Free Health Care is Awesome!!!

page: 16
38
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I just don't like it when we are held up as a failed system


You said the above, way back in the thread. However, this is exactly what you have been doing to our system. You like yours and I like mine. I know very little about yours and you know very little about mine. Right or wrong, I see faults in some aspects of yours, as well as ours.

What I don't like is being accused of not caring for those who can not care for themselves, because I can read a reform bill and see that it is not a solution to the problems, but a farce of a political ploy. (Made even more obvious by Sen. Nelson's extortion tactics, over the weekend.) What you seem to not understand, or chose to ignore, is that the reform packages put forth by the House and Senate, are not even remotely like your system and the true problems are not even addressed. It is about the facade of "reform", solely for the sake of votes.


Our way ain't perfect, but none of us would swap you. What does that tell you?


Ditto! I pay about $200 per month for a health insurance policy that covers exactly what the policy says it will. No more. No less. I pay taxes, which cover Medicare and Medicaid, for the elderly and the poor. I submit that you pay much more than that in taxation and increased costs of goods and services. Not once, in this thread, have I disparaged your health care system. My position has, simply, been the correction of the OP's misleading use of the word "free".

[edit on 21-12-2009 by WTFover]




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


HERE is a little article from TIME that seems to disagree with you about the UK's low costs of health care. You are confusing the price of treatments & drugs to consumers with the over-all costs of the provided health care.

Also what about the fact that in countries who adopt socialized health care systems patients routinely wait very long amounts of time for procedures that are immediately available to Americans. Then there are the limits on medications available, loss of efficiency, innovation etc...



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq
HERE is a little article from TIME that seems to disagree with you about the UK's low costs of health care. You are confusing the price of treatments & drugs to consumers with the over-all costs of the provided health care.


Err i read the article and it had very few figures about costs of care. In fact what came of the article is that they brought in a private company to assess where they could save costs and the first idea was to cut the amount of people working within the system! As the system is currently in need of staff this would be a bad idea and the government clearly said we need more, not less frontline staff. The private company looked at the NHS as it would any other private company and jobs were the first thing to care, sacrificing care.

You have a very strange interpretation of the article. Especially considering that most people in the country complain about the privitisation of cleaning jobs and the like within the NHS. If you want me to explain exactly why government run cleaners would be better for the NHS i can.

From your article


McKinsey's report, which was completed as part of nearly $15 million worth of work for the Department of Health this year, also called for a recruitment freeze within the next two years and for a drop in medical-school admissions, according to the Health Service Journal. It said savings of up to $5 billion a year could be made by improving staff productivity, while more than $3 billion could be saved on external contracts with waste-disposal companies, food suppliers and other contractors.


You may not be aware but the staff already struggle with the workload due to a need for nurses as many don't enter nursing school. So this private company suggested saving a ton of money by cutting jobs, yeah that's a greatidea as the rest of the nurses burn out completely and the entire system crashes.


Originally posted by Majiq
Also what about the fact that in countries who adopt socialized health care systems patients routinely wait very long amounts of time for procedures that are immediately available to Americans. Then there are the limits on medications available, loss of efficiency, innovation etc...


Procedures on the NHs are treated in the exact same way as procedures in the USA. essentials come first, that is life saving operations. My mother waited 1 week from diagnosis to treatment for breast cancer. Do you think the american system would really be faster? Oh and hey your system doesn't do preventative care. My mothers cancer showed up on a routine breast scan, done i think every year. The lump she had was undetectable in any other way, the specialist couldn't feel it and said it could have gone on for months before being detectable, she would have been in serious trouble.

My brother had a lump in his neck, it was removed in 2 weeks if i remmember correctly. It would have been sooner but after examination it was found to be a swollen lymph duct to do with the thyroid system and perfectly harmless. By that i mean none cancerous, it still needed removing of course as it would have kept swelling.

