Opponents Of National Health Care Explain Why

Waiting for a response. Wait, McCain is a republican(note I say republican not conservative) therefor it is Gods Will we give healthcare to Mexico but not American citizens!

So I guess that's how it is. Death to American citizens, one up for Mexicans.

Originally posted by HHH Is King
Waiting for a response. Wait, McCain is a republican (note I say republican not conservative) therefor it is Gods Will we give healthcare to Mexico but not American citizens!

God bless you HHH. That's why I hate the term "Universal Health Care." To hell with the Universe, I pay taxes for American Heath Care.

The only perceived benefit of National Health Care is the fact that it makes healthcare available to all people. That is a noble ideal, granted. But the fact is, it must be paid for somehow, and "The Gov't" is not the answer, because, of course, they rely on tax dollars to survive.

There are many drawbacks to NHC, including long wait times, brain drains (as evidenced by the UK, Canada, Venezuela, and other countries), and the creation of a tiered-system of care. The Canadian system, for example, is a 3-tiered system.

The US has the best doctors and medical technology in the world. It is expensive, but that is not because of the technology or the doctor's salaries. It is because of the burdensome administrative costs. This is where we should put our efforts. Consumer pools would make premiiums more affordable. Eliminating paperwork reduces costs. There are other obvious cost-reduction areas that could be worked.

For those who are interested in the public vs private health care debate from a purely practical stand point I invite you to check out this thread .

The small number of replies in the thread indicates that the debate is more about partisan politics then anything else. Partisan crap isnt welcome on the thread .

Cheers xpert11.

Ok, let me get this straight...

UHC for Republican Senators and other Congresscritters... GOD'S WILL! HOW DARE YOU DENY THEM YOU HATE AMERICA!

UHC for Iraqi Citizens, the few left that we haven't blown up... GOD'S WILL! HOW DARE YOU DENY THEM YOU HATE AMERICA!

UHC for Mexicans in Mexico... GOD'S WILL! HOW DARE YOU DENY THEM YOU HATE AMERICA!

UHC for American Citizens in America... SOCIALISM! YOU HATE AMERICA! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!

Kind of sad. They support UHC for everyone but Americans. Of course Mr. I Hate Socialism Even Though I Owe Everything I Have To It hasn't responded lately.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


While you system of health may or may not be working for you I do have some counter points to the blissfull all is well scenario you seems to be painting here of the Canadian National Health Care System.

As with everything in life your healthcare system is a series of compromises as is ours.

While you can walk in for a free appointment you may have a longer wait. That MRI you need may be delayed 4-6 months, Need a bypass operation? Whooops may have to wait untill next year as we have done out allotment for the year, you get to be managed medically for now.

The nursing corp. in the US has tons of Canadian Nurses. We get to hear first had the good and the bad of your system. Fo you to pass it off as "issue" free is at best simply ignoring the inherent flaws such systems offer or out and out flame bait IMHO.

It also causes a brain drain from some of you best hopitals. Take Sick Childrens Hospital in Toronto. About 8-9 years ago My childrens hospital hired away your Pediatric Cardiac Surgeon, DR. Micheal Black. Was it money? No, he made almost the same here as there, but rather the ability to do the surgeries he wanted without some bureocrat telling him nope you have met your quota for the year.

So as stated your system has its pros and cons. If it was the end all be all, why do so many of your countrymen head south to get MRI's and otehr procedures that they pay out of pocket?

reply to post by HHH Is King


Amen brother if you cannot beat them with facts then just break out the ALL CAPS rhetoric and evade the questions Semper put forth.

Having looked through the thread, it seems that may be all you have in your argument but I for one would like to see you actually answer some of the question he put forth and what the heck cite some statistics that back up your $500 this versus $5000 that tirade.

Originally posted by jsobecky
It is because of the burdensome administrative costs. This is where we should put our efforts. Consumer pools would make premiiums more affordable. Eliminating paperwork reduces costs. There are other obvious cost-reduction areas that could be worked.

Jso, you would be surprised how little MD's make these days. unless you are in a high demand specialty, your run of the mill GP is lucky to break 150000.

The biggest savings however would be garned from liability reform. reduce these ridiculous jury awards and the like. The Dems who get most of the lions share of legal donor money will of course fight this tooth an nail

reply to post by FredT


You covered some of the ills Fred but not all. I have to agree, there isn't no perfect system for all. It's pipe dream to think that either system is perfect. We have some serious issues facing us in our version of Healthcare but I wouldn't trade it for the American version. A comprise that involves a mix of both systems is best in my opinion. And for the record, I wouldn't be one of the ones that could afford private health care. I may be able to afford a lower level but paying thousands of dollars a year in insurance premiums is out of reach for me. If the insurance industry could be reformed to reflect reality instead of the fantasy land settlements that get handed out, maybe premiums could come down to a level that many more people could afford. I don't ever see this happening though.

