Opponents Of National Health Care Explain Why

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Perhaps rather then worrying about "what if" we need treatment, We should be spending that time figuring out ways to stay out of hospitals?

You know like...

Don't eat foods we all know cause obesity and major health problems...
Don't knowingly suck smoke into your lungs, because obviously smoke is great for them right?
Don't knowingly work around toxic materials without protection...
Don't be stupid....

It seems the majority of health problems are self inflicted


If people lived healthier, many of these medical issues would disappear...

and hospitals could focus mainly on disease and accidents...

rather then Joe Moron...


We shouldn't be having to pay for other peoples stupidity...

Accidents and other issues that can't be prevented are one thing, but self inflicted idiocy which results in your bad health is your problem not mine.




posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
Perhaps rather then worrying about "what if" we need treatment, We should be spending that time figuring out ways to stay out of hospitals?
It seems the majority of health problems are self inflicted
If people lived healthier, many of these medical issues would disappear...

and hospitals could focus mainly on disease and accidents...
rather then Joe Moron...
We shouldn't be having to pay for other peoples stupidity...


It's a no brainer to say that most people could lead a healthier lifestyle, but it's all a matter of degrees, isn't it.
I have prostate cancer, there is no apparent cause but some would say it's because I eat red meat...
some say it's because my bed is too close to an electrical outlet...
some say it's because I cook my food...
some say it's because I drink low-fat milk...
some say it's because I sin...you getting the picture?

So...what I think I'm saying is that one should not be too quick to judge who exactly is a moron, capiche?

Besides, it's unbecoming.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Here's a general question I have...Now why should there be such a wide discrepancy in cost between these 3 pharmacies for the same medicine? Is this an effect of the free-market system?


Donno how it works down there, but if it bears any resemblance to our system it's a matter of dispensing fees. A pharmacy can choose how much to charge its customers to prepare and dispense the medication. My drug benefit carrier pays...I donno...six sumpin...per prescription. Walmart charges what your plan will pay. Others charge more. My druggist opts to waive any extra fee for the sheer joy of my custom. So...free market forces definately factor into it here. I guess volume purchasing power gives the big chains an edge too.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I should clarify by stating that the prices I quoted are the "cash" prices for the drug, i.e., no prescription drug coverage.

Nope, I have no prescription drug coverage. A particularly nasty pickle which is expensive. And there's no easy way to find out who has the cheapest price other than calling up and asking each pharmacy. At least no way I've found.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Nope, I have no prescription drug coverage. A particularly nasty pickle which is expensive.

In my case, I can't even cite the greatness that is Canada on that count...it's an employee benefit at a low cost. I understand that prices are lower here...donno if that's a generic thing or what. One oddity is that tylenol #1 is available over the counter.

I see how internet pharmacies are slammed by big pharma in the States...citing all kinds of nastiness to scare consuumers away. But I'm sure there are reputable outfits out there. Again, I'm unsure of the cross-border legalities, but if I could find a legit outfit, I'd be happy to send it along.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by jsobecky
Nope, I have no prescription drug coverage. A particularly nasty pickle which is expensive.

In my case, I can't even cite the greatness that is Canada on that count...it's an employee benefit at a low cost. I understand that prices are lower here...donno if that's a generic thing or what.

It's the same here, pretty much. Most health plans have some type of prescription drug coverage through the employer. Mine is a pretty special case.

I know about Canada's low-cost drugs. Many of our seniors take charter bus trips over the border to fill their prescriptions, just for the cost savings.

This is only a guess, but does your gov't subsidize the price of drugs? That could account for some of the lower prices.


Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
One oddity is that tylenol #1 is available over the counter.

Different countries determination of what is a controlled substance, I guess.


Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I see how internet pharmacies are slammed by big pharma in the States...citing all kinds of nastiness to scare consuumers away. But I'm sure there are reputable outfits out there. Again, I'm unsure of the cross-border legalities, but if I could find a legit outfit, I'd be happy to send it along.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
The problem with this thread is that the opinions are either subjective or based on examples in the extreme . I wouldn't hold up Cuba public health system as a shining light any more then I would Saudi Arabia human rights record . On a personal note I have never heard any of my fellow country men grumbling specify about there tax dollars being used to pay for the Health system.

How there money is used to fund the health care system is another matter entirely . With a unemployment rate of less then 4% clearly a tax payer funded health system with its flaws hasn't lead to Kiwis to our doom . I am more inclined to take issue with the fact that the ACC levy accounts for most of the cost of my car registration then anything else.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

This is only a guess, but does your gov't subsidize the price of drugs? That could account for some of the lower prices.


I don't believe we do. I think it's a matter of different patent laws and the point at which Big Pharma is required to licence a lower-cost generic version.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
It's also because the Canadian Government doesn't get "donations" from the Big Pharma the way the Bush Administration does. So in Canada if they gogue the prices... They get in trouble. They charge 2.50 a pill for something that costs .05 a pill in America? That's just good raping the little guy.


joi

posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
A major problem with the US health system, as it stands, is how useless the health insurance companies are.
I pay for my own insurance as I am an independent contractor.
My insurance company wont cover pre-existing conditions for a year.
So say I cant get testing or treatment for a year this develops into further problems which cost even more money. It gets to the point where you cant work because your sick, and then their is no money for insurance, ,and then your stuck in the welfare system, and basically your stuck in a mire to slowly crawl out of again (if your lucky)
I don't think that Universal Health Care is necessarily a smart plan, but there does need to be some steps taken that don't allow the companies to deny treatment to their members, or take other such advantages.
If people could get the check ups/testing/treatments they need at a reasonable cost there would be no need for UHC. I wouldn't have any qualms paying what I do now if I could be treated for my health problems without issues.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
If the federal government wants to get into the health care industry, I would suggest that they open their own hospitals. All care would be free, there would be no insurance and people could choose to go there or not.

There would be some conditions. When you go to a federal hospital, you cannot sue for malpractice. That way, they could keep the costs down.

Other hospitals would have the right to transfer their patients who cannot pay to the federal hospitals.

Illegals would have to seek free treatment only at the federal hospitals.

I don't want the federal government creating a program that burdens existing health care estiblishment but rather they should augment the existing systems.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77

I don't want the federal government creating a program that burdens existing health care estiblishment but rather they should augment the existing systems.



There already is federal healthcare paid for by the taxpayers. It's called the VA,
Indian Health Service, FEHB. Why should some citizens receive preferential treatment at the cost of all taxpayers.

I think I deserve the same kind of health care my congressman receives; after all I pay his salary.



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
For me the issue is not abouth UHC versus big pharma/insurance. It's about the government making a choice for it's citizens. If the government wants to offer a health program that I can voluntarily participate in instead of working with my insurance provider that's fine. What I don't need is the government deciding it knows what's best for me and will therefore force me into a health care solution.

The best way I can relate it is by referencing seat belt laws. Why does the government have any hand in forcing me to wear a seat belt (I always do, always will, and will always require anyone riding in my car to do the same, btw). The point is, if I choose to not wear a seat belt, get in a wreck and die because of it, that's my problem. The government has no business protecting me from my own stupidity.

I'm also a smoker. I understand it's illogical and very well may cause whatever it is I'm gonna die of. I don't want any one of you paying for it because we have universal health care. My ill advised decisions and their consequences are mine to deal with not anyone elses. If I sign up for a health care plan that's not going to cover smoking related illnesses is that indicitive of a corrupt and broken health care system. No. That indicates an ill adivsed decision for health care on my part.

The government already has it's hands in my house (can't build an addition unless I have permission from the government), my land (any development I may want to do has to be cleared with the government), my car (gotta pass those emissions tests), my job(I did the work but the gov't gets the money), and the list goes on and on. I don't need the government sticking it's clumsy, unqualified hands in the way I manage my health.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join