It is going to happen.

I am pro. Here in Arkansas we have over 40,000 children with no coverage what so ever.

They can get treatment but it is too little too late in too many cases. There is that 'pride' factor too believe it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by anoldnotboldrecondo:
It is going to happen.

I am pro. Here in Arkansas we have over 40,000 children with no coverage what so ever.

They can get treatment but it is too little too late in too many cases. There is that 'pride' factor too believe it or not.

Universal Health Care is not the answer. Other countries have it and they hate it...in fact they come to America to get better doctors and better health care. If we move to Universal health care we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. yes, everybody will have health care..yes, taxes will go up...no, people will not continue to come to America to see a doctor when they will get the same low class docotr in their country.

If we move to Universal then the doctors here will care less cus they are getting paid either way. There will be longer lines, you will have to schedule far in advance, and you had better hope you don't have an emergency cus it won't be that important, cus the docs will all be booked for the year.

quote:

Originally posted by Anbar7:

quote:

Originally posted by anoldnotboldrecondo:
It is going to happen.

I am pro. Here in Arkansas we have over 40,000 children with no coverage what so ever.

They can get treatment but it is too little too late in too many cases. There is that 'pride' factor too believe it or not.

Universal Health Care is not the answer. Other countries have it and they hate it...in fact they come to America to get better doctors and better health care. If we move to Universal health care we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. yes, everybody will have health care..yes, taxes will go up...no, people will not continue to come to America to see a doctor when they will get the same low class docotr in their country.

If we move to Universal then the doctors here will care less cus they are getting paid either way. There will be longer lines, you will have to schedule far in advance, and you had better hope you don't have an emergency cus it won't be that important, cus the docs will all be booked for the year.

I believe what you state is conjecture and would be difficult to prove. Is UHC the same in every country? Is health care in Canada the same as that in Cuba?

Should a person go into medicine because it is profitable or because they really want to help people? These things have to be answered before you can actually make a factual judgement.

I would like to see real evidence and support for repeal of UHC from any nation that currently has it.

I do not believe anyone in the whole world with it would give it up.

There maybe quality of care issues but I have yet to see any real evidence that nations like Britain or Canada actually have them.

I don't believe National Health Care is the answer either. But first to debate this you have to throw out thefacts from the right and the facts from the left.

You have to get down to the "nut cut'n" as I like to say on the ranch. In the society of which "we" live in, (A REPUBLIC...NOT A DEMOCRACY) you have classes of people. The good with that is "you", as an individual, have liberty to choose. The bad...somebody will choose wrong.

My way of thinking is... If you make the wrong decision, you pay. Not me. If your parents make a bad decision and you're a child...I pay. If you are old and can't make those decisions or can't afford to make those decisions...I pay. If you're trying like hell but can't afford to make the right choice...I'll help pay.

The real litmus test on this is already going on and has been for years. Look at all the systems in the world. Look at the good, and the bad. You will find both. I'm conservative and love my freedom so I tend to find the negitive. But I'm not blind... I have read the good also.

The only way National Health Care would work is if we change our countries founding documents. To do that we have to tear up the Constitution and write a new declaration of something. We would become a Socialist, Communist, Democratic, Facist or Parlamentary (SP?) country. None of which the citizens of this country would go to without a fight. And I mean a fight.

I know some in this country want us to "change", but not the MAJORITY. And the MAJORITY will rule this country until we do get rid of the Constitution. And that will not be done, even with votes.

So bottom line is this... Whether we want it or not doesn't really matter. National Health Care will not work in this REPUBLIC. It is basically a move to Socialism and we aren't going there.

I believe we are headed away from social programs and hand outs. If we don't it will be the end of our freedom and our liberty.

quote:

Originally posted by anoldnotboldrecondo:
I would like to see real evidence and support for repeal of UHC from any nation that currently has it.

I do not believe anyone in the whole world with it would give it up.

There maybe quality of care issues but I have yet to see any real evidence that nations like Britain or Canada actually have them.

It took 15 seconds to find this.

Site might be goofy but so are most on the internet. I can continue to do this for probably a month straight, non-stop. Now this site is one that got through. I figure in the Communist countries you could multiply what I can find by 100.

Challenges with Healthcare in Canada

Recent statistics identified 55,681 cases of an intestinal bacteria known as C. difficile in patients 65 and older in England in 2006.

I can keep going if you'd like?

quote:

Originally posted by Anbar7:

quote:

Originally posted by anoldnotboldrecondo:
It is going to happen.

I am pro. Here in Arkansas we have over 40,000 children with no coverage what so ever.

They can get treatment but it is too little too late in too many cases. There is that 'pride' factor too believe it or not.

