Pages: 1 2
Lies!!!Narupug wrote:
Yeah, if you need somehing done you need it done. Just because we make healthcare more affordable by providing a government option does not mean we are going over to single-payer. Single-payer is not being considered, you'll get to keep your leech of a healthcare company.
It's aka " end of care counseling. "Harmor wrote:
In Obamacare there are new regulations with "end of life care" that some say is actually the government trying to encourage people to cut their life short when at the end of their life they spend 80% of their entire lifetime's healthcare costs.
Could a non-Senator guy from the Smokey Mountains get the same treatment?Harmor wrote:
And Senator Dodd who just got Prostate cancer. Its it great that he can get diagnosed a week ago and then get scheduled for surgery in under a month?
Could that happen in Canada or the U.K.???
Yes.ghettoperson wrote:
Do you really think everyone dies under socialized healthcare?
Like a brain tumor that you have to wait eight months to get removed? Define "immediate" for me, please.If you have a life-threatening illness, it's taken care of immediately, whereas if it's something trivial you have to wait longer.
I think Hollis just confirmed your suspicion.ghettoperson wrote:
You guys are honestly idiots. Do you really think everyone dies under socialized healthcare? If you have a life-threatening illness, it's taken care of immediately, whereas if it's something trivial you have to wait longer.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-02 09:49:24)
Yes he would because just like all members of the House and Senate, they will never be forced into bullshit Social Security contributions, or bullshit govt. healthcare. The ones that vote themselves raises, would certainly vote themselves exempt from any bullshit they force on the rest of us.Harmor wrote:
In Obamacare there are new regulations with "end of life care" that some say is actually the government trying to encourage people to cut their life short when at the end of their life they spend 80% of their entire lifetime's healthcare costs.
So I ask would Senator Ted Kennedy be alive today if we had Obamacare in place?
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-02 09:51:20)
They already have their own socialized healthcare and their own SS program.lowing wrote:
Yes he would because just like all members of the House and Senate, they will never be forced into bullshit Social Security contributions, or bullshit govt. healthcare. The ones that vote themselves raises, would certainly vote themselves exempt from any bullshit they force on the rest of us.Harmor wrote:
In Obamacare there are new regulations with "end of life care" that some say is actually the government trying to encourage people to cut their life short when at the end of their life they spend 80% of their entire lifetime's healthcare costs.
So I ask would Senator Ted Kennedy be alive today if we had Obamacare in place?
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-02 09:56:53)
Well, I'm in Canada. Didnt have prostate cancer, but when I blew my knee snowboarding, less than a month and surgery. Also this year when I had to have part of my intestine removed due to another snowboarding injury, less than a week.... so....Harmor wrote:
And Senator Dodd who just got Prostate cancer. Its it great that he can get diagnosed a week ago and then get scheduled for surgery in under a month?
Could that happen in Canada or the U.K.???
They don't have socialized healthcare. They have health insurance that is paid for by the government. They still go to see civilian doctors and specialists...who run their own schedules. That's the difference. Under the one-payer system (or UHC), the government sets the priorities. Under the current system, the doctor and patient set the priorities.Turquoise wrote:
They already have their own socialized healthcare and their own SS program.lowing wrote:
Yes he would because just like all members of the House and Senate, they will never be forced into bullshit Social Security contributions, or bullshit govt. healthcare. The ones that vote themselves raises, would certainly vote themselves exempt from any bullshit they force on the rest of us.Harmor wrote:
In Obamacare there are new regulations with "end of life care" that some say is actually the government trying to encourage people to cut their life short when at the end of their life they spend 80% of their entire lifetime's healthcare costs.
So I ask would Senator Ted Kennedy be alive today if we had Obamacare in place?
It's pretty clear both work when they are run correctly. The problem isn't socialization -- it's that the current programs for the public aren't managed well.
You should really think about a different pastime.Nic wrote:
Well, I'm in Canada. Didnt have prostate cancer, but when I blew my knee snowboarding, less than a month and surgery. Also this year when I had to have part of my intestine removed due to another snowboarding injury, less than a week.... so....Harmor wrote:
And Senator Dodd who just got Prostate cancer. Its it great that he can get diagnosed a week ago and then get scheduled for surgery in under a month?
