Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The Wonderous Canadian Health Care System

ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 4:19:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When there is no price system derived from market activities there is means of rationally allocating scarce resources in capital goods industries. When there is a shortage on the market, the price goes up and it's a signal for entrepreneurs to produce more. In the statist system you have to hope that some government planner is omniscient enough to consider your needs. Socialized medicine is retarded and it leads to people dying while they wait for help.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 10:10:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The truth is that population- wide health outcomes are better in almost every developed country than they are in the US, by just about any measure (okay, maybe our dental health is relatively good). For every anecdote about the horrors of wait lists, rationing of care, inefficiencies, waste, etc, that you can find in Countries with single payer systems, you can find many more stories of people's harrowing experiences in the US health system. The US has the best healthcare in the world for those with the money or the generous insurance policies to afford it. And don't even try to pretend that the US health system is anything like a free (ie, competitive) market. Most health services do not have a market price - insurers may negotiate what they reimburse but an uninsured person often cannot even find out how expensive his/her care will be before s/he receives it, and s/he will invariably be charged much more than an insurer will actually pay, often with an expectation by the healthcare provider that the uninsured patient will not be able to pay it.
sleuth
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 11:04:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 10:10:59 PM, rockwater wrote:
The truth is that population- wide health outcomes are better in almost every developed country than they are in the US, by just about any measure (okay, maybe our dental health is relatively good). For every anecdote about the horrors of wait lists, rationing of care, inefficiencies, waste, etc, that you can find in Countries with single payer systems, you can find many more stories of people's harrowing experiences in the US health system. The US has the best healthcare in the world for those with the money or the generous insurance policies to afford it. And don't even try to pretend that the US health system is anything like a free (ie, competitive) market. Most health services do not have a market price - insurers may negotiate what they reimburse but an uninsured person often cannot even find out how expensive his/her care will be before s/he receives it, and s/he will invariably be charged much more than an insurer will actually pay, often with an expectation by the healthcare provider that the uninsured patient will not be able to pay it.

Not true.
http://www.nber.org...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 11:14:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 4:19:43 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The first thing Canadian politicians do when they get sick is fly to the states.

LOL
Buddy do you even live in Canada?
No we don't and even if we did, our own health insurance would cover it anyways!
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 11:14:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 4:19:43 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The first thing Canadian politicians do when they get sick is fly to the states.

So glad to hear a Canadian say this. I've heard Canadian-American immigrants say it, but the fact they immigrated to America kind of discredits them.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 11:16:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 4:19:13 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
When there is no price system derived from market activities there is means of rationally allocating scarce resources in capital goods industries. When there is a shortage on the market, the price goes up and it's a signal for entrepreneurs to produce more. In the statist system you have to hope that some government planner is omniscient enough to consider your needs. Socialized medicine is retarded and it leads to people dying while they wait for help.

Lie, lie, lie.

They do not leave people "waiting for help" as you put it. It's done on a needs assessment basis. The dude who got shot and is rushed in the emergency room is taken care of long before little timmy with a cough gets to see the doctor. And at most your wait is 4 hours (non-serious) right away (serious)

And needs are taken care of fine. The system you preach wouldn't cover everyone, it would still leave some excluded, ours doesn't.
Thank you for voting!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 11:25:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 11:16:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:19:13 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
When there is no price system derived from market activities there is means of rationally allocating scarce resources in capital goods industries. When there is a shortage on the market, the price goes up and it's a signal for entrepreneurs to produce more. In the statist system you have to hope that some government planner is omniscient enough to consider your needs. Socialized medicine is retarded and it leads to people dying while they wait for help.

Lie, lie, lie.

They do not leave people "waiting for help" as you put it. It's done on a needs assessment basis. The dude who got shot and is rushed in the emergency room is taken care of long before little timmy with a cough gets to see the doctor. And at most your wait is 4 hours (non-serious) right away (serious)

And needs are taken care of fine. The system you preach wouldn't cover everyone, it would still leave some excluded, ours doesn't.

For some reason this is how I imagine your reaction to Zak.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 12:13:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 11:16:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:19:13 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
When there is no price system derived from market activities there is means of rationally allocating scarce resources in capital goods industries. When there is a shortage on the market, the price goes up and it's a signal for entrepreneurs to produce more. In the statist system you have to hope that some government planner is omniscient enough to consider your needs. Socialized medicine is retarded and it leads to people dying while they wait for help.

Lie, lie, lie.

