weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 13, 2012 16:39:54 GMT -5
no, i am totally 100% serious. we don't seem to be communicating too well, and this is getting far to personal fep. i am serious about almost everything i post here, and i can absolutely back it up, but i have to leave for band practice in 8 mins, so i can't take the time today. maybe some other time when you are in a better mood, i will try again. ----------------- Here.....allow me. Canada's greatest medical research Canada has produced a disproportionately large number of major biomedical breakthroughs, and a new report released today exhaustively catalogues the best of the best. The Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations new report, called "Moving at the Speed of Discovery" (PDF), includes a (very long) list of the top medical discoveries made in Canadian academic hospitals. You probably knew about Dr Frederick Banting's discovery of insulin, but you're sure to be surprised at some of the high-profile research mentioned in the report, like robot surgeons, music therapy for the physically disabled, induced hypothermia for heart surgery patients and "cobalt bombs," to name a few of the most interesting items. www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2007/11/canadas-greatest-medical-research.htmlWe can do it under UHC, but you are unable to? Since when has the USA become a nation of "No, We Can't"?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 13, 2012 16:50:36 GMT -5
First of all, formerexpat, you can't read what "will happen" any better than anyone else can. You can postulate, but you do not know.
As to the matter of care delivery, a lot of what is said about UHC systems is hype. Let's look at the example you present regarding obese folks. The government, by the way, cannot prevent you from stuffing your face. That's up to you. Let's say you stuffed your face, became obese, and blew out both knees carrying all that weight around. As it is now, you can use your insurance (if you have it) to buy yourself a brand new knee. You don't have to lose weight. Just put the money in the proper hands and ouila! You can have that new knee right away, where under a UHC system you might have to wait (horrors!) weeks, or even months, to get that knee. During those weeks, or months, you might even be expected to <gasp> lose weight. Same might be said of gallbladder surgery. It's rarely an emergency. You're uncomfortable, especially if you choose to shove fats down your throat. You might just have to forego those fats and wait awhile before we can get that misbehaving gallbladder out of you. In the meantime, you might just have to <gulp> actually watch what you eat.
I'm amazed by people who find it so easy to just say: "This can't be done", fold up their tents, and wander away. I'm just as amazed by those who work hard at finding negatives to explain why it can't be done. Of course, it can be done, and we need to do it. We're a smart, capable and resourceful nation full of smart, capable and resourceful people. However, if we all lean back, grab another bag of chips, and whine that it can't be done ... it won't be done. Seems kinda silly to me.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 13, 2012 16:52:38 GMT -5
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 13, 2012 17:06:15 GMT -5
And the analysis has been discredited, much like Warren's medical bankruptcy study that had very little statistical integrity: online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.htmlI believe we have common goals overall but let's have a conversation and debate with useful information. I've said it before and will say it again, it's nice that Canada can save the tax dollars and not spend it on defense since their big brother down south would protect them. Perhaps we should send part of our defense bill to Canada. Actually, I do think the US needs to start sending other country's a bill for defending their ass in addition to getting the F out of places & disputes; and that includes Canada. If you guys want to argue with Russia about who has the rights to the oil in the Artic, you guys have at that shit on your own. For more than a few reasons but mostly because we're a nation of No, we don't want to live off the government tit like Canada.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 13, 2012 17:17:24 GMT -5
I can certainly use the model that is in use by other countries and make a reasonable assumption that is exactly what we would end up with here. You cannot tell me with a straight face that a segment of the population would put up with inferior and delayed service over paying for their own care; like Britain and their 15% that have private care.
Private care does not arise only in country's that prohibit it. Why would a country have to prohibit a competitor if it is the superior choice?
Or you can be a healthy and athletic young person who tears an ACL but not severely enough to get immediate surgery. While you wait for over 18 months, you can't run, you can't participate in many of the athletic activities you used to participate in and you end up gaining weight (and fill up that time with other activities that might not be as healthy for you, like more time at the bars, for example).
UHC can be done in the US but it's not in the US's best interest to have UHC. It's a failure. You can't convince me that a system of 20-30 million people that works okay (not well, not excellent) is a reason to change our system so significantly to support 300-350 million people...97% of which are either adequately insured, can buy insurance, are eligible for public alternatives or are illegal to this country (and would rarely make it on the grid to pay into a UHC).
