Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are plenty more stories, if you'd like. I'm not claiming that the US health care system is perfect, but do NOT throw out examples of socialized medicine and claim that they will solve all our medical problems. Ask any Canadian how long they have to wait to see a doctor and you will know what I mean.
I am a Canadian, so will be pleased to speak to that question. I moved to the US six years ago, at age 46, so I've had plenty of exposure to both health care systems.
When we first moved here, I was impressed that you could often get a same-day appointments with your doctor, with the more stylish and upscale appearance of doctors' offices, and the more relaxed, unhurried air of physicians. In Canada, you'll normally wait a week or so for an appointment, unless of course you're really sick. Canadian doctors' offices are functional rather than lavish in decor, and the doctor normally seems a bit more brisk at getting through appointments, as he or she typically has a lot of patients to see.
(Husband's close friend, a surgeon in Ontario, readily explained this difference. He's always amazed at medical conferences by how much money US doctors make, for how little work. Those of us who have decent medical coverage down here, or independent means, can easily get in to see that less-busy, relaxed and affluent physician, because doctors here are very well paid to work less. Lest you think our friend the Canadian surgeon is suffering, he has two kids in upscale private schools, a lavish home, nice cars, his wife has a very expensive hobby of competitive horseback riding, they take foreign vacations, etc. Doctors in Canada are well paid too - just not as supremely well paid as US doctors, and they work more for it).
The longer we spend here, the more horrified I am by the US system. In Canada, when you have a health problem, you go see your doctor - the primary care physician chosen by you. If the problem requires specialized attention, you'll be referred to specialists (you have choice here too), sent for tests, hospital treatment, etc. as needed. You'll never see a bill or have a conversation with an insurance company about payment. You'll get all the tests and treatments your doctors deem necessary. No payment authority will dispute their recommendations.
If Americans are lucky enough to have a good job with health insurance, they live in fear of the insurance company chosen by their employer (not them). If their doctor recommends a treatment, they have to ask the insurance company for permission, which may not be granted. I just can't believe that people down here think their system has more choice, because an insurance company you didn't select gets to decide whether or not you get the medical treatment you need. This is choice? Oh well of course, both the insured and the uninsured here do have the choice of paying by themselves. We can see how many people are able to take advantage of that particular glorious freedom.
Canadians get immediate and excellent treatment for life-threatening conditions, such as cancer. The Canadian system does sometimes struggle with waits for less urgent procedures, such as hip replacements. Typically, efforts are made to improve such bottlenecks in the system. My mom had breast cancer five years ago, in Canada. She had surgery less than two weeks after the first suspicious mammogram. There's no waiting around for treatment for life-threatening conditions in Canada. And everyone gets treated. Everyone.
Do you see Canadians or western Europeans clamoring for US-style medical coverage? Of course not. The rest of the world thinks the US system is crazily expensive and inhumane. They don't want it, because they have something better. Americans are just dupes of the insurance companies who have a very profitable business taking our money and denying us treatments.
IMO,
No different than the last 3 administrations. Our government has done nothing but grow, grow, grow, since 1988. Frankly, the only difference I found between Obama and McCain was Iraq. Outside of that it was government, government, government.
Though I did not support Obama's candidacy I hope he does well for America. If he moves to the center then maybe, if he starts by doing support paybacks to George Sorass and Move On then we all will be in for world of heartache.
I will address comments holistically, since a lot of people don't seem to misunderstand socialism and communism. Though we are not socialist (aside from the stupidity spouted on channels like Fox), the further we go towards socialism the more it will benefit metro areas like Atlanta and the average individual other than the upper 20%-30%. Health care is a huge part of socialism, and the main reason we aren't there yet. The United States has been bordering on being "socialist" since FDR, but more is needed than buying banks (which was just as much for long-term profit as being a bailout). Will we get there? I believe it's inevitable because socialism is the footprint of a more advanced society and sustainable high-population world. I was amazed when I visited some socialist countries in Europe -- they are light years ahead of us. We seem so third-world. They are surpassing us in terms of standard of living, longevity, health, education, transportation and a bunch of other factors which quite interestingly are functions governments help regulate. The issues people mentioned about abuses of free health care are being solved by instituting heavier copays in order to prevent abuse. State health care doesn't mean it has to be completely free. De-centives can still exist and still make it largely inexpensive. As for the arguments about education -- education is doing horribly in the U.S. by putting all that money towards a war. I wonder why we are so behind Europe? Maybe it's because the areas we are hurting in the U.S. are generally regulated by government? Hmmmm...
As far as how socialism would benefit Atlanta -- we would probably get a lot more funding for rail projects to help limit sprawl. Dense cities have shown themselves to be more efficient in how they handle growth, so naturally a socialist country will favor civic spending for dense development and mass transit. Perhaps that's why you see more urban populations voting democrat: People seem to intuitively know that, and democrats are more on the socialist side (though not socialists).
I don't know what peoples' aversion is to equality (other than fear/survival thoughts) -- there is plenty of wealth to spread around. The closest thing we could have to equality in a capitalist country and efficiency is if we limited business size to being small business only, which doesn't seem likely to happen because of greed.