The horror stories you americans are pumped with about the UK system are the rare cases that slip through the system. As for medications, the life saving kind are used, the line comes when a medication may only give someone an extra 6 months of life. Anyone who doesn't like that can go for private care. You see we have the excellent option there. They get the first class treatment they probably couldn't afford and that the insurance company may very well refuse and when it fails, when there is no hope other than a medication that might give them 6 months more, they can still buy it.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I think my interpretation of the article was accurate. They hired a firm to try and figure out how to get out of the funding crisis they are in due to the rising heath care costs.

You stated that our system doesn't cover preventative care...
I would really like to know where you got that info from because it is ridicules.

You say that you get all the things there that I can get here, but that just isn't the case.

mommylife.net...
www.telegraph.co.uk...[/u rl]
[url]http://www.biggovhealth.org/stories

I'm glad for you that you are happy with your system, but I can't see anything good about it outside of the up front cost to patients. I think no system is perfect but If I have to have an imperfect one I will take the one where I have some choices.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Majiq]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq
I think my interpretation of the article was accurate. They hired a firm to try and figure out how to get out of the funding crisis they are in due to the rising heath care costs.


Every system is always looking to cut costs. Our system however is looking to cut costs whilst maintaining the same standard of care, not sacrificing it.


Originally posted by Majiq
You stated that our system doesn't cover preventative care...
I would really like to know where you got that info from because it is ridicules.


No i meant that our system provides nationwide preventative care, not just care for those that can afford it. Every woman in this country gets a breast examination via the national insurance.


Originally posted by Majiq
You say that you get all the things there that I can get here, but that just isn't the case.

mommylife.net...
www.telegraph.co.uk...[/u rl]
[url]http://www.biggovhealth.org/stories


I'm confused, your first article seems like a hit piece about circumstances of birth. Despite the fact that the UK has less infant mortality. The figures i present are based upon the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for 2005-2010, and the CIA World Factbook, last updated on 2 April 2009.

en.wikipedia.org...

UK 4.8 deaths per 1000 births
USA 6.3 deaths per 1000 births

So your first link is i'm afraid nothing more than a hit piece which ignores the mortality rate.

Your second article is about back pain and cortisone injections. Now the reason for removing many people from these injections seems to be that they think it can be solved in a more productive way. They are not removing all treatment, they are offering alternatives, including opiate drugs for those that are in a lot of pain. they are concerned that the treatments are being used by those who do not need it. It should be noted that using cortisone injections for those that do not need it can lead to harm.

My mother had a problem with her foot, the suggested treatment was cortisone, however a second doctor suggested that they stretch her tendons in the ankle. They sliced open her calve, stretched the tendon and her limp disappeared, the pain went and she didn't need any cortisone.

However once again, people can still get private injections of cortisone if they prefer. So we have the best of both systems. Nothing is lost, they can still get their treatment if that is what they require, oh and it doesn't mention the fact that they are not taking everyone off of this treatment. I am willing to bet that if they insist on it then they will get it. I speak from experience as someone who suffers from terrible back pain.

Only 2 months ago i was in terrible pain, i could barely walk and i asked my doctor to prescribe me naproxen, a medium to high strength drug which carries a risk of damage to the heart with long term use. I have had it before and he wasn't happy about it but he gave me it. Luckily i only needed it for 2 weeks and after that i could live my daily life with a mix of codeince, paracetemol and ibuprofen.

see we get to choose as much as you do.




Originally posted by Majiq
I'm glad for you that you are happy with your system, but I can't see anything good about it outside of the up front cost to patients. I think no system is perfect but If I have to have an imperfect one I will take the one where I have some choices.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Majiq]


We have as much choice as you, you just don't realise it because you have been indoctrinated with this media fed rubbish about the UK system.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Majiq
 


Again you bring up some stories about some unhappy people, do you want me to do the same for your system? I refrain from doing it because a handful of stories is not representative of an entire system but hey, you continue with the dishonest tactics and you continue avoiding all of the points i made which show you up. You have yet to address all of the time where i used your own articles against you and where you pointed out the problems with birthcare in the Uk and then i showed you the difference in infant mortality.