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 13, 2012 17:18:48 GMT -5
You may live in a "nation of No", formerexpat. I do not.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 13, 2012 17:25:50 GMT -5
I can certainly use the model that is in use by other countries and make a reasonable assumption that is exactly what we would end up with here. You cannot tell me with a straight face that a segment of the population would put up with inferior and delayed service over paying for their own care; like Britain and their 15% that have private care. Private care does not arise only in country's that prohibit it. Why would a country have to prohibit a competitor if it is the superior choice? Or you can be a healthy and athletic young person who tears an ACL but not severely enough to get immediate surgery. While you wait for over 18 months, you can't run, you can't participate in many of the athletic activities you used to participate in and you end up gaining weight (and fill up that time with other activities that might not be as healthy for you, like more time at the bars, for example). UHC can be done in the US but it's not in the US's best interest to have UHC. It's a failure. You can't convince me that a system of 20-30 million people that works okay (not well, not excellent) is a reason to change our system so significantly to support 300-350 million people...97% of which are either adequately insured, can buy insurance, are eligible for public alternatives or are illegal to this country (and would rarely make it on the grid to pay into a UHC). I can most certainly tell you that by using the examples before us, we can definitely build a better mousetrap, formerexpat. I've already said it, and I firmly believe it. As to the young person with the torn ACL, in some systems he might wait 18 months. In others, he might wait much less. In some, he might even wait longer. Thing is, if he chooses to eat himself into an overweight state, knowing he can't exercise as he once did (he can still exercise), or drink himself into oblivion, no government can stop him. That's on him, not the health system. I'm not about to discuss illegals here. That's a separate problem that needs separate consideration and a different decision-making process. As far as I'm concerned, it (and the current welfare system) is a red herring to the UHC discussion, since both those are problems aside from UHC. Do they need to be dealt with? Yes, they do; however, they need to be handled separately, not used as an excuse to any possibility of UHC in this country. We can do it. We need to do it. We need fixing, and it's up to us to stop finding excuses not to fix our systems and get them serving the people of this country.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 13, 2012 17:35:58 GMT -5
Man...how can something that hasn't even happened yet be a failure?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 13, 2012 17:44:23 GMT -5
I dunno, cereb. Some folks are just prescient like that.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 13, 2012 18:15:22 GMT -5
I do not live in a world where I fall for the "yes we can" and "hope and change" bull shit like most.
Our government has shown over and over that the more they're involved, the greater the failure, so it's fairly simple to come to the conclusion given the track record of our government in just about everything they've touched, especially on the social side.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 13, 2012 18:31:53 GMT -5
"Yes, we can" or "hope and change" don't come to those who won't work for it, formerexpat. It's probably good, therefore, they don't exist in your world.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2012 19:09:21 GMT -5
"people really should think about losing all of that before they run the whole thing through the shredder."
I think Obamacare does have some positives, but it was still written for the purpose of taking the first step towards gov't run healthcare. If focuses primarily on insurance and absolutely did not seek to identify what's wrong and address it.
The pre-existing condition clause is huge except for the fact that the mandate to carry insurance may be un-Constitutional. And the pre-exiting clause cannot survive without the mandate. The pre-existing condition issue does not exist for other forms of insurance, so why does it exist for health insurance? Because health insurance isn't actually insurance. A little re-strucuturing of how insurance works would be helpful, and then you'd solve the pre-existing condition issue without having to force people to do things they don't want to.
That's my whole point. Our leaders, Obama included, have never really sought to put common sense reforms in place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We can do it under UHC, but you are unable to? Since when has the USA become a nation of "No, We Can't"?"