Universal Health Care is not the answer. Other countries have it and they hate it...in fact they come to America to get better doctors and better health care. If we move to Universal health care we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. yes, everybody will have health care..yes, taxes will go up...no, people will not continue to come to America to see a doctor when they will get the same low class docotr in their country.

If we move to Universal then the doctors here will care less cus they are getting paid either way. There will be longer lines, you will have to schedule far in advance, and you had better hope you don't have an emergency cus it won't be that important, cus the docs will all be booked for the year.

Blatantly false.

Most of my family lives in Canada. I've experienced the Canadian health care system first-hand.

The doctors care. And because they're not busy playing chicken with insurance companies, they can actually spend time with their patients. They're free to provide the BEST care for their patients, regardless of the patient's income, instead of using less-effective treatments that the patient can afford, or what happens to be covered by a lousy health insurance plan, or the "other options which must be exhausted" before an effective treatment can be used. They don't get played by pharmaceutical companies who wine-and-dine them.

There's no waiting line for emergency rooms. Actually, there are longer waits in American emergency rooms. Do you want to know why? Because an emergency room is obligated to take ANY patient, regardless of the patient's ability to pay, so people flock to emergency rooms even if they don't have a real emergency. Then, when someone shows up to the ER with a real emergency, and triage doesn't do its job right, the woman with congestive heart failure (mistaken for heartburn) dies in the waiting room while the screaming kid with an average ear infection takes up the ER doc's time. In Canada, that poor mother of the screaming kid could have taken him to a pediatrician without worrying about the sky-high bills. I've been in a Canadian ER. They were quick, professional, saw me promptly, treated me, and released me. And even as an American citizen, my bill was only $100, including the ambulance ride.

(Oh, by the way, only the wealthiest of the wealthy from other countries come to the USA for medical care. There are actually plenty of Americans who go to OTHER nations for medical treatment, where even non-citizens could afford treatment out-of-pocket.)

There are long waits for optional and non-emergency treatment in America, too. I've been waiting two-and-a-half months to get a breast lump removed, and I've got another two weeks to wait... JUST FOR THE CONSULTATION. (Actually, I tried to have it removed before - and I was turned away from the clinic because I didn't have insurance and they deemed it non-emergency.) I had to wait five months for knee surgery. This is America, and we're waiting, too. The only way to bypass the wait is if you're independently wealthy. On the other hand, my relatives in Canada have never reported a long wait for non-emergency medical procedures. Hip replacement for my grandmother, reconstructive surgery after a car accident for my god-mother, colitis treatment for my uncle, knee surgery, physical therapy, a place in a high-quality assisted-living home for my grandfather after his stroke... what wait? There was no wait - definitely no longer than an American would wait for our own system.

Now, let's talk about billing. If you've got insurance, you can still be surprised when your insurance REFUSES to pay for something that should be covered. So, instead of focusing on recovery, you're on the phone with an insurance agent whose only job is to deny your coverage. Remember, your insurance company doesn't care about your health: they're for-profit, and they make more money when they don't pay your bills. And then, what if you CAN'T get decent insurance? Or if you have insurance provided by your employer that has limits? What happens when your daughter has leukemia? What happens when your son literally breaks his neck playing football? What happens when you develop ulcerative colitis? What happens when you discover a lump and it turns out to be cancer? What happens when your insurance company only covers the cheapest treatment option? What happens when the insurance company caps coverage at $10,000 and the bill comes to $100,000? $200,000? $300,000?

Canadians would consider it to be a failure of their society if the parents of a child with leukemia has to hold a bake-sale to pay for medical treatment for the kid. The parents should be spending time with their kid, not peddling chocolate-chip cookies in the hopes of paying the bills, or begging for donations. My cousin and his wife just went through the grueling ordeal of a high-risk pregnancy - twins, placenta below the babies, with one of them having a major heart defect. She was admitted at the beginning of the third trimester to the best quality hospital in the province. She had a private room, the best care possible. When the twins were born - early - the best pediatric and cardiology teams were right there, ready to fix the little girl's heart defect. She's come through with flying colors. She's going to have her 3rd open-heart surgery in two weeks, and they expect her to be fine. Both babies were preemies, and were in the hospital for months.

What was the bill for all that? NOTHING. Were my cousins rich? No, they're TEACHERS.

Canadians pay approximately HALF of what Americans pay, per capita, for health care.

Where does all the extra money go in the American system? Come on, THINK. The insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are getting rich, not doctors. Our money is WASTED on the private insurance industry, which controls health care in our nation in the interest of THEIR OWN PROFIT, not our health. And don't think to yourself that
"someone else" pays for your health care if you have employer-provided insurance. Your employer COULD be paying you more, or creating more jobs, but instead, they're paying part of your sky-high premium.

The only people who win in our system are the insurance companies. The ones who loose are American patients and doctors.