So carry on using your dishonest form of debate.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq
I'm glad for you that you are happy with your system, but I can't see anything good about it outside of the up front cost to patients. I think no system is perfect but If I have to have an imperfect one I will take the one where I have some choices.


Personally, I'm going to chose the one that cost me $32 out of pocket to be cured of cancer.

You guys can chase down whatever bumph you find decrying our systems, but I laugh when you tell us how bad we have it. Don't be so presumptuous!

If your system works for you, personally...great! But we have the comfort of knowing we aren't leaving our fellows behind. To us...that matters, too.

Don't try to sell us on your Big Health propaganda. We don't need it, thanks.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Majiq
 


Again you bring up some stories about some unhappy people, do you want me to do the same for your system? I refrain from doing it because a handful of stories is not representative of an entire system but hey, you continue with the dishonest tactics and you continue avoiding all of the points i made which show you up. You have yet to address all of the time where i used your own articles against you and where you pointed out the problems with birthcare in the Uk and then i showed you the difference in infant mortality.

So carry on using your dishonest form of debate.


You spoke about the TIME article that I posted. That article was about the rising costs of your healthcare system, and how it is causing a funding crisis for it. The brought in a private company to write a report on how the could save money, and yes, the first thing was cut jobs. They also laid out many other measures, buy your politicians only wanted to hear that they could cut costs without cutting anything else, well tough luck..

From that article:
One recent report by the NHS Confederation, an independent membership body for the organizations that make up the NHS, found that even if the NHS's budget were increased 5% each year until 2011, rising costs would lead to a real-terms reduction in funding of some $15 billion over that period.

That is one of the problems with a system like this, and was the point of the article. The only way to fight the funding crisis is to cut treatment, medications, and beds, which leads me to the article about from mommylife

The article was not meant to show that mortality rates were high, and I never insinuated that. It was meant to show the conditions at medical facilities when the government is allowed to monopolize the medical industry.

The article about the cortisone shots was not about the UK offering other treatments, it was about acupuncture being cheaper. They want to cut the number of steroid shots from 60,000 a year to 3,000 to save money.

As far as my links being dishonest, I disagree. They show a trend of long waits, withheld treatments, medicines, as well as preventative procedures. Can you find links that show that our system is also not perfect? Absolutely, as I have stated several times, there is no perfect system. However find me a 25 y/o fem in the U.S. dying of cancer because the government refused her a pap smear, or a man who sat at home with a fist sized hole in his head for A YEAR on a waiting list. That is just to name two examples of why these types of systems while attractive are just not good for the people.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck


Personally, I'm going to chose the one that cost me $32 out of pocket to be cured of cancer.


Well $32 out of pocket if the particular drug you need is one of the ones that is rationed to you by your government.


If your system works for you, personally...great! But we have the comfort of knowing we aren't leaving our fellows behind. To us...that matters, too.


Leaving fellows behind? Who is getting left behind here? If you are too poor for private health insurance in the U.S. you will be covered by medicade/medicare. If you are uninsured, and need emergency medical assistance you go to a hospital.

I am one of the small amount of people who could be seen as being left behind. My wife and I make too much for medicare, but still low enough to choose not to pay the $300 a month for insurance through my work. My daughter being under 18 is covered by medicare so we are fine with not having coverage on the two of us. Socialized healthcare would seem to be a blessing to us if you listen to the hype, but that's all it is; hype.

I could beg for this government handout, but to me it isn't worth the damage it will do to the quality of healthcare provided in this country, as well as the strain it will put on an already damaged economy to find a way to pay for this highly overpriced "free" healthcare.


Don't try to sell us on your Big Health propaganda. We don't need it, thanks.


What exactly could be more "Big Health" than government run health?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Would you please allow me to comment on whatever i like?


No, because it wasnt you who said it. You are putting words in another persons mouth. I cant believe that is even debatable. Common sense goes a long way...