They do not leave people "waiting for help" as you put it. It's done on a needs assessment basis. The dude who got shot and is rushed in the emergency room is taken care of long before little timmy with a cough gets to see the doctor. And at most your wait is 4 hours (non-serious) right away (serious)

And needs are taken care of fine. The system you preach wouldn't cover everyone, it would still leave some excluded, ours doesn't.

Your system is a system based on force (ours is too). The system I support would be based on voluntary exchanges.

If someone is in dire need of medical attention, they should be able to go to a hospital and get care. That is basic human decency, and we shouldn't need a state to put a gun to our heads to do that.

This is why we have things like non profit hospitals, non profit insurance groups, etc. That, not a state based on force, should be the support system for those truly needy.

We should also have competitive for profit hospitals as an option. You might hate the profit motive, but the fact is that it is to thank for most innovation.

Competition and incentives lead to the best outcomes for consumers. I would much rather have a system of high quality, voluntary based health care than a crumbling, dinosaur like, bureacratic disaster like the systems in Canada, the UK, and the USA.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 12:47:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 12:13:10 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/12/2013 11:16:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:19:13 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
When there is no price system derived from market activities there is means of rationally allocating scarce resources in capital goods industries. When there is a shortage on the market, the price goes up and it's a signal for entrepreneurs to produce more. In the statist system you have to hope that some government planner is omniscient enough to consider your needs. Socialized medicine is retarded and it leads to people dying while they wait for help.

Lie, lie, lie.

They do not leave people "waiting for help" as you put it. It's done on a needs assessment basis. The dude who got shot and is rushed in the emergency room is taken care of long before little timmy with a cough gets to see the doctor. And at most your wait is 4 hours (non-serious) right away (serious)

And needs are taken care of fine. The system you preach wouldn't cover everyone, it would still leave some excluded, ours doesn't.

Your system is a system based on force (ours is too). The system I support would be based on voluntary exchanges.

Oh boy .. yes because the state puts a gun to our heads to check our pulse .. you're an idiot already ... what logic are you displaying!

If someone is in dire need of medical attention, they should be able to go to a hospital and get care. That is basic human decency, and we shouldn't need a state to put a gun to our heads to do that.

....we have that .. where are you going with this?

This is why we have things like non profit hospitals, non profit insurance groups, etc. That, not a state based on force, should be the support system for those truly needy.

....I already addressed this, they do not have enough resources to cover everyone nor do they get the quality of care.... try again ..

We should also have competitive for profit hospitals as an option. You might hate the profit motive, but the fact is that it is to thank for most innovation.

...we did ... it costed the US 26k lives per year ... http://www.reuters.com...

also, I was reading a book and it had a good point: your arguing in favor for the free-market. What free-market is in the healthcare industry? Prescriptions? Bout it, you don't have a choice in "buying" your life, nor your health (which is required for a free-market), and we treat those without insurance even though it robs them of everything. That's not a choice. THAT'S force, and its force due to the tyranny of this pseudo-free market you preached. Been there ..done that .. didn't work .. either we forewarn a patient of the costs per procedure before the operation (which is impossible/illogical for those unconscious in emergency situations) or we don;t and treat them anyways, we treat them anyways due to the law, doctors ethics, and because we're not barbaric. Next!

Competition and incentives lead to the best outcomes for consumers. I would much rather have a system of high quality, voluntary based health care than a crumbling, dinosaur like, bureacratic disaster like the systems in Canada, the UK, and the USA.

....Those systems in the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, Findland, Sweden, all have universal care of some form or another. They all pay less per GDP than the US, cover far more, and even better have higher quality care. What bureaucratic disaster? Your system literally costed lives. No thank you you brute! What barbarism!

What kind of country doesn't care for all her citizens? Put in all that work, pay all those taxes, and the fact that the government wants to check your pulse before they check your pocket-book is somehow absurd to you? We do work for the state, I think this is the least were entitled to. And yes, I did say entitled!
Thank you for voting!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:36:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 12:47:25 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/13/2013 12:13:10 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/12/2013 11:16:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:19:13 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
When there is no price system derived from market activities there is means of rationally allocating scarce resources in capital goods industries. When there is a shortage on the market, the price goes up and it's a signal for entrepreneurs to produce more. In the statist system you have to hope that some government planner is omniscient enough to consider your needs. Socialized medicine is retarded and it leads to people dying while they wait for help.

Lie, lie, lie.

