Willmeister
Newcomer
I don't think people should be walking around in public hacking and coughing when they have tuberculosis and other contagious diseases that are now making a comeback.
Tax cuts bolster US economy to 7.2% growth rate.
- Thread starter Sabastian
- Start date
Willmeister said:
Most definitely they really shouldn't be walking around but they will and do anyway even with Medicare in place. Also you assume that people who catch tuberculosis and other diseases would necessarily have no coverage at all? You know you can voluntarily get minimal coverage for yourself. Anyhow in such an instance I think some sort of emergency fund could be created for those whom have none and have highly contagious diseases. At any rate you rationalize public health care services for the entire population of the country for a handful of people who would catch TB or other similar diseases? That sounds a bit... extravagant.
Clashman said:As if tuberculosis is the only disease affecting people in Canada. Christ Sabastian, if things are so great why do we need health insurance at all? The way you make it sound, it seems like we're all wasting money, whether it be in private or publicly funded systems.
My sakes, I am not sure that TB is wide spread or anything but ... I think the numbers of infected is probably near to the number of fingers on my hands in Canada. I said we could put in place an emergency fund for people who have no coverage but have fallen ill with highly contagious diseases.
No I never implied anything of the sort, don't exaggerate. I asked Bill why is it that he should be responsible for my well being at all and he answered with the suggestion that people could get sick with a highly contagious disease... for which I suggested the emergency fund for people who don't have any coverage should they catch a highly contagious disease.
Second hand smoke reportedly kills 60,000 people a year, but for the sake of argument I'll cut it in 10 to 6,000. Now if we can spend billions on war with Afghanistan for 3,000 people killed in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, national health care should be a no brainer.
The point is that you're dodging the question. He didn't cite TB as the ONLY reason to have national health care, he cited it as ONE OF MANY. And you knew that, but chose to pick on TB to avoid the general point he was trying to make, which is that many diseases do in fact take a public toll, and therefore health is a PUBLIC, not a private issue.
Clashman said:
lol, that is complete and utter bullshit....
http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.htm
http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html
Clashman said:
No, I didn't "dodge the question" rather he specifically sighted TB and I specifically addressed it I also included emergency coverage for other highly contagious diseases. While I understand that there are other highly contagious diseases. The flu is the most common infection and it is something you catch from others, I wouldn't rationalize a national healthcare scheme to for it though. Health is not primarily public at all, the vast majority of cases of ill health are exclusively personal.
Sabastian in NB when you have acar accident ist not the public systemk you are dealing with its your auto insurance that delivers all costs to pay for your care. Health Care in Canada is in fact private only its a public insurance system that pays for you if your a citizen.
Democoders access to health care is quite above the average american. We have americans across the border come here all the time sometimes ebcause their coergae is so bad its better for them to pay cash here and wait a bit for a routine xray for ex then have to pay out of pocket in ther states. The undermining of access in canada especially in terms of doctors sicne the mid 980's is due by gov attempts to curb public opinion towards privatization. This even tho we payed less per capita (abou half the US rate) on health care than we did back in the 40's until only couple years ago.
To etablish an infrastructure that could provide good and timely health care to all but in a non profit manner would require creating more places in university first of all which are seriuously curtailed because of the CMA's (same as AMA) insistence on controlling the number of admissions.
A fully funded public HC system with no routine waiting lists (waiting lists will happen in times of emergency no matter where you live) has been indicated would still costs 2-3 points of gdp less than in the US.
US is chronically short of all medical personnel so its not a canadian system problem per se. I think my criticism of the US unable to create its own educated professionals in HC and elsewhere is valid. The most incentive oriented society on the planet cant provide enough doctors for itself for ex... It would seem the lack of incentives supposedly existing in Canada isnt stopping people here from going or wanting to (there are 3 times more valid applications to med school than places).
I guess the AMA severely restricts access to schools in the US too?
Democoders access to health care is quite above the average american. We have americans across the border come here all the time sometimes ebcause their coergae is so bad its better for them to pay cash here and wait a bit for a routine xray for ex then have to pay out of pocket in ther states. The undermining of access in canada especially in terms of doctors sicne the mid 980's is due by gov attempts to curb public opinion towards privatization. This even tho we payed less per capita (abou half the US rate) on health care than we did back in the 40's until only couple years ago.
To etablish an infrastructure that could provide good and timely health care to all but in a non profit manner would require creating more places in university first of all which are seriuously curtailed because of the CMA's (same as AMA) insistence on controlling the number of admissions.
A fully funded public HC system with no routine waiting lists (waiting lists will happen in times of emergency no matter where you live) has been indicated would still costs 2-3 points of gdp less than in the US.