Again you stated that 80% are happy yet that poll only included those with private insurance or those on medicade. It was not a slice of the population, it was biased. How about we quote the resst of your little article shall we?


Try Again?


Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction with costs lags. Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied.

There is a clear gulf in these perceptions between the health insurance haves and have-nots. According to a Sept. 11-13 USA Today/Gallup poll, the 85% of Americans with health insurance coverage are broadly satisfied with the quality of medical care they receive and with their healthcare costs. At 79%, satisfaction with costs among Medicare/Medicaid recipients is particularly high.

The 15% who are uninsured are far less satisfied with the quality of their medical care (50% are satisfied), and only 27% are satisfied with their healthcare costs. (Sixty-nine percent are dissatisfied with their costs.)


hotair.com...

If that source is not good enough here is another...
business.theatlantic.com...


You dont' understand profit margins it seems. A company requiring profit means that the costs for the consumer go up or the vlume of sales go up. As they cannot control the volume they have to cut costs, refuse care where they can and put up the costs of medicines. Oh wait what am i doing the article you linked even says this!


No one is refused care in this nation. People who are considered walking liabilities have a harder time getting coverage, but this is a minuscule problem, and they are not not cared for if they have a health problem.


The second pressing reason for health care reform is spiraling costs, a fact upon which insurers, physicians, hospitals and government all agree. It's been well reported that, as a percent of GDP, the U.S. spends significantly more than comparable nations - around 16% to Sweden or Italy's 9%, or France's 11%.


Costs are a problem. TORT reform would help this area. As well as doing away with certain liabilities on the physician. Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would also greatly reduce the costs, as competition between insurance companies would force the price down. Much like auto insurance.


Ouch so market competition hasn't reduced the costs in your country but the socialised system in other countries has led to lower costs.


Because insurance companies are not allowed to compete across state lines. Make it more competitive and the costs of insurance would reduce substantially. Making it affordable to low income earners. And the slow lumbering Federal government is not going to fix this, the government has broken everything it has ran...POST OFFICE, AMTRAK MEDICAID, MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY etc, have all been ran into the ground. The federal government has bankrupt all these industries. Yet we are to somehow expect a different outcome if the government runs 1/6th of our entire economy?


We have many problems i absolutely agree but healthcare is not one of them. Oh it has it's problems, just like any system in this world but it's far superior to the profit driven system you have. Our system is care driven.


Your system is bankrupt, and without reform of its own, will collapse. And as for "care" driven, you do have waiting lines...you also have a shortage of doctors. This is what your "superior" system has created. It can take weeks to recieve an operation, whereas it can take mere hours, or days depending on the severity of the issue. Hell, we have canadians comeing to the US to get operations, just so they do not have to wait weeks for their "free" operation in Canada.

The american system has better care, and better medical technology. When world leaders need an operation, they come to the US. When athletes from other parts of the world need an operation, they come to the US. Not the UK...or europa.



You know i've used the NHS for years and it has not encroached upon my life. I am able to demand which doctor i see, i am able to demand tests of all kinds, i get to spend plenty of my time with my doctor and generally the system has been good. As for government monopolies well i'm afraid that is utter nonsense. A private system exists for things like cosmetic surgery and hey if you really don't like the NHS you can still go private. The difference? Better hospital food and fluffier pillows


Good for you! I mean that. If you are happy with it, thats fine. But there are those who are not. And then there are those who do not want this, and see this as an infringement on their rights and freedoms.

Health care systems where the government controls the industry and prohibits competition is a government run monopoly. What the current bill in the US would do, is create competition at first, but would soon make everyone buy into the system, as insurers would be unable to compete with the government, who has the taxpayer money behind them.



Our people can afford our system, it works, we are still using it, people still have their operations, my own father was in hospital this month and was treated brilliantly.

The UK system is starting to collapse? Really? So after the previous recession years back, which was far worse it is suddenly collapsing. You sir/madam are completely ignorant of our system, it's politics and the financial situation the UK is currently in.


