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.
If you get a bad TV, the risk is not your life. Get bad medicine and you get cancer 10 years from now as a result. Its unrealistic to think that you can simply run someone out of town that does this so its no problem. You are just an ordinary person of limited means. In your system, the super rich will have all the cards, they will of course own the justice system as well, and pack the courts with corporate judges. And the media is in the hands of the elites as well. Shopping around for emergency care? You get in an accident, the ambulance will charge you no matter what. Its totally different than buying a TV. There is a reason why no developed country has such a system you are talking about. Its just an invitation for abuse and price gouging.
Okay well all that happens now and often govt steps in the way of a market based solution and protects the abusers. Your really hate gravity dont you?
Okay well all that happens now and often govt steps in the way of a market based solution and protects the abusers. Your really hate gravity dont you?
What are you talking about? We dont have a single payer system in America. In countries where they do have it, this type of abuse and price gouging is severely punished. You want a free-for-all system, with quackery,a deeply corrupt legal system owned by the super rich and price gouging desperate sick people on a massive scale. I simply dont believe this is palatable for the vast majority of Americans.
So rather than lower pricing and raise quality through increased market competition, your argument is to spend the same for the same poor services or less. You arent very good with numbers are you?
You dont spend the same with a single payer system. The rest of the world disagrees with that. We pay far more than any country in the world and we have the most privatized system.
Single payer is not the cure all. Contrary to what the socialists think. Elective surgery will be gone. No funding for plastic surgery. Expect deductibles and waits for doctor visits. Expect caps on how much you use.
It will only get worse.
You have cases in England where the government not only decides that it will not pay for continued care but it also forbids you to seek care elsewhere. Many Brits think this is justified for humanitarian reasons but I find it abhorrent.
You have cases in England where the government not only decides that it will not pay for continued care but it also forbids you to seek care elsewhere. Many Brits think this is justified for humanitarian reasons but I find it abhorrent.
Sounds like more scare mongering. Private options are available everywhere in countries with single payer systems. Are you talking about that case with the child in extreme pain, then its a totally different story and has nothing to do with single payer health care.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,177 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone
You have cases in England where the government not only decides that it will not pay for continued care but it also forbids you to seek care elsewhere. Many Brits think this is justified for humanitarian reasons but I find it abhorrent.
Total nonsense.
The UK only intervenes in cases involving children and those with no capacity.
If there is a treatment available elsewhere you are entitled to take the child, however their must be a credible treatment.
In some cases where the child is terminally ill and their is no treatment, then the suffering of the child is put first.
The UK adheres to international law and ECHR law in relation to the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
Sounds like more scare mongering. Private options are available everywhere in countries with single payer systems. Are you talking about that case with the child in extreme pain, then its a totally different story and has nothing to do with single payer health care.
You have cases in England where the government not only decides that it will not pay for continued care but it also forbids you to seek care elsewhere. Many Brits think this is justified for humanitarian reasons but I find it abhorrent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Total nonsense.
The UK only intervenes in cases involving children and those with no capacity.
If there is a treatment available elsewhere you are entitled to take the child, however their must be a credible treatment.
In some cases where the child is terminally ill and their is no treatment, then the suffering of the child is put first.
The UK adheres to international law and ECHR law in relation to the law.
I know the crown provided you with dozens of links to present in support of its position. Refer to the bolded.
Convince Americans to implement a regressive tax system like those countries have, and perhaps we can do it here.
And close the damned borders.
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.