Additionally, the communist manifesto was regarding communism, not socialism. People seem to want to call Marxism socialism because Marxism made sense whereas Communism has such a bad name. Well, the truth is we have never had a communist country in recent times! The USSR wasn't communism. It was a closed totalitarian system that was formed from an overthrow of power where peasants (proletariat) were tricked into replacing the monarchy in order to seize power. Wealth was not distributed equally, and was still concentrated in the hands of the few. True Marxism is not socialist, but communist. Communism in the sense that some "Native American" groups were communist hasn't scaled up well to large populations. The challenge is we have not figured out how to extend the concept of equality to a large group of people. It seems to only work for a small group. It probably requires a change in the way of thinking. I imagine socialism will have to exist for a while and evolve into communism over a very long period of time.
Marxism, from an ideological perspective, is a great idea and extremely enlightened for the 1800s. There are two issues with it, though. One is that people will need to think differently for communism to work. That means we can only gradually move towards it. Secondly, the lack of incentives is something that will need to be addressed. Obviously, everyone's basic needs can be covered. However, for luxuries there could be some types of incentives created. E.g. on Star Trek federation, which was a strong socialist and maybe even communist government, had "credits" for luxuries. I imagine credits were given out based on performance. Still, that being partially a meritocracy, still benefits society better than capitalism since it doesn't encourage people to steal from each other and do things that benefit themselves but hurt society.
So, perhaps you won't have your beach home anymore and may need to share a beach home with 12 other people when you go on vacation. Stop being so greedy. It's more important we have sustainability than complete luxury for a few at the expense of many.
Last edited by netdragon; 11-09-2008 at 12:25 PM..
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 8 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,472 posts, read 44,121,361 times
Reputation: 16866
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdragon
I will address comments holistically, since a lot of people don't seem to misunderstand socialism and communism. Though we are not socialist (aside from the stupidity spouted on channels like Fox), the further we go towards socialism the more it will benefit metro areas like Atlanta and the average individual other than the upper 20%-30%. Health care is a huge part of socialism, and the main reason we aren't there yet. The United States has been bordering on being "socialist" since FDR, but more is needed than buying banks (which was just as much for long-term profit as being a bailout). Will we get there? I believe it's inevitable because socialism is the footprint of a more advanced society and sustainable high-population world. I was amazed when I visited some socialist countries in Europe -- they are light years ahead of us. We seem so third-world. They are surpassing us in terms of standard of living, longevity, health, education, transportation and a bunch of other factors which quite interestingly are functions governments help regulate. The issues people mentioned about abuses of free health care are being solved by instituting heavier copays in order to prevent abuse. State health care doesn't mean it has to be completely free. De-centives can still exist and still make it largely inexpensive. As for the arguments about education -- education is doing horribly in the U.S. by putting all that money towards a war. I wonder why we are so behind Europe? Maybe it's because the areas we are hurting in the U.S. are generally regulated by government? Hmmmm...
As far as how socialism would benefit Atlanta -- we would probably get a lot more funding for rail projects to help limit sprawl. Dense cities have shown themselves to be more efficient in how they handle growth, so naturally a socialist country will favor civic spending for dense development and mass transit. Perhaps that's why you see more urban populations voting democrat: People seem to intuitively know that, and democrats are more on the socialist side (though not socialists).
I don't know what peoples' aversion is to equality (other than fear/survival thoughts) -- there is plenty of wealth to spread around. The closest thing we could have to equality in a capitalist country and efficiency is if we limited business size to being small business only, which doesn't seem likely to happen because of greed.
Additionally, the communist manifesto was regarding communism, not socialism. People seem to want to call Marxism socialism because Marxism made sense whereas Communism has such a bad name. Well, the truth is we have never had a communist country in recent times! The USSR wasn't communism. It was a closed totalitarian system that was formed from an overthrow of power where peasants (proletariat) were tricked into replacing the monarchy in order to seize power. Wealth was not distributed equally, and was still concentrated in the hands of the few. True Marxism is not socialist, but communist. Communism in the sense that some "Native American" groups were communist hasn't scaled up well to large populations. The challenge is we have not figured out how to extend the concept of equality to a large group of people. It seems to only work for a small group. It probably requires a change in the way of thinking. I imagine socialism will have to exist for a while and evolve into communism over a very long period of time.
Marxism, from an ideological perspective, is a great idea and extremely enlightened for the 1800s. There are two issues with it, though. One is that people will need to think differently for communism to work. That means we can only gradually move towards it. Secondly, the lack of incentives is something that will need to be addressed. Obviously, everyone's basic needs can be covered. However, for luxuries there could be some types of incentives created. E.g. on Star Trek federation, which was a strong socialist and maybe even communist government, had "credits" for luxuries. I imagine credits were given out based on performance. Still, that being partially a meritocracy, still benefits society better than capitalism since it doesn't encourage people to steal from each other and do things that benefit themselves but hurt society.