Could that happen in Canada or the U.K.???
Why not just socialize insurance nationally for basic care? If the government became the sole negotiator with healthcare providers for basic care and prescriptions, prices would be forced to become more reasonable. That's what happened with nearly every other socialized system.FEOS wrote:
They don't have socialized healthcare. They have health insurance that is paid for by the government. They still go to see civilian doctors and specialists...who run their own schedules. That's the difference. Under the one-payer system (or UHC), the government sets the priorities. Under the current system, the doctor and patient set the priorities.
I'm in the same boat. My family is covered under medical insurance that is provided as a benefit of my employment. All my medical care is required to be provided by the government, in government-run clinics. My family's healthcare is orders of magnitude better than mine.
The trick with government-provided insurance is finding a doctor who will accept the ridiculously low payments the government will offer them.
Thanks man. I've heard mostly good things about the NHS in the U.K.FatherTed wrote:
good point on the mix btw.
Like i have to have some pretty big dental work done every year or so, and i get referred to a private practice, but the NHS picks up the tab.
Why... it took 17 years of doing it for that to happen, and not on little shit either. Eventually you have to pay the price for it. And with health care in Canada, the price was $0.FEOS wrote:
You should really think about a different pastime.Nic wrote:
Well, I'm in Canada. Didnt have prostate cancer, but when I blew my knee snowboarding, less than a month and surgery. Also this year when I had to have part of my intestine removed due to another snowboarding injury, less than a week.... so....Harmor wrote:
And Senator Dodd who just got Prostate cancer. Its it great that he can get diagnosed a week ago and then get scheduled for surgery in under a month?
Could that happen in Canada or the U.K.???
Srsly.
Less costly than the US too tbh.Turquoise wrote:
Why not just socialize insurance nationally for basic care? If the government became the sole negotiator with healthcare providers for basic care and prescriptions, prices would be forced to become more reasonable. That's what happened with nearly every other socialized system.FEOS wrote:
They don't have socialized healthcare. They have health insurance that is paid for by the government. They still go to see civilian doctors and specialists...who run their own schedules. That's the difference. Under the one-payer system (or UHC), the government sets the priorities. Under the current system, the doctor and patient set the priorities.
I'm in the same boat. My family is covered under medical insurance that is provided as a benefit of my employment. All my medical care is required to be provided by the government, in government-run clinics. My family's healthcare is orders of magnitude better than mine.
The trick with government-provided insurance is finding a doctor who will accept the ridiculously low payments the government will offer them.
In France, the system involves government run hospitals for basic care, while more advanced procedures generally involve private providers, both in care and in insurance.
This way, there is a good basic care system that is socialized, while the private market flourishes for advanced care.
I have said repeatedly that I don't have a problem with there being a public option for insurance...there already is. Advancing that option to others who are not government employees is something that should be looked at...but isn't.Turquoise wrote:
Why not just socialize insurance nationally for basic care? If the government became the sole negotiator with healthcare providers for basic care and prescriptions, prices would be forced to become more reasonable. That's what happened with nearly every other socialized system.FEOS wrote:
They don't have socialized healthcare. They have health insurance that is paid for by the government. They still go to see civilian doctors and specialists...who run their own schedules. That's the difference. Under the one-payer system (or UHC), the government sets the priorities. Under the current system, the doctor and patient set the priorities.
I'm in the same boat. My family is covered under medical insurance that is provided as a benefit of my employment. All my medical care is required to be provided by the government, in government-run clinics. My family's healthcare is orders of magnitude better than mine.
The trick with government-provided insurance is finding a doctor who will accept the ridiculously low payments the government will offer them.
In France, the system involves government run hospitals for basic care, while more advanced procedures generally involve private providers, both in care and in insurance.
This way, there is a good basic care system that is socialized, while the private market flourishes for advanced care.
I'm sure in your case they'd be willing to let it hang around for a while.HollisHurlbut wrote:
Yes.ghettoperson wrote:
Do you really think everyone dies under socialized healthcare?Like a brain tumor that you have to wait eight months to get removed? Define "immediate" for me, please.If you have a life-threatening illness, it's taken care of immediately, whereas if it's something trivial you have to wait longer.
Pages: 1 2