No, Mr. or Mrs. Whirled_Peas. Thuds post seems to have merit.

· The time it tales to be referred by a family doctor to an appointment with a specialist has increased from 3.7 to 8.3 weeks

At least according to the above site.

Here's a tidbit of comparison. Feel free to read Wikipedia's break down


Despite the greater role of private business in the U.S., federal and state agencies are increasingly involved in U.S. health care spending, paying about 45% of the $2.2 trillion the nation spent on medical care in 2004.[23] The U.S. government spends more on health care than on Social Security and national defense combined, according to the Brookings Institute.[24]

Beyond its direct spending, the U.S. government is also highly involved in health care through regulation and legislation. For example, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 provided grants and loans to subsidize Health Maintenance Organizations and contained provisions to stimulate their popularity. HMOs had been declining before the law; by 2002 there were 500 such plans enrolling 76 million people.[25]

The Canadian system has been 69-75% publicly funded,[26] though most services are delivered by private providers, including physicians (although they may derive their revenue primarily from government billings). Although some doctors work on a purely fee-for-service basis (usually family physicians), some family physicians and most specialists are paid through a combination of fee-for-service and fixed contracts with hospitals or health service management organizations.

Canada's universal health plan does not cover certain services. Non-cosmetic dental care is covered for children up to age 14 in some provinces. Outpatient prescription drugs are not required to be covered, but some provinces have drug cost programs that cover most drug costs for certain populations. In every province, seniors receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement have significant additional coverage; some provinces expand forms of drug coverage to all seniors,[27] low-income families,[28] those on social assistance,[29] or those with certain medical conditions.[30] Some provinces cover all drug prescriptions over a certain portion of a family's income.[31] Drug prices are also regulated, so brand-name prescription drugs are often significantly cheaper than in the U.S.[32] Optometry is only covered in some provinces and is sometimes only covered for children under a certain age.[33] Visits to non-physician specialists may require an additional fee. Also, some procedures are only covered under certain circumstances. For example, circumcision is not covered, and a fee is usually charged when a parent requests the procedure; however, if an infection or medical necessity arises, the procedure would be covered

What's funny is that despite all the objections that national health care opponents raise, I have yet to see an example of a nation that is comparably developed to the United States (western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.) which has nationalized health care and does not also have the following:

- lower infant mortality rate
- longer life expectancy
- lower cost to the taxpayer to administer healthcare

Canada is actually one of the worst examples when it comes to universal health care in wealthy countries. (Canada at the bottom in 30 country health-care survey)

comingo***e, what's interesting is that you state the US Government pays about 45% of medical care, yet you say universal health care would be a move toward socialism and against your constitution. By comparison, the US spends more on health care (per capita) than any other wealthy industrialised country - yet the coverage is much less (the US is also the only wealthy industrialised country that doesn't have universal health care) and in many cases the quality of care is worse.

As for Thud357L's comment on other countries hating their universal health care: my country's latest study says 88% are satisfied with the current system (which by no means means it's not being constantly improved though - doctors' and nurses' salaries and patient waiting lines are currently the biggest problems).

quote:

Originally posted by 2nd_freedomfighter:

As for Thud357L's comment on other countries hating their universal health care: my country's latest study says 88% are satisfied with the current system (which by no means means it's not being constantly improved though - doctors' and nurses' salaries and patient waiting lines are currently the biggest problems).

Wait, wait wait!! You've got me confused with someone else. I never said that. I believe that was Anbar7 who posted that.

Oops sorry I stand corrected.

quote:

Originally posted by 2nd_freedomfighter:
Canada is actually one of the worst examples when it comes to universal health care in wealthy countries. (Canada at the bottom in 30 country health-care survey)

comingo***e, what's interesting is that you state the US Government pays about 45% of medical care, yet you say universal health care would be a move toward socialism and against your constitution. By comparison, the US spends more on health care (per capita) than any other wealthy industrialised country - yet the coverage is much less (the US is also the only wealthy industrialised country that doesn't have universal health care) and in many cases the quality of care is worse.

As for Thud357L's comment on other countries hating their universal health care: my country's latest study says 88% are satisfied with the current system (which by no means means it's not being constantly improved though - doctors' and nurses' salaries and patient waiting lines are currently the biggest problems).

Yes, you're right we are at 45% according to Wik., and I believe it. And I'm totally aware of what I said about heading to Socialism. Nothing you said helps in the debate.

We are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE ARE A REPUBLIC. NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY. We have a constitution, a bill of rights, and a declaration of independence.

We need to move away from this type of system. Not towards it. Americans have anywhere from 55% to 65% satisfaction of health care. And for all I know these numbers are from people who don't Give a ****.

