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.
Well, of course. What else would it be? American doctors are not as a whole notoriously inept, so it's not like most people are complaining about quality control - it's cost and the related issue of access.
Quote:
people ADVOCATING for singlepayer...NEVER take into the FACT that medicine and medical care COSTS MONEY
Nonsense and you know it. Advocates for single-payer or other forms of universal health insurance almost always ground their arguments on cost.
What you don't want to accept is that market-driven health insurance has failed to deliver on cost and access, while the only clear explanation for the much lower cost and much wider access in countries with modern health systems is that government operation or regulation has kept costs low while keeping access as wide as possible.
It's not advocates of a single-payer system which lack acquaintance with the facts - it's the doctrinaire defenders of a failed status quo for no better reason than the maintenance of an ideological fetish.
Well, of course. What else would it be? American doctors are not as a whole notoriously inept, so it's not like most people are complaining about quality control - it's cost and the related issue of access.
Nonsense and you know it. Advocates for single-payer or other forms of universal health insurance almost always ground their arguments on cost.
What you don't want to accept is that market-driven health insurance has failed to deliver on cost and access, while the only clear explanation for the much lower cost and much wider access in countries with modern health systems is that government operation or regulation has kept costs low while keeping access as wide as possible.
It's not advocates of a single-payer system which lack acquaintance with the facts - it's the doctrinaire defenders of a failed status quo for no better reason than the maintenance of an ideological fetish.
And that seems to nicely sum up the polar opposites of philosophy endemic that only serves to stall progess.
The real issue is some Canadians would rather have a US health system. I said "some". I didn't say "most".
No, you didn't say "most", because that would be to assert that a majority would rather have our system, which is blatantly absurd and untrue.
Quote:
Let's get real here, cause I do know Canadian doctors and have quite a few Canadian friends in my own neighborhood in the Orlando area.
You do realize that if your Canadian friends are snowbirds, they are a) likely to be wealthier than the average Canadian, to be able to afford to live abroad for part of the year, and b) likely, by virtue of being wealthier, to be older than the average Canadian, and therefore probably more crotchety and small-c conservative.
Quote:
Most EVERYONE pays. Unlike the US where if you meet a certain income level, you essentially pay little if any taxes.
If your essential contention is that, in order to have effective government services, it is necessary for everyone to pay more for them, then of course.
Most of the Canadians I know (having married one and lived with her in her country for many years, that's quite a few - and they live in Canada year-round) may grumble about their taxes, because everyone does, but when pressed on the point, most agree that they get value for their money.
The issue is not whether people should pay for single-payer - of course they should. The issue is getting to single-payer in the first place. Though, naturally, there is a question concerning social fairness and the distribution of the burden, which is why I keep pressing you to name what you regard as a fair figure.
We also have almost 50% of the population who contribute zero to the federal tax revenues (yes they contribute payroll taxes and sales taxes). But that does not help with the federal tax revenue....So do Canadians have half their population not paying federal taxes?
Reddest of red herrings. Almost certainly, single-payer insurance would be paid for with payroll deductions (aka FICA), just as the two main social protection programs in the United States, Social Security and Medicare, are paid for now. The retread-Romney argument about the "47%" paying nothing in federal income taxes is irrelevant.
And that seems to nicely sum up the polar opposites of philosophy endemic that only serves to stall progess.
Yes, positions, perceptions and preconceived notions are polar opposites, but no, I don't think their opposition serves to stall progress. I think progress is possible: the passage of the ACA proves as much. And I think illustrating clearly how the opposed philosophies are defined and delineated accelerates a choice between them.
But true, that choice must still be made the old-fashioned way, through legislative majorities and presidential elections. And Americans enjoy or suffer (depending on your view) a constitution which makes any major choice very, very slow. If we could settle the matter in a single general election, fought between two or three parties clearly committed to Throne Speech or party-conference manifestos, we'd probably already have single-payer in this country.
JOHN STOSSEL?????????? THE RIGHT WINGNUT???? OMG. lol
Stossel has a bug up his butt pertaining to the delivery of healthcare in the US. Look up his brother and check out what this hustler is up to. He's in the medical field.
Stossel has a bug up his butt pertaining to the delivery of healthcare in the US. Look up his brother and check out what this hustler is up to. He's in the medical field.
Wow, I found a link explaining the pharmaceutical company ties. Thanks! No wonder this John Stossel is trashing universal healthcare so intensely.
How is a monopolistic system anywhere similar to a free market system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
Well, of course. What else would it be? American doctors are not as a whole notoriously inept, so it's not like most people are complaining about quality control - it's cost and the related issue of access.
Nonsense and you know it. Advocates for single-payer or other forms of universal health insurance almost always ground their arguments on cost.
What you don't want to accept is that market-driven health insurance has failed to deliver on cost and access, while the only clear explanation for the much lower cost and much wider access in countries with modern health systems is that government operation or regulation has kept costs low while keeping access as wide as possible.
It's not advocates of a single-payer system which lack acquaintance with the facts - it's the doctrinaire defenders of a failed status quo for no better reason than the maintenance of an ideological fetish.
How is a monopolistic system anywhere similar to a free market system? When hospitals can collude to fix prices you don't have free market healthcare. When insurance companies cannot compete across state lines you do not have free market healthcare. When hospitals can buy up competing hospitals in a metro area you do not have free market healthcare. When laws only allow certain procedures to be done in a hospital you do not have free market healthcare. when you cannot shop around on price you do not have free market healthcare. When healthcare technology doesn't go down in price in a similar fashion that pc technology does you have to ask why.
It is NOT free and it is not without flaws.
Look at the VA (Veterans Administration) System in the US as an example. Now the VA has gotten better in recent years, but it is not without it's deficiencies to this day.
Already medicine in an HMO system tends to be sub par compared to a PPO system, imagine if that became the norm. Free yes, but if you really need care, you can usually get it for free already at your county health department. Good luck there.
How is a monopolistic system anywhere similar to a free market system? When hospitals can collude to fix prices you don't have free market healthcare. When insurance companies cannot compete across state lines you do not have free market healthcare. When hospitals can buy up competing hospitals in a metro area you do not have free market healthcare. When laws only allow certain procedures to be done in a hospital you do not have free market healthcare. when you cannot shop around on price you do not have free market healthcare. When healthcare technology doesn't go down in price in a similar fashion that pc technology does you have to ask why.
I didn't actually call the pre-ACA system in the U.S. "free market", you'll observe. I referred to it as "market-driven". But if you prefer a term which adequately describes our old system and distinguishes between it and various models, Bismarckian or Beveridgite, of universal health care, I'll be happy to adopt your term.
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.
How is a monopolistic system anywhere similar to a free market system?
