Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KeithHernandez]

I am socially liberal, like as far as you can be, because I think that that is freedom.  I mean, that makes sense to me.

I used to call myself a communist, and I am still drawn to it, but I don't think any of us actually believe there is a system that is perfect.  We each have opinions on what are better, but really, they are all bullshit.  People will always suffer cause adam ate that apple, don't you remember?  But seriously, I think I am a libertarian now, because hey, either that works and it is good or we are in a much better system for communism to occur, which is what I want.  Then again, any of you people heard about Denver or San Francisco before city owned trash and other similar services?  Pretty shitty.  Basically what I am saying is I am confused but agree with lfm that without compassion we have nothing.

[Doc]

The thing I don't get whenever I hear this argument in your country is that all sides seem to act like universal healthcare means a binary choice between having healthcare provided by (incompetent, wasteful) government or (greedy, untrustworthy) corporations. In my country I can go to a doctor or a dentist or physio or whatever and get half to the majority to all of my fees paid back by the gubmint through medicare. How much I get back depends on where I go, if I go see my local (reasonably up-market) dentist I might have to pay more out of my own pocket but I can get a quicker appointment and more personal service because I know him.
For ages I had private insurance through my parents and so I could get all my money back and probably be covered for more optional treatments than medicare would cover but of course I (or at least, my parents) had to pay insurance premiums.

My point is this: Uninsured or insured in this country you will still get healthcare at most levels, the difference is that if you've got insurance you know you'll always have the extra cash if you want to get a private room in a hospital, see that dentist tomorrow instead of next week etc. etc. though of course if you have the cash in your back pocket you can still get the same level of treatment without insurance. So why do you act over there like you either have to pay unreasonable insurance companies OR have minimum-level service for everyone? The government paying for a reasonable level of healthcare does not mean that private enterprise has no place in the healthcare system to provide better treatment for those who are willing to pay for it.

I also get the feeling that insurance premiums are much higher over there than they are over here and I suspect the reason for this is that the insurance companies here have to offer value that can compete with the basic level of care offered by the government whereas for in american you must to be insured unless you want to go the emergency room everytime you need some antibiotics for a rash (this is my vague understanding, please correct gently if I'm wrong). If the insurance companies don't feel like competing too hard with each other on price then there's no (or at least distorted) market pressure to drive the price down because not having insurance isn't a reasonable option for many people.
It would be interesting (to me at least) if people popped their details in here (one of the major health insurers down here) to see what a rough comparison would be between what insurance costs there and here.

Edit: This was too long so I bolded the one sentence where I actually made a point. Please don't think I'm yelling on the internet.

[KeithHernandez]

That is the part I remind people about often.

[wombat]

The thing I don't get whenever I hear this argument in your country is that all sides seem to act like universal healthcare means a binary choice between having healthcare provided by (incompetent, wasteful) government or (greedy, untrustworthy) corporations. In my country

I'm afraid that what you don't get is that basically we don't know your country exists, so we're not even considering this as an option. Not that we do a good job of looking outside our borders to learn things, of course.  But I've never heard Australia mentioned in this debate anywhere and it's too bad, because that seems like the kind of system that would satisfy both sides.

[Arachno-capitalist]

What?!  A middle ground compromise? Youre outta youre flipping mind, aussie! Dont you know youre either with us or youre with the terrorists?

[Arachno-capitalist]

Now, the more important race: If the beagle wins Westminster tonight, I have to get up tomorrow morning and start trying to turn in a story about it by the end of the day.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_sp_ot/dog_show_24
ALL HAIL THE PERFECT DOG

[wombat]

I would not have voted for a beagle.  But that's Westminster - the team I am rooting for never wins.

[jay-ell]

Really? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/12/autism-scoc.html

I'm calling bullshit on this one. 

First and foremost, the families here aren't trying to get these therapies covered by medical insurance, they're appealing to the school system to offer it in public schools.  Second, their objection is not that there is no therapy available, merely that they don't like the one that's provided for free.  Third, I don't know a single parent of an autistic child (and i know plenty, believe me) whose child's therapy is paid for completely by any single source -- be that the public schools, private medical insurance, or the parent's own pocket.  My son is one of the lucky few who gets the vast majority of his needs met by our county infant-toddler program (at least until he turns 3 next week).  But we have excellent private insurance, and they don't cover dick because autism isn't considered a medical condition.  (It falls into that vague area of "mental health," and even on the fringes of that.)  And with 1 in 150 kids now being diagnosed with autism, most of them under the age of 5, it saves the insurance companies a bundle to let the schools (which we all pay for) handle it. 

