Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Canada's health-care lottery

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 3:53:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Many people in the US dream of hitting the lottery, and of all the freedom the jackpot would allow. In Canada, people dream of hitting the lottery too, but their aspirations are more down-to-earth … like finally getting a doctor. "

http://hotair.com...
(Video)

Lol, this is hilarious.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 6:19:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's great isn't it? Universal healthcare! It provides for everyone~
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 7:03:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Granted rural areas like Norwood don't have enough access to family physicians, which is definitely a problem; did you not at all notice though, that a) this is still free, and is still government provided, and that if this didn't exist, the same issue would still exist, and; b) they still noted that emergency health services were always on hand, no matter the situation, without any cost.

Now, I've always admitted the issues with public health care, and I'm also in favour of two-tier, but you're still missing the major points here; these people didn't give a rousing endorsement of any private sector care, they just said there was issues that had to be addressed, which is true. But, regardless of this, they don't have to pay for their care; if they have a child that is dying, they aren't shoved to the back of the row simply because they cannot pay upfront; if they have a disease for which they need major medical care for, they're not left behind nor forced to sell their house; just because some residents aren't able to get standard check-ups right away does not mean the system does not work.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 7:08:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 7:03:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
a) this is still free, and is still government provided...

Wuh...huh.. ????

Where did government get that money? $25,000 for four families, that's ridulous.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 7:13:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 7:08:29 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/3/2009 7:03:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
a) this is still free, and is still government provided...

Wuh...huh.. ????

Where did government get that money? $25,000 for four families, that's ridulous.

Where do you think they got the money? Trees? What kind of question is this?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 7:15:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 7:13:17 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/3/2009 7:08:29 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/3/2009 7:03:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
a) this is still free, and is still government provided...

Wuh...huh.. ????

Where did government get that money? $25,000 for four families, that's ridulous.

Where do you think they got the money? Trees? What kind of question is this?

Technically, the money did come from trees....

Anyhow,
- Saying it's free is ignoring the vast amount of taxes paid.

Also, families not having a physician under UHC is unacceptable.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 7:23:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 7:15:19 PM, Nags wrote:
Technically, the money did come from trees....

Anyhow,
- Saying it's free is ignoring the vast amount of taxes paid.

It is free in the aspect that there is no upfront cost.

Also, families not having a physician under UHC is unacceptable.

Maybe if you're an idealist. Pragmatists know that it is hard to get adequate coverage for everyone, and that wait times are expected; but the areas where wait times are most prevalent are ones for occasional visits to family doctors and elective surgery, and not for compulsory and emergency services.

Besides, if it is unacceptable for UHC to not have coverage for all families, then how is it acceptable for private healthcare to have it? I mean, at least with UHC, needed services where you cannot wait are provided, while with private care you must pay regardless. What is better; actually getting the service, or not getting the service at all?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 7:28:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 7:23:10 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/3/2009 7:15:19 PM, Nags wrote:
Technically, the money did come from trees....

Anyhow,
- Saying it's free is ignoring the vast amount of taxes paid.

It is free in the aspect that there is no upfront cost.

If it makes you feel better that the money lost shows up on your taxes rather than your credit card bill...

Also, families not having a physician under UHC is unacceptable.

Maybe if you're an idealist. Pragmatists know that it is hard to get adequate coverage for everyone, and that wait times are expected; but the areas where wait times are most prevalent are ones for occasional visits to family doctors and elective surgery, and not for compulsory and emergency services.

I wouldn't call it idealism to expect everyone to be covered under UHC, after all, that is the definition.

Besides, if it is unacceptable for UHC to not have coverage for all families, then how is it acceptable for private healthcare to have it? I mean, at least with UHC, needed services where you cannot wait are provided, while with private care you must pay regardless. What is better; actually getting the service, or not getting the service at all?

Actually getting the service is better obviously. Which supports the cause of private health care. If your willing to pay, you can get whatever you want, which is fair. I do not want to pay for another person's heart surgery, I really could care less. What is better; actually getting the service and paying money, or not getting the service at all until you win a lottery?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 7:35:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 7:28:15 PM, Nags wrote:
If it makes you feel better that the money lost shows up on your taxes rather than your credit card bill...

It does, because I know that money is going to good use, and I won't have to enter into debt, lose my home, or be denied service based on the fact that I can't pay.

I wouldn't call it idealism to expect everyone to be covered under UHC, after all, that is the definition.

It is idealism, but there is definitely issues; pragmatists know that you can only do so much as to cover the basic and most important needs, like emergency and compulsory care. Elective care you'll have to wait for, and while that is a tragedy (a tragedy that, thanks to some excellent government initiatives is starting to reverse, as 75% of all elective surgeries are done in adequate time), it is not life-threatening.