Your system has healthcare rationing, survival rates, and waiting lines are not the best, and are infact worse than that of the US. Times are not good in the UK. Upon all that, your nation was in the worst shape of any other G20 nation going into this recession, and it is far from over. There will be another recession in 2011 that many ppl are starting to forecast. expect things to get considerably worse.

[edit on 013131p://0612am by semperfoo]

[edit on 013131p://0912am by semperfoo]

[edit on 013131p://1912am by semperfoo]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Personally, I'm going to chose the one that cost me $32 out of pocket to be cured of cancer.

Well $32 out of pocket if the particular drug you need is one of the ones that is rationed to you by your government.


Where are you getting this crap? We have higher standards of drug release, for one thing. Secondly, they very occasionally need a nudge to provide really really expensive drug treatment in hospital but that is a serious exception, not a rule. Drugs aren't rationed. (and I can buy a Tylenol one across the counter.) And my costs were for parking at the cancer centre. The radiation treatment was at no extra cost.


What exactly could be more "Big Health" than government run health?

An HMO that is trying to squeeze a profit out of your illness, and is only concerned about the bottom line. Pre-existing condition my fine white arse!

Glad it works for you, but please, quit pi$$ing in my face and telling me it's raining out.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Where are you getting this crap? We have higher standards of drug release, for one thing. Secondly, they very occasionally need a nudge to provide really really expensive drug treatment in hospital but that is a serious exception, not a rule. Drugs aren't rationed. (and I can buy a Tylenol one across the counter.) And my costs were for parking at the cancer centre. The radiation treatment was at no extra cost.


www.civitas.org.uk...
www.heartland.org...
houstonbusinessdaily.blogspot.com...

There are a couple of pages for you.


An HMO that is trying to squeeze a profit out of your illness, and is only concerned about the bottom line. Pre-existing condition my fine white arse!

Glad it works for you, but please, quit pi$$ing in my face and telling me it's raining out.


Other that the fact that I still think "Gov. Health" is a better example of "Big Health" you'll get no arguments from me. I totally agree about the HMO's, and I think 100% that the U.S. is in need of some reform, but I don't think socialized health care is that reform.

You are trying to glamorize the Canadian system while even your own politicians say that it is failing. Canadians regularly come to the U.S. and pay out of pocket for medical care just to avoid your medical scheme. That IMO is very telling. Like you said to me though, if it works for you then great, I am happy for you. Maybe you trust government so completely that you would put you and your children's health blindly in their hands, but I am just to skeptical of gov. to want to do that.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq
You are trying to glamorize the Canadian system while even your own politicians say that it is failing. Canadians regularly come to the U.S. and pay out of pocket for medical care just to avoid your medical scheme. That IMO is very telling. Like you said to me though, if it works for you then great, I am happy for you.


You can cherry pick flaws in the system, and you can find people who are shilling for Big Health that are willing to lie about it. Nothing is perfect...but I am glamourising nothing. Opposition politicians, those in the pockets of Big Health, those lobbyists for more money, material out of context...that all decries the system. Alarmists say it is bankrupt...all kinds of Bravo Sierra.

But...if Big Health comes in and adds its profit margin, it's gonna be better?

Are ya daft?

Drink all the koolaide you're being fed to make you content about your national woes, but don't tell me how bad we have it. You have NO idea how good we do...catastrophic illness won't bankrupt us from medical bills, preventative health and daily care are not an issue...and our standard of living is at least as good as yours. We don't have to worry about what happens if our health goes...we know we will be taken care of by the money we put into the system.

You are finding what you want to find, that supports your worldview...that don't mean it's worth anything, except to you.


Maybe you trust government so completely that you would put you and your children's health blindly in their hands, but I am just to skeptical of gov. to want to do that.


Government is accountable to me. Corporate Big Health is not. Here it is a right, there it is not.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

You can cherry pick flaws in the system, and you can find people who are shilling for Big Health that are willing to lie about it. Nothing is perfect...but I am glamourising nothing. Opposition politicians, those in the pockets of Big Health, those lobbyists for more money, material out of context...that all decries the system. Alarmists say it is bankrupt...all kinds of Bravo Sierra.