One you forgot to mention, and I don't know if this is true in the States, is the unionization of Healthcare worker's. Several provinces in Canada have had to write legislation that prevents Nurses and LPN and the like from striking en masse. The union said it was illegal and they had the right to strike as per their collective bargaining agreement. The HELL YOU DO. This is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. They basically want to be able to shut down the healthcare system to force their demands to be met. Unions may have their place but in our Hospitals isn't one of them.

I have had mostly positive experiences in our system but I have had a couple of bad ones. Seven years on in my new city I now call home and I still don't have a family doctor. It took three and a half years to get one for my daughter and the shortages are only going to get worse. I do have two friends who are practicing MD's so I can call them if I have a serious issue but for average problems, I have to go to either the emergency room( or hell, as I like to call it) or make an appointment at a clinic. Hard to build a personal relationship with a different doctor every visit.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
One you forgot to mention, and I don't know if this is true in the States, is the unionization of Healthcare worker's. Several provinces in Canada have had to write legislation that prevents Nurses and LPN and the like from striking en masse.

Actually I disagree with you 100% on this one. As a unionized nurse I have been on strike before back in 2000 for 2 months. The hospital does not give us wages and benifits out of the goodness of thier heart. As a member of our negotiation team the past 3 contracts its alot of work and its like getting money out of scrooge.

Now our Union is set up dramatically different that most unions you are aware of. It represents 2300 nurses at our two hospitals and EVERYONE from the president on down has to be a nurse and working at our hospital without exception. SO when I sit at the negotiation table and make concessions it effects me directly. You can see more at www.crona.org


But back on topic. One of the reason that so many nurses from Canada come here to get jobs is the wages and working conditions. If it were not for the ability to collectivly bargain, these would simply not exist. Why condem some fo the most important people in the hospital to a lifetime of offshift backbreaking labor for little or no money? It is one way to keep costs down in the system.

reply to post by GAOTU789


I have always had insurance that is paid for my my employer 100% (Its one of those negotiated benifits) but I do understand that some do not and it is a problem.

As you noted and as I tired to every system has issues with it and no system is flawless. The point im trying to make is many in this thread seemt o think that you can snap your fingers and poof have a NHC system with no problems. Ill also bet an MRI scanner that they also assume that every service they have had int he past will be avalible to them with little or no delay either. That is naive at best.

Each system has its own set of compromises. There is always state based health care for those with none (In california its called MediCal) what we need to make sure is though is the people that make too much for that assistance but don't work in jobs that get them coverage to get access to care. That for me would be the way to go.

reply to post by FredT

Originally posted by FredT
Each system has its own set of compromises. There is always state based health care for those with none (In california its called MediCal) what we need to make sure is though is the people that make too much for that assistance but don't work in jobs that get them coverage to get access to care. That for me would be the way to go.

That is always the segment of the working force that seems to suffer the most - those that are just starting out, or are stuck in low paying jobs. A consumer pool consisting of that segment, consisting of payroll deductions plus partial gov't subsidization, could be the answer.

Originally posted by FredT
Take Sick Childrens Hospital in Toronto.

That's a horrible name for a hospital. Imagine the impression it makes on a young patient walking through the door.

My Stats? Well, as JC said, he pays 500 dollars. That is where I get my stats, from someone who actually has and pays for UHC.

And again, why is it God's Will and stuff for GOP Senators, Iraqi Citizens, and Mexican citizens to have UHC paid for by American Citizens but satanism to have the same for American Citizens?

reply to post by FredT


The system as it now stands here is not that dissimilar from the Unionized Health Care system, put into perspective...

Everyone, that is EVERYONE, can go to a hospital and receive care for whatever complaint or condition that are currently suffering from. FACT: The Law requires the hospital treat them without restriction or means to pay..

Now how is this paid for? Increase in my premiums of course. I have no beef with this as it is the pure form of expressive free market.

What I do have a problem with is allowing the Government to step in and ruin a good program....

What has the Government run that has been successful? VA? Nope, just look at the threads on that. Welfare? Nope 69% fraud at last count.

So how is it anyone can imagine, dream or hope that all of a sudden the Government will miraculously be able to effective run health care?

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis

Originally posted by semperfortis
What has the Government run that has been successful? VA? Nope, just look at the threads on that. Welfare? Nope 69% fraud at last count.

