|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| kotakji wrote: |
| takji"] ... nor do I believe a public system offers a pragmatic solution. |
Why not? |
While I am not kotakji, I'd like to respond to this.
Because in both Britain and Canada where we have public systems, they require ever more increasing amounts of money to administer. Even with that we have stories of people left waiting for hours on end.
In Canada every election year we have promises of reform yet nothing ever gets done, and the health system gets ever more cumbersome, overburdened and creaky.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/11/19/health-care-spending-canada.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| kotakji wrote: |
| takji"] ... nor do I believe a public system offers a pragmatic solution. |
Why not? |
While I am not kotakji, I'd like to respond to this.
Because in both Britain and Canada where we have public systems, they require ever more increasing amounts of money to administer. Even with that we have stories of people left waiting for hours on end.
In Canada every election year we have promises of reform yet nothing ever gets done, and the health system gets ever more cumbersome, overburdened and creaky.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/11/19/health-care-spending-canada.html |
From your article:
| Quote: |
| The U.S. spent almost twice as much as Canada, $7,290 US per capita, versus $3,895 US per capita in Canada. |
More spent per capita, more people unable to get health care, those who have health care being able to rely on it far less. I'm sure the systems in Canada and Britain could be improved, but nothing you've shown me so far makes me feel like the American system is better. Quite the opposite, actually. The only advantage the American system has is technology, but changing the way we pay for health care need not reduce that advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| kotakji wrote: |
| takji"] ... nor do I believe a public system offers a pragmatic solution. |
Why not? |
While I am not kotakji, I'd like to respond to this.
Because in both Britain and Canada where we have public systems, they require ever more increasing amounts of money to administer. Even with that we have stories of people left waiting for hours on end.
In Canada every election year we have promises of reform yet nothing ever gets done, and the health system gets ever more cumbersome, overburdened and creaky.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/11/19/health-care-spending-canada.html |
From your article:
| Quote: |
| The U.S. spent almost twice as much as Canada, $7,290 US per capita, versus $3,895 US per capita in Canada. |
More spent per capita, more people unable to get health care, those who have health care being able to rely on it far less. I'm sure the systems in Canada and Britain could be improved, but nothing you've shown me so far makes me feel like the American system is better. Quite the opposite, actually. The only advantage the American system has is technology, but changing the way we pay for health care need not reduce that advantage. |
No system is perfect but I bet if you polled them few British or Canadians would want to give up their free health-care and switch to the American system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| kotakji wrote: |
| takji"] ... nor do I believe a public system offers a pragmatic solution. |
Why not? |
While I am not kotakji, I'd like to respond to this.
Because in both Britain and Canada where we have public systems, they require ever more increasing amounts of money to administer. Even with that we have stories of people left waiting for hours on end.
In Canada every election year we have promises of reform yet nothing ever gets done, and the health system gets ever more cumbersome, overburdened and creaky.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/11/19/health-care-spending-canada.html |
From your article:
| Quote: |
| The U.S. spent almost twice as much as Canada, $7,290 US per capita, versus $3,895 US per capita in Canada. |
More spent per capita, more people unable to get health care, those who have health care being able to rely on it far less. I'm sure the systems in Canada and Britain could be improved, but nothing you've shown me so far makes me feel like the American system is better. Quite the opposite, actually. The only advantage the American system has is technology, but changing the way we pay for health care need not reduce that advantage. |
I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying that a public system is not necessarily the answer. Canada's works (so far) because of high taxes but sooner or later it's going to collapse. You simply can't keep spending more and more without it going down like a house of cards.
Canada's bill this year is estimated to cost in excess of 180 billion. If we had America's population, that could be 1800 billion...more than twice what the TARP program cost. Not saying of course that it will cost America that much, as population is only one of the factors, but something to mull about all the same. If Americans get a public system and they start treating it like Canadians treat theirs, it could easily exceed the TARP costs. And unlike the TARP which is a one time deal...those health care costs are every year and that's assuming they don't rise. It costs so much in Canada, because Canadians run to the doctor for every little sniffle they have.
That said, it COULD be a good thing...if America learns from Canada's mistakes and among other things puts a small user fee ($5-10) for each doctor's visit (waived in cases of emergency) The ones who can't afford it can be subsidized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On the contrary, I am no more happy about this apparent compromise. I hope the bill is killed in any form. (Or rather any bill that attempts to expand insurance coverage to those who cant afford it or dont want it at the expense of other citizens).
|
So you would be in favor of Death Panels (or as I like to call them, Health Insurance Companies), is that right?
| Quote: |
Even with that we have stories of people left waiting for hours on end.
|
Are you saying that having to wait for hours = having to sell your car to be able to afford chemotherapy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:30 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying that a public system is not necessarily the answer. |
Ergo, what you endorse is a commercial system. Commercial healthcare and its underpinning commercial insurance are fine for the independently wealthy.
But why should my people be forced to pay for commercial drugs when generics are available right across your border?
We've just spent a disgusting amount of time and resources deciding that we want to pay exponential prices for medicine and treatment because we don't want to be socialist.
TUM, that sucks.
Just admit that much.
It sucks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:53 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying that a public system is not necessarily the answer. |
Ergo, what you endorse is a commercial system. Commercial healthcare and its underpinning commercial insurance are fine for the independently wealthy.
But why should my people be forced to pay for commercial drugs when generics are available right across your border?
We've just spent a disgusting amount of time and resources deciding that we want to pay exponential prices for medicine and treatment because we don't want to be socialist.
