in the mainstream right wing nationalist movement here in the US.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:05 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Posts: 928
Location: Ohio, USA
[quote="hoosegow

point 2
If you feel compelled to give your hard earned money to a charity that gives free health care to people, great. I might even throw a couple of bucks their way myself. I personally have a soft spot for soldiers, puppy dogs and mentally handicapped adults. I'm not trying to force the US Government to tax other people to donate to my moral causes. I also don't want them forcing other people's morals on me.

[/quote]

Better stop paying taxes, cause that's going to a police force which is literally enforcing the government's moral causes. This isn't gay marriage- plenty of people die or suffer endlessly because they don't have the money to pay for hospital visits. In an industralized western society, I don't see how this is acceptable. We as Americans seem to be the only western society as a whole who does think so...

but...

Even accepting that fact and that's the way its going to stay, I still don't see why there can't be some reform to the way insurance companies/medical field work. For instance, it doesn't to seem to make any logical sense to charge an uninsured person outrageous prices on prescription drugs and office visits and hospital trips, considering they probably can't even afford health insurance, so how are they going to afford the visits and meds? You can say capitalism...sure...but the insurance companies don't pay near the amount that a regular average joe would on these problems. We ship entire industries of jobs overseas but the idea of importing cheap drugs from Canada is steadfastly opposed? How does that make any sense whatsoever? I don't see how anyone could support these insurance companies and their practices- it makes my skin crawl...and you are only screwing yourself over!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 255 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group