So, perhaps you won't have your beach home anymore and may need to share a beach home with 12 other people when you go on vacation. Stop being so greedy. It's more important we have sustainability than complete luxury for a few at the expense of many.
The human spirit will fight this garbage tooth and nail.
Here's a lighter note on this topic. One of my daughter's very right-wing Republican school friends stated that thank goodness, if Obama starts imposing socialism on the US, their family can and will escape by moving back to their ancestral homeland - Norway.
My BIL is Canadian and told a horror story of how when he was injured it took weeks for him to get a CAT Scan. I don't want it to be like that.
It wouldn't be.
It's a simply plan if it ever pans out: Every American would be able to get a certain level of FREE health care. Now, would that mean that in some non life threatening cases, people might have to wait weeks for a scan or MRI? Yes, it might. It's free. However, think of this - how many hundreds of thousands (literally) of Americans right now needs tests or treatment for something who will NEVER get it, because they can't afford health insurance and can't pay out-of-pocket for it?
Hmmmm... free but have to wait a while, or *never*, because you can't afford it? Suddenly free doesn't sound so much like a "horror story" for those who would otherwise never had been able to get their tests or treatment, does it?
Also keep in mind that in such a system, the free system is just basic. People would still be able to get private insurance that bolsters their ability for quicker and better treatment. All a free system would do is just ensure that everyone could get tests/treatment/medication who needs it, even if under the free category they may have to wait a while. Hey - waiting is better than NEVER if you can't afford it.
I am a Canadian, so will be pleased to speak to that question. I moved to the US six years ago, at age 46, so I've had plenty of exposure to both health care systems.
The longer we spend here, the more horrified I am by the US system. In Canada, when you have a health problem, you go see your doctor - the primary care physician chosen by you. If the problem requires specialized attention, you'll be referred to specialists (you have choice here too), sent for tests, hospital treatment, etc. as needed. You'll never see a bill or have a conversation with an insurance company about payment. You'll get all the tests and treatments your doctors deem necessary. No payment authority will dispute their recommendations.
If Americans are lucky enough to have a good job with health insurance, they live in fear of the insurance company chosen by their employer (not them). If their doctor recommends a treatment, they have to ask the insurance company for permission, which may not be granted. I just can't believe that people down here think their system has more choice, because an insurance company you didn't select gets to decide whether or not you get the medical treatment you need. This is choice? Oh well of course, both the insured and the uninsured here do have the choice of paying by themselves. We can see how many people are able to take advantage of that particular glorious freedom.
Canadians get immediate and excellent treatment for life-threatening conditions, such as cancer. The Canadian system does sometimes struggle with waits for less urgent procedures, such as hip replacements. Typically, efforts are made to improve such bottlenecks in the system. My mom had breast cancer five years ago, in Canada. She had surgery less than two weeks after the first suspicious mammogram. There's no waiting around for treatment for life-threatening conditions in Canada. And everyone gets treated. Everyone.
Do you see Canadians or western Europeans clamoring for US-style medical coverage? Of course not. The rest of the world thinks the US system is crazily expensive and inhumane. They don't want it, because they have something better. Americans are just dupes of the insurance companies who have a very profitable business taking our money and denying us treatments.
Bravo on your post. http://bestsmileys.com/clapping/2.gif (broken link)
It's very eye-opening, though I'm sure there will still be some who find ways to argue with it.
It's a simply plan if it ever pans out: Every American would be able to get a certain level of FREE health care. Now, would that mean that in some non life threatening cases, people might have to wait weeks for a scan or MRI? Yes, it might. It's free. However, think of this - how many hundreds of thousands (literally) of Americans right now needs tests or treatment for something who will NEVER get it, because they can't afford health insurance and can't pay out-of-pocket for it?
Hmmmm... free but have to wait a while, or *never*, because you can't afford it? Suddenly free doesn't sound so much like a "horror story" for those who would otherwise never had been able to get their tests or treatment, does it?
Also keep in mind that in such a system, the free system is just basic. People would still be able to get private insurance that bolsters their ability for quicker and better treatment. All a free system would do is just ensure that everyone could get tests/treatment/medication who needs it, even if under the free category they may have to wait a while. Hey - waiting is better than NEVER if you can't afford it.
Also keep in mind that in such a system, the free system is just basic. People would still be able to get private insurance that bolsters their ability for quicker and better treatment. All a free system would do is just ensure that everyone could get tests/treatment/medication who needs it, even if under the free category they may have to wait a while. Hey - waiting is better than NEVER if you can't afford it.
Except, of course, for those who currently can afford the health insurance they are getting through their employer, when said employer decides it no longer needs to provide discounted health insurance to its employees since basic health insurance is free. Those people can't afford the full cost of "extended" insurance and will no longer be able to obtain discounted insurance. They are stuck with basic, which will be fine for regular checkups (provided they schedule them well in advance) and to maintain good health. Hopefully they don't develop anything very serious or obscure that requires immediate and/or expensive treatment that the "free" system doesn't want to pay for.
Bottom line: you get what you pay for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
