It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canadian doctor makes anti-Obamacare senator look like a buffoon

page: 13
36
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


eh; as to what a 30-week wait? (or no wait if you can afford to pay extra, which most people can't)

at the very least you're getting your hip replaced, and not going bankrupt while doing so..


As to a "we can do it next week" wait. Your system guarantees a shortage of tertiary specialists. Our system has many. And no, people who plan and set priorities do not go broke for hip replacements.




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

NonsensicalUserName

NavyDoc

There is no perfect system. However, it would hurt medical care worldwide if every nation had the same, governmental system, because the majority of innovation comes from competitive, free market systems.



That's actually depends a lot on what the field of innovation is... And who's to say that there couldn't still be competition even with state-funded hospitals? After all the doctors and nursing/staff of the hospital don't build/manufacture medical equipment, nor do they manufacture or research the drugs necessarily, hence there is room for competition in the areas of "how effective a drug is", or "how expensive is this (x-ray/mri/whatever) machine to run/purchase/etc.."...


That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So you are saying the members in a monolithic bureaucracy with a single payer and supplier will be sitting down during their days off trying to figure how to do things more cheaply?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


how effective has the market been at researching new antibiotics,

seems the only time that really gets done is when the government is funding the research.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


how effective has the market been at researching new antibiotics,

seems the only time that really gets done is when the government is funding the research.


Actually very effective. Please point out a single antibiotic that was entirely funded through government research. Don't google it! Since you already mentioned it, you must have the information.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Here's the thing about this subject for you Canadians. We Americans don't want to attack your system. We couldn't care less what sort of system is you want and have. It's your business, not mine. The issue is, when we are attacked in a leftist attempt to further take over a portion of our economy and your system is held up as a reason to give over control to the state, we have to point out the flaws in your system, not because we want to give you grief, but out of defense. If the statists and the "free # army" types would stop trying to have governmental control over our healthcare and bringing you into it, We wouldn't care.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


As opposed to a conglomerate of bureaucracies with redundant adiministrations, middle-managers, etc. deciding how to do things more cheaply in regards to the costs of medical bills for their customers, rather than just maximizing their own profit regardless if this has a negative impact on the customer or not.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


As opposed to a conglomerate of bureaucracies with redundant adiministrations, middle-managers, etc. deciding how to do things more cheaply in regards to the costs of medical bills for their customers, rather than just maximizing their own profit regardless if this has a negative impact on the customer or not.


At least there is competition and choice among corporations. With government run, single payer, there is no choice, no competition and if you think that that government bureaucrat gives a # about you and yours, you are a fool. He will get bonuses not on how much profit he makes (which in order to do you must keep customers happy) he gets bonuses on how little resources he makes. Whereas in a competitive, profit driven market there is SOME need to keep the customer happy, in a government monopoly bureaucratic system ZERO incentive to keep you happy. Why should they? What are you going to do? Go to the competition? You can't because there is none.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Newsflash:

The real Buffoon here is not the GOP'er nor is it the Canadian...

the real Buffoon here is any idiot who thinks Obabacare resembles the Canadian healthcare system in any way shape or form. There is nothing socialist about the ACA. A Socialist healthcare system would be the Government providing all citizens with healthcare. The ACA does not do this at all. It requires people to have health insurance. Health insurance is NOT healthcare.

Obamacare is not Socialist healthcare. It is Corporatist. There is a difference.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

MrWendal
Newsflash:

The real Buffoon here is not the GOP'er nor is it the Canadian...

the real Buffoon here is any idiot who thinks Obabacare resembles the Canadian healthcare system in any way shape or form. There is nothing socialist about the ACA. A Socialist healthcare system would be the Government providing all citizens with healthcare. The ACA does not do this at all. It requires people to have health insurance. Health insurance is NOT healthcare.

Obamacare is not Socialist healthcare. It is Corporatist. There is a difference.


No it isn't. Along with the mandate to purchase are a myriad of regulations and rules, exemptions, delays and changes. PArt of the ACA is expansion of governmental control by regulation and law. This makes it not corporatism but more like fascism--governmental control of private industry by regulation.