They do not leave people "waiting for help" as you put it. It's done on a needs assessment basis. The dude who got shot and is rushed in the emergency room is taken care of long before little timmy with a cough gets to see the doctor. And at most your wait is 4 hours (non-serious) right away (serious)

And needs are taken care of fine. The system you preach wouldn't cover everyone, it would still leave some excluded, ours doesn't.

Your system is a system based on force (ours is too). The system I support would be based on voluntary exchanges.

Oh boy .. yes because the state puts a gun to our heads to check our pulse .. you're an idiot already ... what logic are you displaying!

Goodness, you've missed the point entirely, haven't you? He's not saying that the state puts guns to our heads to check our pulse. He's saying the state puts guns to our heads to force us to care for others. He's saying that caring for others should be regarded as a basic tenet of human dignity, yes, but not one enforced through the threat of violence.

If someone is in dire need of medical attention, they should be able to go to a hospital and get care. That is basic human decency, and we shouldn't need a state to put a gun to our heads to do that.

....we have that .. where are you going with this?

Only by way of threats of violence to the contrary.

This is why we have things like non profit hospitals, non profit insurance groups, etc. That, not a state based on force, should be the support system for those truly needy.

....I already addressed this, they do not have enough resources to cover everyone nor do they get the quality of care.... try again ..

And why do you think that is? Because last time I checked many private ventures don't work out due specifically to state intervention and interference.

We should also have competitive for profit hospitals as an option. You might hate the profit motive, but the fact is that it is to thank for most innovation.

...we did ... it costed the US 26k lives per year ... http://www.reuters.com...

also, I was reading a book and it had a good point: your arguing in favor for the free-market. What free-market is in the healthcare industry? Prescriptions? Bout it, you don't have a choice in "buying" your life, nor your health (which is required for a free-market), and we treat those without insurance even though it robs them of everything. That's not a choice. THAT'S force, and its force due to the tyranny of this pseudo-free market you preached. Been there ..done that .. didn't work .. either we forewarn a patient of the costs per procedure before the operation (which is impossible/illogical for those unconscious in emergency situations) or we don;t and treat them anyways, we treat them anyways due to the law, doctors ethics, and because we're not barbaric. Next!

Ugh, all I see here is an anti-capitalistic rant.

Okay, let's see here. I see you're going down the path that getting health insurance=buying your life, somehow? No.

There is always a choice in any given situation. A person can choose not to have health insurance and run the risk of getting ill or injured, sure. A person can also CHOOSE to get health insurance and be covered in the case of illness or injury. And even then, there is a WHOLE MARKET of choices for getting health insurance alone. Hell, many options are provided automatically if you work with a certain employer.

Competition and incentives lead to the best outcomes for consumers. I would much rather have a system of high quality, voluntary based health care than a crumbling, dinosaur like, bureacratic disaster like the systems in Canada, the UK, and the USA.

....Those systems in the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, Findland, Sweden, all have universal care of some form or another. They all pay less per GDP than the US, cover far more, and even better have higher quality care. What bureaucratic disaster? Your system literally costed lives. No thank you you brute! What barbarism!

You wanna try arguing your point without sounding like an immature child?

What kind of country doesn't care for all her citizens? Put in all that work, pay all those taxes, and the fact that the government wants to check your pulse before they check your pocket-book is somehow absurd to you? We do work for the state, I think this is the least were entitled to. And yes, I did say entitled!

A state is not there to "take care of" anyone. The state is there to protect the very basic liberties from being infringed upon, and to do so equally among the citizenry.

And no, we don't work for the state, that's probably the most bizarre statement I've heard all day. Unless you literally hold a government job, you DON'T work for the state, you work for yourself or for an employer. If you mean tax money, again, that's the funding for the protection of basic liberties, not funding to bankroll and assist a person's entire existence.

Of course, I could understand that statement appearing true in a situation where the government is set up to be so big that it "takes care of" everyone. However, it still is not.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 11:39:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 12:47:25 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/13/2013 12:13:10 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/12/2013 11:16:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:19:13 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
When there is no price system derived from market activities there is means of rationally allocating scarce resources in capital goods industries. When there is a shortage on the market, the price goes up and it's a signal for entrepreneurs to produce more. In the statist system you have to hope that some government planner is omniscient enough to consider your needs. Socialized medicine is retarded and it leads to people dying while they wait for help.

Lie, lie, lie.

