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.
Just pointing out that many of the First Nations reserves are ruled by corrupt despots, and the poor people who live there do not benefit from the billions allocated to them, except in some cases. Many Chiefs make more than the Prime Minister, tax free, while their people live in squalor.
Would you rather continue to bash me as an individual or would you rather debate facts?
When did I "bash" you as an individual? I don't know you personally, and I don't do personal attacks. I'm quite certain I have criticized only some of your content, and your tone/rhetorical style. In this thread, you have presented yourself as the kind of Canadian who gets on THIS Canadian's wick.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,935,402 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl
When did I "bash" you as an individual? I don't know you personally, and I don't do personal attacks. I'm quite certain I have criticized only some of your content, and your tone/rhetorical style. In this thread, you have presented yourself as the kind of Canadian who gets on THIS Canadian's wick.
But I'm sure you're a good person.
Then let's stick with the facts or even opinions rather than dissing a group or an individual. Discussions work better that way.
Back to the OP: don't we already have universal health care everywhere in the US? I mean, anyone can walk into a clinic and be treated. If they don't have the resources or insurance to pay, aren't medical facilities required to treat them anyway? And doesn't this policy contribute to the high costs of medical care here?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Remember, I am only describing the U.S.
So, shouldn't the title of the thread be "Time for universal health insurance"?
If you wish UNIVERSAL and affordable health care, you must get the government out of the way.
Government is the cause for:
[] Inflation [] Administrative overhead [] Taxation [] Scarcity [] Licensing [] Litigation
How about this:
UNIVERSAL health care means everyone can care for anyone to the best of their ability - and you exercise free choice.
[] Decriminalize giving health care;
[] Decriminalize the trade and possession of medicine and equipment;
[] Expand opportunities for medical education;
[] Offer credentials (not licenses) by supervised examination, regardless of where or how one learned medicine - including apprenticeships;
[] The only government function is to be a credential bank available to the public; and
[] Eliminate tort abuse with "Satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back!" - and nothing more.
An example of the inexpensive medical care is cataract surgery in the third world.
Tabin and Ruit deliver cataract surgery at $20 per surgery. Which is 175 times cheaper than $3,500 (U.S.A.) pricetag, thanks to the medical insurance “industry”.
Some feel that licensing “reduced mistakes.” I will grant that licensing and the AMA eradicated medical schools... and thus created scarcity of trained professionals, boosted the cost, and drove us into this quagmire.
In the nineteenth century, there were over four hundred medical schools in the United States. By 1910, the number was reduced to one hundred and forty-eight medical schools and by 1930 the number totaled only seventy-six. Many early medical schools were criticized for not sufficiently preparing their students for medical professions, leading to the creation of the American Medical Association in 1847 for the purpose of self-regulation of the profession.
Abraham Flexner (who in 1910 released the Flexner report with the Carnegie Foundation), the Rockefeller Foundation, and the AMA are credited with laying the groundwork for what is now known as the modern medical curriculum.
. . .
(Other references)
In 1904, there were 160 M.D. granting institutions with more than 28,000 students.
By 1920, there were only 85 M.D. granting institutions, educating only 13,800 students.
By 1935, there were only 66 medical schools operating in the USA.
And people still wonder why medical care is so expensive and that physicians are scarce and in demand?
The main fundamental issue is who shall decide the prices of services rendered by the healthcare system, the free market or the government.
I personally thing the government should, simply because healthcare is a necessity not a luxury and a price cannot be put on a life.
For all I care, drug companies, insurance companies, etc. are all out there to make a profit and can care less about the consumer's bottom line.
I would hope that in the near future, we would get universal healthcare, but more radical than medicare such that we're not "negotiating" with companies to get something since that won't work if there's only 1 buyer in the market.
We need to get the companies out of the mindset that they need to make the maximum profit as possible, pay their CEO millions, and give the biggest dividend possible to stockholders.
While we're at it, get rid of the entire medical insurance industry completely, we don't need the middleman.
In addition, people need to be smarter about their choices and educate themselves about how health works and not sue the doctor for everything that goes wrong.
That's just my 2 cents, but then again, what I think is common sense isn't so common to a lot of folks.
Back to the OP: don't we already have universal health care everywhere in the US? I mean, anyone can walk into a clinic and be treated. If they don't have the resources or insurance to pay, aren't medical facilities required to treat them anyway? And doesn't this policy contribute to the high costs of medical care here?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Remember, I am only describing the U.S.
Not correct. Hospital ERs are required to take anyone regardless of ability to pay. Clinics and doctors' offices are not required to take anyone - they are free to discriminate in any way they choose, but for the most part they only discriminate on insurance.
Because of this the ER has become the primary doc for some uninsured people. It is a horribly expensive way to get treated for a cold and puts a strain on a service meant for life-threatening situations.