It isn't "cherry picking" it is siting major flaws in not just yours, but any socialized health care scheme. Those people shilling for "Big Health" and willing to lie about about your system are in part SUPPORTERS of your system.

~Yet the major candidates in Canada's recent national election both agreed the country's health care system is failing. They made the usual socialist diagnosis of "not enough money." None of the candidates mentioned government control as what ails the Canadian system.

A lot of the info came from surveys done by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian based firm that deals with facts, something that many supporters of these systems have a problem with. Facts like,

- for patients requiring surgery, the total average waiting time from the initial visit to the family doctor through to surgery was 17.7 weeks
- In 2005 Canadians waited 12.3 weeks for an MRI scan
- 5.5 weeks for a CT-scan
- 3.4 weeks for an ultrasound
- Canada ranked 24th out of 27 OECD countries in 2002 for the number of doctors per 1,000 population.
"A key factor behind these statistics is the inability of the Canadian system to provide even equipment deemed basic, let alone new technology. Dozens of diagnostic and therapeutic products developed decades ago, in widespread use in other countries, are relatively unavailable to Canadians."

Regardless of what you might think these are not people simply out to get you.


But...if Big Health comes in and adds its profit margin, it's gonna be better?


Yes, it is a thing called innovation, and while profits may seem evil to some, the fact is that profits and competition drive innovation. It is why the U.S. is at the fore front of the development of new medical technologies, and advanced treatment. What new medical technology, or treatments have come out of Canada recently?


Are ya daft?

No, I would reserve that title for those who believe a government run monopoly is what is best for the people.


Drink all the koolaide you're being fed to make you content about your national woes, but don't tell me how bad we have it. You have NO idea how good we do...catastrophic illness won't bankrupt us from medical bills, preventative health and daily care are not an issue...and our standard of living is at least as good as yours. We don't have to worry about what happens if our health goes...we know we will be taken care of by the money we put into the system.


Who's drinking the koolaid? You are the one who believes that waiting months for basic procedures, fewer doctors at a lower pay, limited or no access to new tech. etc... is acceptable. Show me where preventative care is a problem in the U.S. more women get pap smears & mammograms in the U.S. than in Canada or UK. Cancer Survival rates are higher in the U.S. than in Canada & UK. Do we pay more out of pocket for health care? Yes, but then I guess you get what you pay for.


You are finding what you want to find, that supports your worldview...that don't mean it's worth anything, except to you.


Yes I am finding what I want... Facts. Try it sometime it is rather refreshing.


Government is accountable to me. Corporate Big Health is not. Here it is a right, there it is not.


Government is accountable to you



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq


The Fraser Institute is a right wing think tank whose major occupation is trying to tell us how much better off we'd be if we were like you. There are lots of statistics that refute their statistics...you know how that is.


Government is accountable to me. Corporate Big Health is not. Here it is a right, there it is not.



Government is accountable to you


Yes, it is. That's why Steve can't get a majority in Parliament and has to resort to the Fraser Institute to tell us how much better it would be if we gave him one. However...it's only Americans looking to disparage our system that pay any attention to the Fraser Institute. We are quite content to experience how well the system functions...which is why you have so many Canadians on ATS telling you that you don't know your arse from page nine.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Yes, it is. That's why Steve can't get a majority in Parliament and has to resort to the Fraser Institute to tell us how much better it would be if we gave him one. However...it's only Americans looking to disparage our system that pay any attention to the Fraser Institute. We are quite content to experience how well the system functions...which is why you have so many Canadians on ATS telling you that you don't know your arse from page nine.


Yeah we don't know anything and yet we have so many Canadians coming to the U.S. for health care...
Ahh the hypocrisy of it all.