They do not leave people "waiting for help" as you put it. It's done on a needs assessment basis. The dude who got shot and is rushed in the emergency room is taken care of long before little timmy with a cough gets to see the doctor. And at most your wait is 4 hours (non-serious) right away (serious)

And needs are taken care of fine. The system you preach wouldn't cover everyone, it would still leave some excluded, ours doesn't.

Your system is a system based on force (ours is too). The system I support would be based on voluntary exchanges.

Oh boy .. yes because the state puts a gun to our heads to check our pulse .. you're an idiot already ... what logic are you displaying!

Are you serious?!

You've entirely missed the point. The point is that the state puts a gun to our head to force us to care for others or pay for the care of others.


If someone is in dire need of medical attention, they should be able to go to a hospital and get care. That is basic human decency, and we shouldn't need a state to put a gun to our heads to do that.

....we have that .. where are you going with this?

You have a state that puts a gun to people's head and forces them to pay for it.


This is why we have things like non profit hospitals, non profit insurance groups, etc. That, not a state based on force, should be the support system for those truly needy.

....I already addressed this, they do not have enough resources to cover everyone nor do they get the quality of care.... try again ..

You do realize that non state markets have the highest quality of care and most efficient usage of resources.


We should also have competitive for profit hospitals as an option. You might hate the profit motive, but the fact is that it is to thank for most innovation.

...we did ... it costed the US 26k lives per year ... http://www.reuters.com...

also, I was reading a book and it had a good point: your arguing in favor for the free-market. What free-market is in the healthcare industry? Prescriptions? Bout it, you don't have a choice in "buying" your life, nor your health (which is required for a free-market), and we treat those without insurance even though it robs them of everything. That's not a choice. THAT'S force, and its force due to the tyranny of this pseudo-free market you preached. Been there ..done that .. didn't work .. either we forewarn a patient of the costs per procedure before the operation (which is impossible/illogical for those unconscious in emergency situations) or we don;t and treat them anyways, we treat them anyways due to the law, doctors ethics, and because we're not barbaric. Next!

Um. The USA does NOT have a free market in health care. And, yes, areas in USA health care that resemble a free market more like lazik eye surgery or cosmetic surgery see falling costs and rising quality.


Competition and incentives lead to the best outcomes for consumers. I would much rather have a system of high quality, voluntary based health care than a crumbling, dinosaur like, bureacratic disaster like the systems in Canada, the UK, and the USA.

....Those systems in the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, Findland, Sweden, all have universal care of some form or another. They all pay less per GDP than the US, cover far more, and even better have higher quality care. What bureaucratic disaster? Your system literally costed lives. No thank you you brute! What barbarism!

Actually, the quality of care is lower in those countries. The real problem in all of the systems (USA included) is lack of market forces.


What kind of country doesn't care for all her citizens? Put in all that work, pay all those taxes, and the fact that the government wants to check your pulse before they check your pocket-book is somehow absurd to you? We do work for the state, I think this is the least were entitled to. And yes, I did say entitled!

Okay. You're just a mindless statist idiot who has sucked in all the pro state propaganda you have heard.

Reality won't ever change your mind.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 12:04:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:36:02 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/13/2013 12:47:25 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/13/2013 12:13:10 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/12/2013 11:16:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:19:13 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
When there is no price system derived from market activities there is means of rationally allocating scarce resources in capital goods industries. When there is a shortage on the market, the price goes up and it's a signal for entrepreneurs to produce more. In the statist system you have to hope that some government planner is omniscient enough to consider your needs. Socialized medicine is retarded and it leads to people dying while they wait for help.

Lie, lie, lie.

They do not leave people "waiting for help" as you put it. It's done on a needs assessment basis. The dude who got shot and is rushed in the emergency room is taken care of long before little timmy with a cough gets to see the doctor. And at most your wait is 4 hours (non-serious) right away (serious)

And needs are taken care of fine. The system you preach wouldn't cover everyone, it would still leave some excluded, ours doesn't.

Your system is a system based on force (ours is too). The system I support would be based on voluntary exchanges.

Oh boy .. yes because the state puts a gun to our heads to check our pulse .. you're an idiot already ... what logic are you displaying!

Goodness, you've missed the point entirely, haven't you? He's not saying that the state puts guns to our heads to check our pulse. He's saying the state puts guns to our heads to force us to care for others. He's saying that caring for others should be regarded as a basic tenet of human dignity, yes, but not one enforced through the threat of violence.