You left a big part of your comment out... What country are you from? It's hard to prove what you're saying if you don't tell me what country you live in.

quote:

Originally posted by comingo***e:
I don't believe National Health Care is the answer either. But first to debate this you have to throw out thefacts from the right and the facts from the left.

You have to get down to the "nut cut'n" as I like to say on the ranch. In the society of which "we" live in, (A REPUBLIC...NOT A DEMOCRACY) you have classes of people. The good with that is "you", as an individual, have liberty to choose. The bad...somebody will choose wrong.

My way of thinking is... If you make the wrong decision, you pay. Not me. If your parents make a bad decision and you're a child...I pay. If you are old and can't make those decisions or can't afford to make those decisions...I pay. If you're trying like hell but can't afford to make the right choice...I'll help pay.

The real litmus test on this is already going on and has been for years. Look at all the systems in the world. Look at the good, and the bad. You will find both. I'm conservative and love my freedom so I tend to find the negitive. But I'm not blind... I have read the good also.

The only way National Health Care would work is if we change our countries founding documents. To do that we have to tear up the Constitution and write a new declaration of something. We would become a Socialist, Communist, Democratic, Facist or Parlamentary (SP?) country. None of which the citizens of this country would go to without a fight. And I mean a fight.

I know some in this country want us to "change", but not the MAJORITY. And the MAJORITY will rule this country until we do get rid of the Constitution. And that will not be done, even with votes.

So bottom line is this... Whether we want it or not doesn't really matter. National Health Care will not work in this REPUBLIC. It is basically a move to Socialism and we aren't going there.

I believe we are headed away from social programs and hand outs. If we don't it will be the end of our freedom and our liberty.

I often hear conservatives rage against socialism. Sometimes I wonder if it's actual socialism that you oppose or the label. There is a lot of socialism going on in America right now and I'm not speaking of what you would call "entitlement programs". I think most police and fire departments are actually socialist institutions and nobody wants to do away with those.

So as a conservative tell me, what's the real deal that concerns you about socialism? Why not socialized medicine?

The problem with this debate is everything each of us is going to "puke" up is going to turn into ideology, not true health care.

Any American can go into any hospital and get care. If they can't afford it, they get it free. Our politicians are making the healthcare profession into the "bad guys". Just like drug companies and oil companies. All of which sell a product for a fee. It's called capitalism. Our democrats, liberals, and socialists don't like that. To solve the problem, you take it away from the people.

This is about turning our doctors, hospitals, and healthcare providers into government employees. MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL means less LIBERTY and FREEDOM to all of us.

quote:

Originally posted by comingo***e:
The problem with this debate is everything each of us is going to "puke" up is going to turn into ideology, not true health care.

Any American can go into any hospital and get care. If they can't afford it, they get it free. Our politicians are making the healthcare profession into the "bad guys". Just like drug companies and oil companies. All of which sell a product for a fee. It's called capitalism. Our democrats, liberals, and socialists don't like that. To solve the problem, you take it away from the people.

This is about turning our doctors, hospitals, and healthcare providers into government employees. MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL means less LIBERTY and FREEDOM to all of us.

Then how can you tolerate the widespread socialist institutions that we depend upon every day? You failed to address the essence of my previous post. I'm more interested in actuality. Ideology is of secondary relevance.

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:
I often hear conservatives rage against socialism. Sometimes I wonder if it's actual socialism that you oppose or the label. There is a lot of socialism going on in America right now and I'm not speaking of what you would call "entitlement programs". I think most police and fire departments are actually socialist institutions and nobody wants to do away with those.

So as a conservative tell me, what's the real deal that concerns you about socialism? Why not socialized medicine?

The debate is on healthcare. You are drifting away from the debate by asking me questions on the way I "feel" about other things in the country.

We need to stay focused on "National Health Coverage" and if it should or shouldn't be imposed on us.

Before anybody says anything about my "puke" comment. It is very much part of this debate.

quote:

Originally posted by comingo***e:

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:
I often hear conservatives rage against socialism. Sometimes I wonder if it's actual socialism that you oppose or the label. There is a lot of socialism going on in America right now and I'm not speaking of what you would call "entitlement programs". I think most police and fire departments are actually socialist institutions and nobody wants to do away with those.

So as a conservative tell me, what's the real deal that concerns you about socialism? Why not socialized medicine?

The debate is on healthcare. You are drifting away from the debate by asking me questions on the way I "feel" about other things in the country.

We need to stay focused on "National Health Coverage" and if it should or shouldn't be imposed on us.

Before anybody says anything about my "puke" comment. It is very much part of this debate.

But your main opposition is that it is "socialist" and you obviously think socialism is evil. I'm trying to get you explain to me why a socialized police department is fine but socialized medicine is evil.