Considering that you find it necessary to use petty insults as an answer to facts, I would say that you have nothing real to offer up, or you think that I am somehow personally attacking you. If the latter is the case let me assure you that I am not attacking you or Canada personally. In fact, as far as socialized health care goes I would say that yours and the UK system are about the best there is. My attack is on a system that I just don't personally feel is best for the U.S.

I have posted links that show the short falls of a socialist health care system. I have rebutted your claims that Americans are somehow lacking in preventative care with source material that shows that we are not, and in fact are ahead of both your systems on many points when it comes to preventative care. I have shown where socialized health care suffers from a lack of availability to many new medicines and technology, have waiting times that are to say the least egregious, and often times fatal. I have shown that socialized health care systems have a lack of doctors, and other personnel, and at a lower salary. The bottom line is that I have shown that so called "free" health care is well, cheap, and you get what you pay for.

If you have material that suggests this is wrong I am all ears. Trust me when I say that if the U.S. could institute a health care plan that is low cost, without losing quality, I would be all for it. I have just never seen a system like that.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq
If you have material that suggests this is wrong I am all ears. Trust me when I say that if the U.S. could institute a health care plan that is low cost, without losing quality, I would be all for it. I have just never seen a system like that.

I have been through this process on other threads and provided material that rebutted the right-wing crapola that you folks are being fed about us. I've identified the sources and defined them...like the Fraser Institute, and as lame a response as you may find it, I just don't care to go through the process yet again. So...instead of citing some right-wing bumph produced by those who can't sleep at night with all that Health Care profit potential going untapped...why not just listen to what the average Canadian on ATS is telling you?

All I'm trying to say is that you are being lied to, so don't pass up an opportunity based upon what Big Health wants. Why should I Bravo Sierra you?

And why should I base my opinion upon what you find on the net...as opposed to my personal experience and that of EVERYBODY I know?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq


Yeah we don't know anything and yet we have so many Canadians coming to the U.S. for health care...
Ahh the hypocrisy of it all.



48 years old, never knew or heard of anyone going to the States

for medical.

6 years ago a client gives me a funny look and tells me I have a lump

behind my ear , I make a appointment at my family Doc. He looks me over

sends me to a cancer speacilist the next day . He does a Biopsy , and a

few days later , I'm told the news and to check in on Thurs for a

operation, this was Tuesday. Operated on , had to spend 4 days in

hospital because I had a Tube Draining gross stuff into a bottle. Check out

Tuesday , and JUST TO BE CAREFUL, I do 6 follow up Radiation treatments

I good to go now, WOO HOO.

O YA Final Cost .......... 48 bucks ( 12 dollars a day TV rental )

Ya we got it bad here



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I have been through this process on other threads and provided material that rebutted the right-wing crapola that you folks are being fed about us. I've identified the sources and defined them...like the Fraser Institute, and as lame a response as you may find it, I just don't care to go through the process yet again. So...instead of citing some right-wing bumph produced by those who can't sleep at night with all that Health Care profit potential going untapped...why not just listen to what the average Canadian on ATS is telling you?

All I'm trying to say is that you are being lied to, so don't pass up an opportunity based upon what Big Health wants. Why should I Bravo Sierra you?

And why should I base my opinion upon what you find on the net...as opposed to my personal experience and that of EVERYBODY I know?


I have in large listened to what average Canadians have had to say. Many of the links that I posted were stories about average Canadians and people of the UK.

It is obvious that your country's system has worked out just fine for you, and I think that is awesome, but there are many of your countrymen who don't feel that it is working for them. I ask you though why can't you just take my word that our system works? You seem to have an opinion of the U.S. system based on what? If I am just being lied to across the board then it is by your government, firms from your country, and your citizens, because those are the sources for the vast majority of my info.

Also, I never asked you to base your opinions on what I have found. Your opinion is your own, and you are entitled to it. I came to a thread entitled "Free Health Care is Awesome!!!" and posted reasons why I disagree. I believe that my opinion on the matter, and my sources are just as valid as you find yours to be, and that is the great thing about ATS, it is a place where people of differing opinions can come together to discuss topics.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join