First, thanks for the clarification, but he needs to be more clear
Second, what threat of violence? See again, that's the oddest argument I've ever herd "lets make hospitals available to everyone, which is mean't to heal a person while simultaneously claiming force through coercion" that argument makes no sense what so ever.

If someone is in dire need of medical attention, they should be able to go to a hospital and get care. That is basic human decency, and we shouldn't need a state to put a gun to our heads to do that.

....we have that .. where are you going with this?

Only by way of threats of violence to the contrary.

(see above)

This is why we have things like non profit hospitals, non profit insurance groups, etc. That, not a state based on force, should be the support system for those truly needy.

....I already addressed this, they do not have enough resources to cover everyone nor do they get the quality of care.... try again ..

And why do you think that is? Because last time I checked many private ventures don't work out due specifically to state intervention and interference.

First, because you completely ignore the fact that under this system previously, those "organizations" failed to cover 26 thousand Americans every year...barbaric.
Secondly, not even close. Last time you checked, most of you were b!tching about the bailout .. which saved Wallstreet. Though I agree they should have fallen, that was a state policy that saved them. Same thing here, difference is it's upholding the right to life which is guaranteed.

We should also have competitive for profit hospitals as an option. You might hate the profit motive, but the fact is that it is to thank for most innovation.

...we did ... it costed the US 26k lives per year ... http://www.reuters.com...

also, I was reading a book and it had a good point: your arguing in favor for the free-market. What free-market is in the healthcare industry? Prescriptions? Bout it, you don't have a choice in "buying" your life, nor your health (which is required for a free-market), and we treat those without insurance even though it robs them of everything. That's not a choice. THAT'S force, and its force due to the tyranny of this pseudo-free market you preached. Been there ..done that .. didn't work .. either we forewarn a patient of the costs per procedure before the operation (which is impossible/illogical for those unconscious in emergency situations) or we don;t and treat them anyways, we treat them anyways due to the law, doctors ethics, and because we're not barbaric. Next!

Ugh, all I see here is an anti-capitalistic rant.

Okay, let's see here. I see you're going down the path that getting health insurance=buying your life, somehow? No.

There is always a choice in any given situation. A person can choose not to have health insurance and run the risk of getting ill or injured, sure. A person can also CHOOSE to get health insurance and be covered in the case of illness or injury. And even then, there is a WHOLE MARKET of choices for getting health insurance alone. Hell, many options are provided automatically if you work with a certain employer.

So .. in my scenario, you're shot, near death, being rushed in the hospital. You have no health insurance. Should you live or die? Live right? How can you reasonably consent to the practices and prices the doctors subject you to here before the operation? You can't. Theres no choice here, this is not a free-market.

Competition and incentives lead to the best outcomes for consumers. I would much rather have a system of high quality, voluntary based health care than a crumbling, dinosaur like, bureacratic disaster like the systems in Canada, the UK, and the USA.

....Those systems in the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, Findland, Sweden, all have universal care of some form or another. They all pay less per GDP than the US, cover far more, and even better have higher quality care. What bureaucratic disaster? Your system literally costed lives. No thank you you brute! What barbarism!

You wanna try arguing your point without sounding like an immature child?

Uhh .. what? Those policies are barbaric.

What kind of country doesn't care for all her citizens? Put in all that work, pay all those taxes, and the fact that the government wants to check your pulse before they check your pocket-book is somehow absurd to you? We do work for the state, I think this is the least were entitled to. And yes, I did say entitled!

A state is not there to "take care of" anyone. The state is there to protect the very basic liberties from being infringed upon, and to do so equally among the citizenry.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled the right to life is inalienable. They have a duty to uphold it and when 26k Americans die they fail. Which is why the capitalist system in HC sucks here. (Still doesn't cover everyone)

And no, we don't work for the state, that's probably the most bizarre statement I've heard all day. Unless you literally hold a government job, you DON'T work for the state, you work for yourself or for an employer. If you mean tax money, again, that's the funding for the protection of basic liberties, not funding to bankroll and assist a person's entire existence.

Deregulation of the economy provides short term boost in GDP, which essentially is the state benefiting off of the economic activities of the people. Indirectly = people working for state.

Of course, I could understand that statement appearing true in a situation where the government is set up to be so big that it "takes care of" everyone. However, it still is not.

Fair enough. However, right to life trumps.
Thank you for voting!
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 12:08:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You guys do realize that the health care costs of the uninsured often get passed on to others due to their inability to pay, and that this inflates health care costs, harming everyone, right?