Try again, cappy.  This orange isn't really helping your case against apples. 

[lprkn]

I guess the whole thing with waiting in line is that sometimes it can be a life or death proposition. Since the government (nominally) wants to save money, too, they do not cover rare proceadures or treatments related to rare conditions. My Canadian aunt had her cancer treatments done in the states because she would have had to wait too long for treatment in Canada. (I don't know exactly what kind of cancer, I think it was female-issue related)

[AugustWest]

Mongo.

Mongo only pawn in game of life.

[Arachno-capitalist]

Try again, cappy.  This orange isn't really helping your case against apples. 

I was posting a link in response to LFMs assertion that everything is perfect once the government runs things.

[Carlos del Vaca]

I was posting a link in response to LFMs assertion that everything is perfect once the government runs things.

Where did he say this?  Quote him.

[AlohaDawg]

Where did he say this?  Quote him.

OK, time to take two steps back. This is how is starts!!

For the record: that Government which governs best, governs least.

There is a place for government as a safety net, but those of us with the wherewithal to obtain health care through our own agency independent of the government should still be allowed the degree of choice and quality we now enjoy. It's not all luck that makes this possible for us. To raise our taxes to a great degree, and then rewarding us with no choice or quality of care would be as criminal an act as the utter neglect of people without these options.  Just as basic education is a right, so should basic health care be - but it's important to distinguish what 'basic' health care is.

As for the question of whether anyone is satisfied with their current health care...I am. Very satisfied, and I also enjoy excellent vision and dental coverage as well.

I don't think we can relegate health care to Individual states - most states would not be able to afford it, and you would have people moving to states specifically for the health care. This will drive costs for the program up; in most cases the people that would be attracted would not contribute to the payment for the program significantly.  Such programs usually collapse under their own weight in short order or are forced to reduce offerings or adopt and enforce restrictions.

Besides Asherdan and Spider-MiltonFriedman, does anyone here have a reason to be happy with America as it is right now? Which candidate do you think is most likely to continue or increase your happiness?

I think my number one issue is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I think a lot of other things, including some major foreign policy items, would be to some degree affected or solved if we could declare energy independence. So energy policy is huge, and the economy is huge right now as well. I don't think the next president is going to solve these problems, or really, any of the others discussed in this thread, though, unless the congress, courts, and the executive branch all work together.

And I don't think that is going to happen.

[AugustWest]

I think my number one issue is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I think a lot of other things, including some major foreign policy items, would be to some degree affected or solved if we could declare energy independence. So energy policy is huge, and the economy is huge right now as well.

Amen Brother!  I agree with you 100% here.

I don't think the next president is going to solve these problems, or really, any of the others discussed in this thread, though, unless the congress, courts, and the executive branch all work together.

I'd go even farther and say that nothing significant is going to happen until the populous at large wakes up and recognizes it as a problem.  Lots of us give lip service to reducing our oil use, but how many of us really make the changes it would take (e.g. taking public transport, car-pooling, investing in alternate heating systems for our homes, etc.)  I include myself in that category.  It's going to be an extremely difficult change to make, but it must come from the ground up.

Also, when the big energy companies figure out how they can make comparable profits from alternative source of energy (or realize that oil profits are drying up), things will change blindingly fast.  In that vein, I think it's encouraging to see the CEO of BP talking about the long-term future of his company being focused away from oil.  I'm aware of the source and take that kind of talk with a huge grain of salt, of course, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

[Doc]

What?!  A middle ground compromise? Youre outta youre flipping mind, aussie! Dont you know youre either with us or youre with the terrorists?

To be fair this middle ground was basically accomplished by having about a decade of strong labor government (say, your democrats with a heavy union focus) building up free healthcare followed by a decade of strong liberal government (basically republicans but with less focus on social conservatism) trying to dismantle it and shift focus to private coverage. Just got to keep the yin-yang in balance.