Actually getting the service is better obviously. Which supports the cause of private health care. If your willing to pay, you can get whatever you want, which is fair. I do not want to pay for another person's heart surgery, I really could care less. What is better; actually getting the service and paying money, or not getting the service at all until you win a lottery?

Something like heart surgery is an emergency or compulsory care, and is treated ASAP; and I agree that those with the ability to pay and the want to pay should be allowed to, because that also takes pressure off of the public system.

But you're just assuming someone has the ability to pay. A lot of people don't, and if you don't care, that is fine; the government does care, and will use taxes to make sure those that can't pay do receive their services. It isn't your job to care, but it is the government's; and the government has a duty to all citizens, not just your whims.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 7:43:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 7:35:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
It does, because I know that money is going to good use, and I won't have to enter into debt, lose my home, or be denied service based on the fact that I can't pay.

I personally trust my own money-management skills rather than the governments.

Elective care you'll have to wait for, and while that is a tragedy (a tragedy that, thanks to some excellent government initiatives is starting to reverse, as 75% of all elective surgeries are done in adequate time), it is not life-threatening.

75% Universal Health Care. Wonderful!
>You get health care. You get health care. You get health care. Not you.
-3 out of 4 is not good.

Something like heart surgery is an emergency or compulsory care, and is treated ASAP;

Same in the US.

and I agree that those with the ability to pay and the want to pay should be allowed to, because that also takes pressure off of the public system.

A public option would undoubtedly lead to a monopoly. Just like medicare started off competing with private health care, but now it has a monopoly. Governments do not have to worry about making profits or going into debt unlike private companies.

But you're just assuming someone has the ability to pay. A lot of people don't, and if you don't care, that is fine; the government does care, and will use taxes to make sure those that can't pay do receive their services. It isn't your job to care, but it is the government's; and the government has a duty to all citizens, not just your whims.

Well, obviously we have a fundamental difference in opinion. You have the opinion that forced labor (taxes) is OK, while I think the opposite. Sure, limited taxation is necesarry, but not the amount at which the US or Canada is taxing as of now.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 7:55:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 7:43:56 PM, Nags wrote:
I personally trust my own money-management skills rather than the governments.

Are you a trained accountant? I mean, as far as I know most people hand their money over to accountants and let them deal with it... I see no difference. It isn't as if the government will hire any Tom, Dick or Harry to handle your money.

Then again, we did elect Stephen Harper...

75% Universal Health Care. Wonderful!
>You get health care. You get health care. You get health care. Not you.
-3 out of 4 is not good.

Are you purposely being dense?

75% of all elective surgeries are able to be performed in adequate time... I never said that the other 25% were denied care, and I specifically said that compulsory and emergency care was guaranteed no matter what.

Same in the US.

It is? So, when someone is in need of heart surgery, they don't have to pay?

A public option would undoubtedly lead to a monopoly. Just like medicare started off competing with private health care, but now it has a monopoly. Governments do not have to worry about making profits or going into debt unlike private companies.

Basically what you're saying is that the presence of a public option will lead to a monopoly; but that people do want the option to pay for their own care.

That doesn't make sense, because if people elect to use the public option even though the presence of the private option exists for them, then its clear they don't want to use the private option.

I'm of the mind that if people want to use the private option over the public option, they will. I mean, it makes sense that they will, because they will use the private option to get elective care faster than they will with the public option. The presence of the public option could in fact spur on the use of private care for elective services for that very reason.

Well, obviously we have a fundamental difference in opinion. You have the opinion that forced labor (taxes) is OK, while I think the opposite. Sure, limited taxation is necesarry, but not the amount at which the US or Canada is taxing as of now.

It appears we agree to disagree, which is fine.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2009 10:11:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 3:53:43 PM, Nags wrote:
"Many people in the US dream of hitting the lottery, and of all the freedom the jackpot would allow. In Canada, people dream of hitting the lottery too, but their aspirations are more down-to-earth … like finally getting a doctor. "

http://hotair.com...
(Video)

Lol, this is hilarious.

He puts the nail on the head when he says that this is how bad it can get when the government takes the decisions. Completely true. But in a public insurance system, the government doesn't need to take the decisions. They only decide how much to pay, that's it.

I think Canadas system doesn't allow doctors to charge more than what the government says they should charge? Is that correct? If so, then that is a major problem.
So prove me wrong, then.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 3:13:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/3/2009 7:55:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/3/2009 7:43:56 PM, Nags wrote:
I personally trust my own money-management skills rather than the governments.

Are you a trained accountant? I mean, as far as I know most people hand their money over to accountants and let them deal with it... I see no difference. It isn't as if the government will hire any Tom, Dick or Harry to handle your money.

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
--Thomas Sowell

I don't want government officials who don't really care about cost handling my money.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 3:15:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/4/2009 3:13:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/3/2009 7:55:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/3/2009 7:43:56 PM, Nags wrote:
I personally trust my own money-management skills rather than the governments.

