Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2015, 08:43 AM
 
428 posts, read 344,537 times
Reputation: 256

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Let me guess, you want the government to take care of other people because you do not want to do it yourself, correct?

There is not a single thing that prevents you from getting all of the people who feel the same as you together and fund clinics and hospitals to help those without proper medical access. It seems to be that doing so would mean that it would take action and money from you, and apparently, you are not inclined to do so.

That house you are living in has a lot of glass.
That's a point that people mostly ignore, and is quite reasonable to make.

By the same token, there's no reason that 100% inclusive public health systems couldn't be invented and run by a county or state. No need for national intervention required.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2015, 08:53 AM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,631,426 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and yet canada is progressively privatizing its healthcare region by region
If true, I would guess it would be due to the wait times.

In Canada 43% of their population must wait at least 4 weeks to see a specialist; whereas, only 10% of the US must wait that long. ( Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

If you have private insurance in the US, you tend to get medical care faster and with more flexibility than in Canada.

When you look at the statistics where Canada delivers a better product, it occurs when you are including people in the US without private medical insurance and people on government insurance programs. When you do a direct comparison between the people using private insurance in the US versus the Canadian system, the US wins on practically everything except costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 08:56 AM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,631,426 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aunt Maude View Post
That's a point that people mostly ignore, and is quite reasonable to make.

By the same token, there's no reason that 100% inclusive public health systems couldn't be invented and run by a county or state. No need for national intervention required.
Understood, but there's no reason that 100% inclusive food and housing systems couldn't be run by the government. We could have the government responsible for allotting all food and housing to guarantee that everyone has the same access to both and it is distributed equally. I just don't want to live in such systems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 08:56 AM
 
428 posts, read 344,537 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
When you look at the statistics where Canada delivers a better product, it occurs when you are including people in the US without private medical insurance and people on government insurance programs.

An issue that people rather gingerly tiptoe around is whether it is moral to be able to buy superior healthcare, or should everyone receive the same level of quality.

My guess is that there's a strong emotional tie to one side or the other which results in designing a model which supports it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,659,569 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
ok...lets run with that number

6k per person

6k times 320 million is 1,920,000,000,000( 1.9 trillion)

that also saying that the ONLY cost would be 6k per person... so you would be LIMITED to 6k of care

the MAIN source of us revenue is income tax

the fact is less than 80 million people pay taxes... and the COST of 1.9 trillion divide by 80 million still works out to about 24k per taxpayer

ONTOP of all their other costs
According to your 'math' every taxpayer pays $40K into healthcare today, which would make single payer a bargain.

Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 04-23-2015 at 09:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 09:52 AM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,631,426 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aunt Maude View Post
An issue that people rather gingerly tiptoe around is whether it is moral to be able to buy superior healthcare, or should everyone receive the same level of quality.

My guess is that there's a strong emotional tie to one side or the other which results in designing a model which supports it.
Personally, I see no moral issue with people being able to purchase superior healthcare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 09:59 AM
 
18,805 posts, read 8,479,367 times
Reputation: 4131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aunt Maude View Post
An issue that people rather gingerly tiptoe around is whether it is moral to be able to buy superior healthcare, or should everyone receive the same level of quality.

My guess is that there's a strong emotional tie to one side or the other which results in designing a model which supports it.
Another reason I still support a public option vs single payer. A public option could include Medicare and the Medicaids. But we would still have private options for those desiring and affording. And docs could still go private if they so desire. I don't desire (yet), and I am a doc.

IMO 'superior' HC might include non-approved and/or non-essential treatments. And possibly Concierge type arrangements. Standard care should be the medical standard of care, and more typically quite appropriate and satisfactory care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 10:01 AM
 
18,805 posts, read 8,479,367 times
Reputation: 4131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
According to your 'math' every taxpayer pays $40K into healthcare today, which would make single payer a bargain.
Of course we don't.

The Federal Gov't creates money through deficit spending on programs like Medicare. The future simply has to hold more of our HC covered by new money. There will be no other sensible way, barring some sorts of medical miracles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top