Sigh.... Europe has had a lot of medical discoveries and inventions as well. Whose dollars do you think help pay for that research the most? Canadians and Europeans where price controls are in place? Or Americans where prices are set by supply and demand?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2012 19:29:44 GMT -5
no, i am totally 100% serious. we don't seem to be communicating too well, and this is getting far to personal fep. i am serious about almost everything i post here, and i can absolutely back it up, but i have to leave for band practice in 8 mins, so i can't take the time today. maybe some other time when you are in a better mood, i will try again. ----------------- Here.....allow me. Canada's greatest medical research Canada has produced a disproportionately large number of major biomedical breakthroughs, and a new report released today exhaustively catalogues the best of the best. The Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations new report, called "Moving at the Speed of Discovery" (PDF), includes a (very long) list of the top medical discoveries made in Canadian academic hospitals. You probably knew about Dr Frederick Banting's discovery of insulin, but you're sure to be surprised at some of the high-profile research mentioned in the report, like robot surgeons, music therapy for the physically disabled, induced hypothermia for heart surgery patients and "cobalt bombs," to name a few of the most interesting items. www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2007/11/canadas-greatest-medical-research.htmlWe can do it under UHC, but you are unable to? Since when has the USA become a nation of "No, We Can't"? maybe not. but the GOP clearly has:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2012 19:30:34 GMT -5
"people really should think about losing all of that before they run the whole thing through the shredder." I think Obamacare does have some positives, but it was still written for the purpose of taking the first step towards gov't run healthcare. you keep saying that. i disagree. convince me you are right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2012 19:33:47 GMT -5
The pre-existing condition issue does not exist for other forms of insurance, so why does it exist for health insurance? Because health insurance isn't actually insurance. huh? ok. what is it then? a marriage certificate? Grey Poupon?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2012 19:35:06 GMT -5
Whose dollars do you think help pay for that research the most? Canadians and Europeans where price controls are in place? Or Americans where prices are set by supply and demand? who there, Nellie. are you saying there are no free market forces in European medicine? there is sufficient free market health care in Europe for innovation. and then there is the cost to benefit ratio. is paying 2x as much for fancy gadgets that can only be used in $250,000 suguries really a good idea when over a hundred people die every day in the US because they can't afford medical care?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 13, 2012 19:47:34 GMT -5
Actually, I do think the US needs to start sending other country's a bill for defending their ass in addition to getting the F out of places & disputes; and that includes Canada. If you guys want to argue with Russia about who has the rights to the oil in the Artic, you guys have at that shit on your own. ----------------------- And who is going to defend us from the USA? You just want to get your grubby little hands on the resources yourselves. I give you Romney's "We'll get the Canadian oil that we deserve".
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 13, 2012 19:55:24 GMT -5
The concept has been floated around up here. "The state that I fear most is the United States." Hon. Douglas Roche O.C. (retired Canadian senator). The greatest military and other (eg. economic, social, cultural, etc.) threat to Canada is the United States (but Peter Mansbridge will not tell you that on the CBC News). We can not out-spend or out-gun the United States military (the U.S. spends $500 billion annually, which is 50% of the $1 trillion spent annually by the world on militarism). In this light, at $12.3 billion annually, Canada can not make any significant military contribution to the U.S. If, as and when the U.S. wants Canadian oil, gas, water, or when it is in the U.S. national interest to do so, they can pre-emptively attack us (just recently Paul Cellucci, the US "ambassador" to Canada, said to Americans "Expect attacks to be launched from Canada"). It will surprise many Canadians to know that the U.S. military have plans for the invasion of Canada on the shelf. So we must be smart in dealing with this dilemma. Compared to this, and in light of the U.S. interest to defend North America, no other countries that we might defend against are a real threat for the foreseeable future. The only other threats to Canadian security are terrorist attacks (motivated by our support of the U.S., which requires a different strategy than historic wars, and is significantly less of a risk than the American threat), and nuclear Armageddon (made more dangerous due to U.S. policy, and again requiring a different strategy). So we do have an opportunity to reprofile Canada's spending on the military. www.peace.ca/militaryfunding.htm
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 13, 2012 19:55:48 GMT -5
So, i guess we are indirectly charging Canadians for the free defense they receive? Hey, I'm all for personal responsibility and working for the things you want instead of having others pay for it. Unfortunately, the campaign slogans or political promises of yes we can or hope & change weren't built on personal responsibility, they were built on someone else footing the bill.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2012 19:59:34 GMT -5
The concept has been floated around up here. "The state that I fear most is the United States." Hon. Douglas Roche O.C. (retired Canadian senator). The greatest military and other (eg. economic, social, cultural, etc.) threat to Canada is the United States (but Peter Mansbridge will not tell you that on the CBC News). We can not out-spend or out-gun the United States military (the U.S. spends $500 billion annually, which is 50% of the $1 trillion spent annually by the world on militarism). In this light, at $12.3 billion annually, Canada can not make any significant military contribution to the U.S. If, as and when the U.S. wants Canadian oil, gas, water, or when it is in the U.S. national interest to do so, they can pre-emptively attack us (just recently Paul Cellucci, the US "ambassador" to Canada, said to Americans "Expect attacks to be launched from Canada"). It will surprise many Canadians to know that the U.S. military have plans for the invasion of Canada on the shelf. So we must be smart in dealing with this dilemma. Compared to this, and in light of the U.S. interest to defend North America, no other countries that we might defend against are a real threat for the foreseeable future. The only other threats to Canadian security are terrorist attacks (motivated by our support of the U.S., which requires a different strategy than historic wars, and is significantly less of a risk than the American threat), and nuclear Armageddon (made more dangerous due to U.S. policy, and again requiring a different strategy). So we do have an opportunity to reprofile Canada's spending on the military. www.peace.ca/militaryfunding.htmit is not just Canada. we are the most feared nation on Earth. and for good reason. we have shown OVER AND OVER again how quickly we can turn on a nation. ie- we were selling dual use weapons to Saddam and less than two years later, bombing the shit out of him.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 13, 2012 20:01:25 GMT -5
Shit, American citizens should agree completely with this statement. No other country scares ME more than the United States!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 13, 2012 20:04:34 GMT -5
Who the hell is talking about campaign slogans, formerexpat? Yes, we can. That's a sentence. It has meaning. It's meaning isn't confined to the person who says it and their choice of venue. It stands on its own. The same goes for the words "hope" and "change". If you want to allow someone else to define your meanings, carry on. I will not. I know what those words mean, and I will interpret what they mean to me and how I can help to make them reality. You can throw up your hands and give up.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 13, 2012 20:16:52 GMT -5
Now do it without OPM instead of coming for more of mine. I'm fine with my healthcare don't don't see our political make up as competent enough to make positive changes. Figure something else out if you want it that doesn't negative affect most others; like Obamacare has/will.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2012 20:20:04 GMT -5
"you keep saying that. i disagree. convince me you are right."