Are you a trained accountant? I mean, as far as I know most people hand their money over to accountants and let them deal with it... I see no difference. It isn't as if the government will hire any Tom, Dick or Harry to handle your money.

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
--Thomas Sowell

I don't want government officials who don't really care about cost handling my money.

Yeah, the government has very well-trained accounts. The government is just trillions and trillions and debt. What's $11 trillion among friends anyway?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 3:39:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/4/2009 3:13:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
--Thomas Sowell

I don't want government officials who don't really care about cost handling my money.

"Who pay no price for being wrong"? Then I assume John McCain is the current President. Then again, American voters kicked out a party that actually did something right with your finances for once, and voted an incompetent buffoon in twice who ballooned the deficit and debt with neo-con spending and a faulty war or two.

Yeah, I can see why you don't trust them anymore.

regebro said:
I think Canadas system doesn't allow doctors to charge more than what the government says they should charge? Is that correct? If so, then that is a major problem.

As far as I know, specialists are allowed to charge whatever they want, especially specialists that charge for services outside of what the system covers - elective plastic surgery, for instance. I do think that general practitioners are only allowed to charge up to the amount the government sets, but I've heard that it is fairly loose in its restrictions as well. They're mainly designed to keep costs uniform.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 3:41:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh yeah, Canadian doctors are really happy with their pay. That's why they're coming over to the USA. Right, Volkov? They enjoy getting paid 70% of what American doctors are paid.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 3:43:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/4/2009 3:39:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
As far as I know, specialists are allowed to charge whatever they want, especially specialists that charge for services outside of what the system covers - elective plastic surgery, for instance.

Well. DUH. Obviously we are talking about withing the system here.

(Howerver, the lottery doesn't seem to be for specialists.)

I do think that general practitioners are only allowed to charge up to the amount the government sets, but I've heard that it is fairly loose in its restrictions as well. They're mainly designed to keep costs uniform.

OK, so maybe that's not the problem, then.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 3:48:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/4/2009 3:41:36 PM, Nags wrote:
Oh yeah, Canadian doctors are really happy with their pay. That's why they're coming over to the USA. Right, Volkov? They enjoy getting paid 70% of what American doctors are paid.

I never said that they were happy with their pay, and I believe I've said in a post or another thread that this is a big issue that we have to tackle, just like the lack of adequate service in rural areas is another issue that must be addressed.

I don't know enough about the effect of cost capping to say whether or not it should be taken off in order to keep more doctors here; but I do know that there is many incentives to help keep doctors in this country, eg. better employment availability (meaning that doctors are always needed, and that employment is certain guaranteed somewhere) due to the fact that the government can better place doctors in areas where there is need for their services.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 3:53:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/4/2009 3:43:15 PM, regebro wrote:
Well. DUH. Obviously we are talking about withing the system here.

(Howerver, the lottery doesn't seem to be for specialists.)

No, the lottery is for a GP, and the fact that Norwood is in a rural area means that a lot of GP's don't get out there. Why this is is because there probably isn't as much pay or incentive to get out there as there would be for a doctor to work in a larger metro center like Toronto.

It is an issue that we're tackling bit by bit; the government of Ontario, for instance, has completed a new medical school in northern Ontario which is designed to train doctors within the area and send them out to these rural towns. I'm not sure if this is something Ontario was doing, but there has also been talk about forgiving some student debts as an incentive for doctors to work at least five years out in a rural community.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 4:00:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/4/2009 3:39:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/4/2009 3:13:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
--Thomas Sowell

I don't want government officials who don't really care about cost handling my money.

"Who pay no price for being wrong"? Then I assume John McCain is the current President. Then again, American voters kicked out a party that actually did something right with your finances for once, and voted an incompetent buffoon in twice who ballooned the deficit and debt with neo-con spending and a faulty war or two.

Yeah, I can see why you don't trust them anymore.

Basically, it's a problem in ALL monopoly governments. Another victory for panarchism.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 4:01:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/4/2009 4:00:11 PM, mongeese wrote:
Basically, it's a problem in ALL monopoly governments. Another victory for panarchism.

How could someone in favor of John McCain be in favor of panarchism?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 4:03:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/4/2009 4:00:11 PM, mongeese wrote:
Basically, it's a problem in ALL monopoly governments. Another victory for panarchism.

Ah yes, panarchism - allowing individuals the free choice to be their own authority or not.

Because somehow, humans are good economists by themselves.

Let me ask you this, mongeese; if I had 10 dollars, and I was told I had to share it with you, but I only offered you one dollar, would you take it?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2009 4:06:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/4/2009 4:01:25 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/4/2009 4:00:11 PM, mongeese wrote:
Basically, it's a problem in ALL monopoly governments. Another victory for panarchism.

How could someone in favor of John McCain be in favor of panarchism?

I really don't understand him sometimes...
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.