I hate to break it to you, but emergency medical care will NEVER lend itself well to competition (and therefore the free market). If your appendix were to rupture all of a sudden, you wouldn't have time to be a smart consumer, you'd simply go to the nearest hospital. This means that that hospital has a monopoly on emergency care - all for practical reasons that we wouldn't want to get around!

As for the nonprofits, as well as a lot of other things, I might as well link you to this infographic:
http://healthland.time.com...
Something makes me think that $100 million to $750 million in profits isn't exactly nonprofit, and it would make sense to tax the profits that they aren't supposed to have in the first place. Non-profit should mean non-profit.

I can agree that certain types of government intervention do cause costs to rise - specifically, pharmaceutical patents. If you've ever seen spam from a Canadian pharmacy wanting to sell you cheap Viagra, you can see how much Canada's health care costs benefit from shorter patent lengths allowing generics to enter the market earlier. Price controls or shorter patent lengths would be VERY reasonable here.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 12:25:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 12:08:24 PM, drhead wrote:
You guys do realize that the health care costs of the uninsured often get passed on to others due to their inability to pay, and that this inflates health care costs, harming everyone, right?

I hate to break it to you, but emergency medical care will NEVER lend itself well to competition (and therefore the free market). If your appendix were to rupture all of a sudden, you wouldn't have time to be a smart consumer, you'd simply go to the nearest hospital. This means that that hospital has a monopoly on emergency care - all for practical reasons that we wouldn't want to get around!

As for the nonprofits, as well as a lot of other things, I might as well link you to this infographic:
http://healthland.time.com...
Something makes me think that $100 million to $750 million in profits isn't exactly nonprofit, and it would make sense to tax the profits that they aren't supposed to have in the first place. Non-profit should mean non-profit.

I can agree that certain types of government intervention do cause costs to rise - specifically, pharmaceutical patents. If you've ever seen spam from a Canadian pharmacy wanting to sell you cheap Viagra, you can see how much Canada's health care costs benefit from shorter patent lengths allowing generics to enter the market earlier. Price controls or shorter patent lengths would be VERY reasonable here.

THANK YOU!

Finally! Good point!
Thank you for voting!
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 6:33:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Costs" are not a relevant concern with regards to health care. Just as they are not a relevant concern when discussing whether or not to provide police protection.

APROVAL RATINGS
Most Canadians approve of their health care system. Numbers range as high as 70%. According to Gallup, 57% of Canadians approve of their system. In the US, we can only muster about 6% to say that they are "very satisfied" with our American Health Care. Canadians approve of their own at rates that are three times higher than ours.
http://www.gallup.com...

MEDICAL TOURISM (FLEEING CANADA FOR HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA)
This has never happened on any widespread basis since the second World War. In fact, it is Americans who are flocking across the border for affordable prescription medications and treatment options. Each year, more numbers of Americans go to Mexico for medical treatment than Canadians come to America.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

IMPACT OF HEALTH CARE
Canadians live longer than Americans, and have lower rates of infant mortality. Compared to Americans, most Canadians do not go bankrupt due to a sudden illness. In the US, unexpected injury and sickness are the leading cause of all American bankruptcies.
Legitdebater
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 7:34:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 4:19:43 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The first thing Canadian politicians do when they get sick is fly to the states.

No they don't, politicians are way better off having medical assistance in Canada than in the U.S. Where have you heard of this? In the U.S. you have to pay for virtually everything. The only reason why the health care system in Canada is starting to get screwed is because of damn privatization.
Legitdebater
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 7:37:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 7:27:16 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Like I've always said... Canada would be a great country if it wasn't for all these lousy Canadians.

You're pretty ignorant aren't you? Your generalizations and incorrect fallacies are really starting to tick me off.
Legitdebater
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 7:55:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As DeFool correctly states, it's quite the opposite of what ZakYoungTheLibertarian says. It's actually Americans who are fleeing to Canada for some of the benefits. Of course they won't receive the same as Canadian citizens, but still, they're better off coming here for some of the available free benefits. However, Canada's healthcare system is slowly being jeopardized by privatization. The common misunderstanding of Canada's healthcare system is because it's socialist, it's bad. Not true, the long wait times are caused by the government privatizing it. When Tommy Douglas, the founder of Canada's Medicare system, first introduced the idea, people were infuriated and said all the doctors would leave Canada. However, when it was established, he was viewed as a hero and one of the greatest Canadians of all time. Look it up.