TUM, that sucks.
Just admit that much.
It sucks. |
Except that your "ergo" is dead wrong. I support a hybrid with free/subsidized medicine for the poorer people and a user fee based system for those who can afford to pay. The user fee would not be huge (maybe $5-10 ), but it would help keep needless trips to the hospital down and let the available time and resources be spent on those who need it more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
Even with that we have stories of people left waiting for hours on end.
|
Are you saying that having to wait for hours = having to sell your car to be able to afford chemotherapy? |
No, I'm saying we have to wait for hours. Seems fairly straightforward to me.
While that may seem trivial to you, I doubt the family of Denise Malone feels the same way about her. She died from a flesh-eating disease after waiting 21 hours for surgery.
And her case is hardly atypical. Here's some more info about other cases.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/03/9330606-sun.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kotakji
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
So you would be in favor of Death Panels (or as I like to call them, Health Insurance Companies), is that right?
|
If I am understanding you correctly, then yes, I have no problem with private insurance companies existing. If consumers believe that the premium to payout rate is too low to rationalize the pooled risk, they can either form their own company or choose the old fashioned option of saving the money spent on premiums themselves in anticipation of future medical problems.
As a side note- for clarity's sake, you might want to add citations to your quotes when you are quoting more than one poster in the same response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The best idea I've heard in the last couple of days is to accept the bill as is and turn the '10 mid-term election into a referendum on the public option. It could be the issue that gets the progressives stirred up enough to make as much noise on the left as we've had to endure from the right all year.
I'm also not convinced that these 'comprehensive' reforms should be all lumped together into one bill. It may be both easier to pass as well as to explain each change if each one were to stand alone. The public would find it far simpler to understand each change and it would probably be harder for Congressmen to oppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The best idea I've heard is for Democrats to kill the bill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The best idea I've heard in the last couple of days is to accept the bill as is and turn the '10 mid-term election into a referendum on the public option. It could be the issue that gets the progressives stirred up enough to make as much noise on the left as we've had to endure from the right all year. |
I agree. Not sure if someone has posted Nate Silver's emphatic vote for the bill, yet, but here it is. As it is, if the Democrats pass this bill, and then go out and tell me they're going to go to a second round to grab the Public Auction, provided Obama doesn't muck it up this time with silly statements like 'single-payer is off the table,' I'll vote them back in. I've seen little from the Republicans that captivates me, especially since the centrist Democrats are just as willing to profess insincere concern for the budget.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'm also not convinced that these 'comprehensive' reforms should be all lumped together into one bill. It may be both easier to pass as well as to explain each change if each one were to stand alone. The public would find it far simpler to understand each change and it would probably be harder for Congressmen to oppose. |
Good point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Keith O gives one of his patented barn-burner screeds on this issue. It's a good one, too. He makes some very good points.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#34455431
I don't agree with him, but it's good to hear the fire in his belly. If more of this kind of talk from the left had been out there all year, this bill would not be in the pickle it's in. And I guarantee you if a few thousand of the liberals in Hartford, Conn., Little Rock, Ark., Baton Rouge, La. and Lincoln, Nebr. were out on their state capitol grounds waving around pitchforks and burning a few effigies, this bill would look a lot better than it does.
I know it's too late in the game to tinker with the filibuster rule, and it's highly unlikely to ever get passed, but, isn't it possible for the Dem caucus to hold a meeting, pass a few new rules about the connection between committee appointments and chairmanships on the one hand and proceedural votes on the other?
PS: Public Auction? Inquiring minds want to know: Was this deliberate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Savant
Joined: 25 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| kotakji wrote: |
| takji"] ... nor do I believe a public system offers a pragmatic solution. |
Why not? |
While I am not kotakji, I'd like to respond to this.
Because in both Britain and Canada where we have public systems, they require ever more increasing amounts of money to administer. Even with that we have stories of people left waiting for hours on end.
In Canada every election year we have promises of reform yet nothing ever gets done, and the health system gets ever more cumbersome, overburdened and creaky.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/11/19/health-care-spending-canada.html |
From your article:
| Quote: |
| The U.S. spent almost twice as much as Canada, $7,290 US per capita, versus $3,895 US per capita in Canada. |
More spent per capita, more people unable to get health care, those who have health care being able to rely on it far less. I'm sure the systems in Canada and Britain could be improved, but nothing you've shown me so far makes me feel like the American system is better. Quite the opposite, actually. The only advantage the American system has is technology, but changing the way we pay for health care need not reduce that advantage. |
No system is perfect but I bet if you polled them few British or Canadians would want to give up their free health-care and switch to the American system. |
As a Brit, I am proud that we have the NHS. Yes, it is not perfect but I would always choose it over the American system. I am glad that our politicians do not choose to play hardball politics over our healthcare system. Then again, we do not have the same level of reactionary politics, fear-mongering and misconstrued lies that seems ever present in American politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Savant wrote: |
| I am glad that our politicians do not choose to play hardball politics over our healthcare system. Then again, we do not have the same level of reactionary politics, fear-mongering and misconstrued lies that seems ever present in American politics. |
Now, more than ever, I wish I had access to Youtube. Because oh yes, British politics are a model of civility and high-mindedness. There will always be some commonwealther appalled by the Washington sausage-making, but damn, at least if you're going to engage in self-satisfied tripe, be from any other country but Britain.
| Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
PS: Public Auction? Inquiring minds want to know: Was this deliberate? |
Damn. I meant Option. I guess it can't be a typo when its a totally different word that could actually make some sense in that context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