Obama and a number of Democrat leaders are on record saying it. Go to the horse's mouse. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "huh? ok. what is it then? a marriage certificate? Grey Poupon?"
I have no idea what you're trying to say. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "who there, Nellie. are you saying there are no free market forces in European medicine?"
Price controls are a staple of all gov't-paid systems. Both internationally, and domestically (Medicare, in particular). Are you telling me they are not?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2012 20:43:42 GMT -5
"you keep saying that. i disagree. convince me you are right." Obama and a number of Democrat leaders are on record saying it. Go to the horse's mouse. it is YOUR claim. abandon it, or back it up. i couldn't care less.------------------------------------------------------------------------- "huh? ok. what is it then? a marriage certificate? Grey Poupon?" I have no idea what you're trying to say. if it is not insurance, what is it?------------------------------------------------------------------------ "who there, Nellie. are you saying there are no free market forces in European medicine?" Price controls are a staple of all gov't-paid systems. Both internationally, and domestically (Medicare, in particular). Are you telling me they are not? no. but there are lots of examples of highly innovative medical markets that cross a wide spectrum of regulation and price controls. i don't think it is NECESSARY to have a market that charges 2x as much to get innovation, nor do i expect that you would get better results by charging half as much. what i am saying is that the cost of innovation is very high in our system. i suppose it is worth it if you need some obscure surgery, but i am not sure it is worth it in the general case.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 10:32:32 GMT -5
I don't UHC is going to work in this country. Because everybody cannot have everything anyway they want it. And, politicians are unwilling to draw lines in the sand. Having catastrophic coverage is one thing. Having everything under the sun be covered is another. And, with so many special interests and bellowing, i just do not think it can be done here. 50 yrs ago, yes. Now, there will be so many exemptions and strings attatched that it will be unreal. Hmmmm. Didn't you say on another thread that your mother is in a nursing home, and if she runs out of money in two years, they have to keep her? Isn't that taxpayer-funded healthcare? So you're against UHC in principle, unless it benefits you directly? Then you're all for it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 10:40:09 GMT -5
I don't UHC is going to work in this country. Because everybody cannot have everything anyway they want it. And, politicians are unwilling to draw lines in the sand. Having catastrophic coverage is one thing. Having everything under the sun be covered is another. And, with so many special interests and bellowing, i just do not think it can be done here. 50 yrs ago, yes. Now, there will be so many exemptions and strings attatched that it will be unreal. Hmmmm. Didn't you say on another thread that your mother is in a nursing home, and if she runs out of money in two years, they have to keep her? Isn't that taxpayer-funded healthcare? So you're against UHC in principle, unless it benefits you directly? Then you're all for it? in a sense, we are ALL paying for UHC. but we are doing it in a totally inefficient way.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 10:40:17 GMT -5
Yes, this is your quote, Shooby. Let me see if I can find the one which says people shouldn't bother saving. Taxpayers will look after you.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 10:49:46 GMT -5
in a sense, we are ALL paying for UHC. but we are doing it in a totally inefficient way. -------------------- Of course you are, but some people refuse to see it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 10:51:28 GMT -5
in a sense, we are ALL paying for UHC. but we are doing it in a totally inefficient way. -------------------- Of course you are, but some people refuse to see it. i guess they are hoping that people who need emergency care and can't afford it will just stay home and die? seriously. what are people thinking?
|
|