An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[4] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[5]


So be careful who you are calling a "buffoon."
edit on 17-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


you elect representatives to government, the government would oversee the healthcare system, and in any-case they'd want to get re-elected so they'd likely side with popular sentiment since there wouldn't be big insurace-lobbies breathing down their neck.

Choice isn't always a good thing, the last thing I want to be concerned with if I get into a car accident is what ambulance to call and what hospital I want them to take me too. Corporations are about making money, insurance companies are about making money, if that means cutting corners they don't care, as long as it doesn't effect the bottom line. While that might also be true on the individual/person-to-person level for state-run institutions, the institutions themselves at the very least are supposed to take care of the public.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I think we have a troll.

Corporatism is basically facism, and not the hyperbolic "facism", rather the facism that came to power in Spain and Italy in the 1930's...
edit on 17-3-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


you elect representatives to government, the government would oversee the healthcare system, and in any-case they'd want to get re-elected so they'd likely side with popular sentiment since there wouldn't be big insurace-lobbies breathing down their neck.

Choice isn't always a good thing, the last thing I want to be concerned with if I get into a car accident is what ambulance to call and what hospital I want them to take me too. Corporations are about making money, insurance companies are about making money, if that means cutting corners they don't care, as long as it doesn't effect the bottom line. While that might also be true on the individual/person-to-person level for state-run institutions, the institutions themselves at the very least are supposed to take care of the public.


I take it you've never been worked in a government institution. I have. Corporations may be all about making money but government bureaucrats are all about reducing resource utilization. Cut usage. Cut your budget. Give out less meds. Use less suture. Etc. If you think that they are any better at taking care of the public, then you are quite wrong. If you think they care any more you are quite wrong. If you think they are more accountable, you are so amazingly wrong it is beyond the pale. Our worst institutions are the state run and the VA systems.

So you are against freedom of choice in healthcare. Does that include other things such as same sex marriage?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


so really what you're saying is in the end they're about the same?

we're either screwed by government bureaucrats or by private ones, both of whome seek to cut costs.
edit on 17-3-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I think we have a troll.

Corporatism is basically facism, and not the hyperbole "facism", rather the facism that came to power in Spain and Italy in the 1930's...


Nonsense. Anyone who disagrees with you is not a "troll." You cannot be that close minded. Corporatism is a new term that really describes lefty's complaints about corporations being "to corporation." LOLZ. Corporatism does not describe the ACA because the ACA comes with a lot of governmental controls. Government controlling industry, not by direct takeover, but through regulation, sanction, and pressure is not corporatism but fascism.




The author of "An Economic History of Twentieth-Century Europe" (Cambridge, 2006), Ivan T. Berend said the economy of Nazi Germany just these features: the government has a strong control action, effectively controlling the production and distribution of resources. On the whole, except in a few cases, nationalization of the economy of the fascist states developed on the basis of private property and of private initiative, but it was subordinated to the tasks of the state. As part of the relations between workers and employers fascism was guided by the principles of social Darwinism: the strongest prosper, while the weaker are rooted out. In economic practice this meant on the one hand, protecting the interests of successful businessmen, on the other the destruction of trade unions and other organizations of the working class, "the use of extreme violence to suppress the working class and all working people." As he wrote in 1936, Gaetano Salvemini, saying the responsibility of taxpayers to private capitalist enterprises, the state thus covers failures of the capitalists' profits - business and private individual; loss - public and social work ". The fascist government approved pursuit of private profit and gave significant concessions to large corporations, requiring instead that all of their economic activities serve the public interest. An essential element of the economic doctrines of the Nazi party was the belief that the economic suffering of the exploited classes will go into the past as soon as the nation completes its cultural and spiritual revival, the official anthem of the NSDAP, "Horst Wessel" promised "to live long slavery" (German: Die Knechtschaft dauert nur mehr kurze Zeit). However, since the destruction of the issues of exploitation has long been staged in Germany, in particular, and German Social Democrats, on the level of ordinary members of the NSDAP there was not unanimity on this issue and often their views on economic policy were diametrically opposed . Coming to power, the Nazis adapted its economic doctrine to political expediency. fascist regimes that have lasted a long time (such as Italy under Mussolini), observed regular, sometimes substantial revisions of economic policy. In 1919, at a rally on the square in Milan Sepolkro San, Benito Mussolini said:


You cannot call it corporatism when the government controls and dictates corporate decisions.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


so really what you're saying is in the end they're about the same?

we're either screwed by government bureaucrats or by private ones, both of whome seek to cut costs.
edit on 17-3-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)


I'd say that you have better odds at a better deal in a competitive free market than a monopoly. Government is a monopoly. Large insurance corporations have control because governmental regulations have stifled competition. If is against federal law to sell health insurance over state lines so a new an innovative insurance company Like Geico could not sell health insurance along he same model they sell car insurance. Less competition means more expense and less customer service. Single payer, aka government, is the least competitive model of all. At least with two mega corporations you have some competition. In government, you have zero competition. Instead of turning healthcare over from big bureaucracies to the BIGGEST bureaucracy, we need to go the other way--open up markets, permit competition, reduce regulation, and reduce litigation.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   

NavyDoc
Shrug. We find a 39 week wait for a hip replacement bizarre for a civilized country as well.
I don't think that's mandatory...my prostate cancer treatment was 6 weeks from suspicion to cure. I can work with that.
Oh...and $32 out of pocket...GP, urologist, biopsy and oncologist.

edit on 17-3-2014 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

JohnnyCanuck
Oh...and $32 out of pocket...GP, urologist, biopsy and oncologist.

edit on 17-3-2014 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)


You really need to get in on the parking pass sharing...



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
You know apart from folks who have a vested interest in keeping things the way it used to be ex: Big pharma and Insurance companies,there is an elephant in the room called American exceptionalism we absolutely detest learning from others even our closest friends,so long have we been instructing others, a lot of us truly believe we have nothing to learn from foreigners..because we are... NUMBER 1!!! in all things always no matter how much evidence to the contrary,this colors other issues also such as environment,labor,crime and punishment,education to name a few ,yes our technological prowess especially military is second to none, but we are more than just a nation of warriors we should not strive to be Sparta but more like Athena.
edit on 17-3-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I've followed a number of threads on this site but until now didn't feel the need to join in.
I'm from the UK so can only talk of my own and my family's experiences of our healthcare system. What I would say is this, like Canada, our system is based on everyone contributing a relatively small amount so that everyone has free access to a (on the whole) highly professional, comprehensive and great healthcare service. We've not experienced long waiting times for any emergency. My mother had a hip replacement and waited around 2months. I, and my family have used the NHS many times and have always received the care we needed, swiftly. And never paid a thing, except for a prescription for about £15 or so and maybe £5 for parking.
Do others use the system more? Am I paying for that in taxes? Yes, probably. Do I mind? Not one bit. My view is that I would rather pay for others to have treatment than for them to suffer because they were not in a position to be able to afford it themselves. To me, that is what a caring society does for one another. To provide care, to help others in their most basic need.

Now, I suppose the question for the American people who are against this system would be: when you have such a broken healthcare system, why do you oppose having our system when we (Europeans, Canadians etc) are proud and happy with it?

It seems so strange to us that you think our system has so many problems and we are wrong about it because you've read or heard something bad, when we, the people who use it, say it is great and wouldn't change it...

It is a baffling position...



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bluesilver
 


I think it's a pride thing. A lot like to be the best at everything, and do it all their own way.

I've lived all my 34 years as a Canadian citizen, and although our heathcare isn't without flaw...I have always loved knowing that if me, someone I know or love, or just someone else whom someone else loves needs important medical attention, they won't be losing their homes for it. I have no issues paying a bit of money off my paycheque to help ensure Canada remains as a first world country with a medical system that takes care of everybody. Everybody. I don't care if I lose $100 a month if that's what the tax % is that goes to our medical system. I have no doubt that the quality of medical care in the US is top-notch. It is. Only problem for their 350 million people is that they have 350 million people. Would be a difficult task for any administration to match yours or our system at 6 and 10 times the population.
edit on 18-3-2014 by Aytheeist because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join