US is chronically short of all medical personnel so its not a canadian system problem per se. I think my criticism of the US unable to create its own educated professionals in HC and elsewhere is valid. The most incentive oriented society on the planet cant provide enough doctors for itself for ex... It would seem the lack of incentives supposedly existing in Canada isnt stopping people here from going or wanting to (there are 3 times more valid applications to med school than places).
I guess the AMA severely restricts access to schools in the US too?
NHS is a clear example of failed dual systems. Its the NHS more than the US model in fact that influenced public opinion more than anything to prevent for profit from significantly entering the canadian system vene tho the govs in power were all for it.
I dont think there is a country on the planet save cuba that can create enough doctors for its citizens needs. But in Cuba the negative role played by doctors associations and insurance cies dont exist as its a dictatorship...
I dont think there is a country on the planet save cuba that can create enough doctors for its citizens needs. But in Cuba the negative role played by doctors associations and insurance cies dont exist as its a dictatorship...
pax said:
Yeah, great public system. I thought that I would get you to clarify what you had said because it wasn't that lucid. The driver of the car when I had my accident did not have insurance and so it defaults to uninsured drivers fund. He got massively screwed needless to say.
pax said:
My health care is employer provided. Someone making $40k at my company has the same healthcare as me. The only difference is, I pay an extra $10 a paycheck month for the right to see my own doctor, whereas if you take the "default", you must see doctors within a network.
My salary might be way above average, but my healthcare insurance is not extravagant for a person who has employer provided health insurance.
No, the US is cronically short of general practicioners, like Internal Medicine. Why? Because everyone in the US becomes a specialist: dermatologist, oncologist, cardiologist, etc. Men and Women, when deciding whether to be a nurse, general doctor, or specialist, almost always choose specialist because you may the most amount of money.
I guess the incentives-gap in Canada between nurse, general doctor, and specialist aren't large enough to distort the percentages. Canadian doctor's make like $55k a year, American doctors make over $200k minimum. Medicine is glamorized in the US, like Law, on TV, so there is no shortage of people going to medical school. It's what they choose to do with their education, and fact is, not many want to work at a free clinic or provide "basic care"
That's one of the things HMOs did, which was organize preemptive and general care, to cut costs by stopping people from going to see a specialist whenever they got a runny nose, and directing them first to see a general practicioner.
Well my sis who is GP made 180k last year or about 120 clear. But she does emergency room shifts... not all gpas do but it pays lots... she makes half her pay on 6 days a month in the emergency room basically at 12 hrs per shift on 4 of those and 24 hrs on the other 2 days...
Id have thought there would be incentives where the market needs them... so GP's should in fact be making more than some specialists...
Id have thought there would be incentives where the market needs them... so GP's should in fact be making more than some specialists...
Willmeister
Newcomer
Britain's NHS was a boon to those who play both the public and private systems. It's not uncommon for a doctor to attempt to refer his/her patients into the private system as much as possible because the doctor gets paid more. So, the more the NHS is being bled, the more calls there are to cut even more. Lather. Rinse Repeat. What about all those other public systems in Europe? Sweden's collapse has been predicted over and over again.
No matter what you do, someone, sometime is going to play the system.
DemoCoder said:
I know of a couple of doctors right out of the Fredericton area here that simply packed up their clinics and moved across the boarder. One of them was my fathers doctor and I can't remember who the other one was… but the point is I guess I don't know of allot of US doctors packing their bags to come north of the boarder to work. I do see allot of foreign doctors mostly Indian (meaning from India or that demographic.) not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that but I do suppose that India has an awful shortage of doctors, indeed the whole region does.
If it is merely a matter of educating enough doctors you would think that they would simply open the flood gates as it were. I think the problem is more fundamental then that though. What it comes right down to is that it is too bloody expensive and surely if they did have enough doctors to go around the budget would be strained further and a spending increase necessary and this in turn creates pressure to raise taxation which is already at unacceptable levels. No matter how supposedly "efficient" our Medicare system really is the simple fact of the matter is that it is too expensive and something is going to have to be done about it.
Willmeister
Newcomer
One of the doctors that relocated from Fredericton was one Mary Petersen. Good riddance, her advice screwed up my mother's back. It's no wonder she had to relocate because she ended up with a reputation.
Willmeister said:
Britain's NHS was a boon to those who play both the public and private systems. It's not uncommon for a doctor to attempt to refer his/her patients into the private system as much as possible because the doctor gets paid more. So, the more the NHS is being bled, the more calls there are to cut even more. Lather. Rinse Repeat. What about all those other public systems in Europe? Sweden's collapse has been predicted over and over again.
No matter what you do, someone, sometime is going to play the system.
Yeah, the reason communism failed was because everyone wasn't one.
Everytime someone mentions the failure of one of these nationalized systems, they always try to pin the blame on the fact that there were still opportunities for people to escape and go outside the system.
If the only way to make them work is to snuff out all freedom of choice, no thanks.