ACA was supposed to alleviate this problem by making health insurance accessible to everyone. The problem of course is that healthcare is still unaffordable so people are foregoing insurance. But that is not the problem with ACA, or the fault of insurance companies. The fact is, it costs the US $3 trillion for healthcare every year. That is $10,000 per person. Since insurance is cost-sharing, we should all expect to pay about $10,000/year in premiums. Eliminating insurance companies won't make that cheaper - they are just a vehicle for paying that $3 trillion bill every year (they skim about 5% off the top for doing that). Healthcare providers are big businesses and they provide a very profitable service to a captive audience, and that is a huge contributing factor to the high cost of healthcare.
Competition should reduce costs, but it hasn't. The government has to step in and implement cost controls in the same way utilities are controlled by public oversight.
Bottom line: Universal Health Care is not sufficient, it has to be Affordable Universal Health Care.
Yes, but who will feed us? The lazy American's wont pick the food.
A problem with some of the farm industry is the lack of modern innovation and modern machines to replace workers. Eliminate the cheap (cheap to the farmer) labor and we would see innovation on the farms. Also, the farmers do have 11 different work visa programs to bring in legal labor.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,935,402 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
A problem with some of the farm industry is the lack of modern innovation and modern machines to replace workers. Eliminate the cheap (cheap to the farmer) labor and we would see innovation on the farms. Also, the farmers do have 11 different work visa programs to bring in legal labor.
The main fundamental issue is who shall decide the prices of services rendered by the healthcare system, the free market or the government.
I personally thing the government should, simply because healthcare is a necessity not a luxury and a price cannot be put on a life.
For all I care, drug companies, insurance companies, etc. are all out there to make a profit and can care less about the consumer's bottom line.
I would hope that in the near future, we would get universal healthcare, but more radical than medicare such that we're not "negotiating" with companies to get something since that won't work if there's only 1 buyer in the market.
We need to get the companies out of the mindset that they need to make the maximum profit as possible, pay their CEO millions, and give the biggest dividend possible to stockholders.
While we're at it, get rid of the entire medical insurance industry completely, we don't need the middleman.
In addition, people need to be smarter about their choices and educate themselves about how health works and not sue the doctor for everything that goes wrong.
That's just my 2 cents, but then again, what I think is common sense isn't so common to a lot of folks.
IMHO, yours is a valuable 2 cents. Your focus on 'prices of services' is laser sharp. After all, 'rent-seeking' behavior takes many forms; when government intervenes, lobbyists are paid to argue the libertarian case.
"Pearson: A large amount of higher overall hospital spending in the U.S. can be explained by services costing more in U.S. hospitals rather than because U.S. hospitals are delivering more services. When we look across a broad range of hospital services (both medical and surgical), the average price in the United States is 85 percent higher than the average in other OECD countries. To put this in perspective, a hospital stay in the United States costs over $18,000 on average. The countries that come closest to spending as much — Canada, the Netherlands, Japan — spend between $4,000 and $6,000 less per stay. Across OECD countries, the average cost of a hospital stay is about one-third that of the U.S., at $6,200.
As we have previously said, many OECD countries use strong regulation to set prices that hospitals can charge for different services, and some of them even set budgets for how much hospitals can spend. The quality of care delivered in hospitals in these countries are comparable to that in the U.S., and universities are still able to attract the best students to medicine.
If strict price control is not a path that the U.S. wishes to follow, an interesting example that the U.S. could learn from is Switzerland, ..."
Not correct. Hospital ERs are required to take anyone regardless of ability to pay. Clinics and doctors' offices are not required to take anyone - they are free to discriminate in any way they choose, but for the most part they only discriminate on insurance.
Because of this the ER has become the primary doc for some uninsured people. It is a horribly expensive way to get treated for a cold and puts a strain on a service meant for life-threatening situations.
ACA was supposed to alleviate this problem by making health insurance accessible to everyone. The problem of course is that healthcare is still unaffordable so people are foregoing insurance. But that is not the problem with ACA, or the fault of insurance companies. The fact is, it costs the US $3 trillion for healthcare every year. That is $10,000 per person. Since insurance is cost-sharing, we should all expect to pay about $10,000/year in premiums. Eliminating insurance companies won't make that cheaper - they are just a vehicle for paying that $3 trillion bill every year (they skim about 5% off the top for doing that). Healthcare providers are big businesses and they provide a very profitable service to a captive audience, and that is a huge contributing factor to the high cost of healthcare.
Competition should reduce costs, but it hasn't. The government has to step in and implement cost controls in the same way utilities are controlled by public oversight.
Bottom line: Universal Health Care is not sufficient, it has to be Affordable Universal Health Care.
Good post. I should have specified ERs.
You are 100% correct about the ACA. The only meaningful benefits it has brought are the elimination of the 'previous-condition' gotcha and the inexpensive -- often free -- access to preventive care.
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.