So how is it anyone can imagine, dream or hope that all of a sudden the Government will miraculously be able to effective run health care?

Semper

It's because some people equate gov't with "free, at least for me". That's their daffynition of "effective".

reply to post by jsobecky


I guess in many ways it is "free". At least for those that don't pay taxes, and I include the ones that "pay" and then get it all back in April. (And then some)

The burden falls on those that pay, vast amounts each and every year..

Of course to some, I'm suppose to pay for every dead beat that comes down the pike and does not want to be responsible for themselves and chooses instead to live off of others...

Well I do...

It's called premiums and I pay mine, but then again, I work for my living and don't expect someone to work for me either. I guess that's the confusion here. The motivation to work, or the desire to let someone else take care of your every need so you don't have to get up each morning and instead you can lay in bed all day.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis

Anyways, I like he has no problem with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars given in corporate welfare but a couple million given out in reg welfare?

Supportive evidence or shall we consider this debunked as well?

Just wanted to chime in here.

This is from Rep. Bernie Sanders:Congressman Sanders on US Corporate Welfare

Here are a few points of interest

This country has a $6 trillion national debt, a growing deficit and is borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to fund government services. We can no longer afford to provide over $125 billion every year in corporate welfare - tax breaks, subsidies and other wasteful spending - that goes to some of the largest, most profitable corporations in America.

One of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare can be found at a little known federal agency called the Export-Import Bank, an institution that has a budget of about $1 billion a year and the capability of putting at risk some $15.5 billion in loan guarantees annually. At a time when the government is under-funding veterans' needs, education, health care, housing and many other vital services, over 80% of the subsidies distributed by the Export-Import Bank goes to Fortune 500 corporations. Among the companies that receive taxpayer support from the Ex-Im are Enron, Boeing, Halliburton, Mobil Oil, IBM, General Electric, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, FedEx, General Motors, Raytheon, and United Technologies.

Just a side note, what is a Guaranteed loan?

Loan in which a private lender is assured repayment by the Federal Government of part or all of the principal, interest or both, in the event of default by the borrower. Unlike an insured loan, no insurance fund exists and no insurance premiums are paid.

Source

What does this mean, basically, if the company that took the loan cant pay it back for whatever reason, the tax payers pick up the bill.

Back the the letter

The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs

That part should piss any hardworking American right off.

I strongly urge you to look into this. Corporate welfare is far more a serious issue than welfare to the citizens.





Food for thought

[edit on 11-2-2008 by InSpiteOf]

Semper

While you and I sit on opposite sides of the fence on this issue, I would like to say that you made an exellent point that perhaps what needs to happen first, is reform of the welfare/healthcare system.

I will admit that at the tip of it, UHC does not seem an easy thing to impliment in the US. Id say the primary reason is because of the population size and the impossibility to weed out corruption and abuse.

Thats not to say I'd trade my current healthcare system for the American system, and im still concerned about a private market openning up along side the public market.

There is no easy answer i guess

reply to post by semperfortis


While the kids were growing up, I worked in hi-tech for the majors, and the spouse worked mostly in the school system. Family healthcare plans were offered by both employers, but invariably I ended up carrying the family because my premiums were so much lower.

The question arises...why were my premiums so much lower? Employer subsidization? Yes, for one thing. But this brings out an isue with other employers. There should be a way to more efficiently pool smaller employer's so that their premiums are more manageable. I don't think this has been researched or exploited thoroughly enough. That, and streamlining the entire process should result in significant savings.

There will always be those who choose not to work, and to live off the public teat. Maybe some of Rudy's workfare ideas that he used in NYC could be applied to them. God knows there is plenty of work to be done, even if they can only do 15 hours of menial work per week.

Originally posted by GAOTU789 Several provinces in Canada have had to write legislation that prevents Nurses and LPN and the like from striking en masse. The union said it was illegal and they had the right to strike as per their collective bargaining agreement. Unions may have their place but in our Hospitals isn't one of them.

I've said my bit about the Canadian system...that I am in cancer treatment and it is fully meeting my needs...and I won't further that debate. However, I will speak to the above comment...

If a collective bargaining agreement includes a right to strike, that is a deal that has been agreed to by the employer as well...making it a valid legal contract. Should legislation intervene and trump that contract, that's another matter but...the key word is agreement, so hold the employer to account here too. Also, I'd consider the nature of the demands that would lead a nurse to withhold service...I'll bet you'd find them, pretty reasonable. It's my experience that no employer gets a union that doesn't deserve one. Happy workers don't organize.