So I must admit I'm not a huge fan of the medical establishment period. It tends to be founded on the exploitation of animals in many ways (the scientific validity of which is of serious concern, but I digress). That being said, if such an establishment exists, I firmly believe it should NOT be publicly funding. To me, a publicly funded health care system allows people to do whatever stupid things they want (eat unhealthily and excessively, not exercise, smoke, drink, etc.) and then basically get a free pass. It gives this "everybody wins" mentality, that actually weakens society as a whole. We will just end up nursing countless invalids. I mean most of the common ailments affecting western society are diseases of excess: cancers, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, cognitive deterioration, etc. These all have causes rooted in dietary and lifestyle factors. Either we live in a capitalist society or we don't. People need to pay for their own mistakes, or they need to accept regulation of their own actions. Ban unhealthy activities/foods and promote healthy ones. I'm from Canada, and our health care system sickens me.
Then we should be able to force you to make lifestyle decisions, should we not? I mean people want it both ways. Which is just hypocritical.
you mean like tax cigarettes at 500%... we already do that don't we, we already going down that slippery slope can tax fast food, sky diving, sports, ext... we have to go to a doctor to get a prescription for things we know we need (should not the gov pay for that? forcing us to buy something we do not need?) if you want the people to be responsible for their own health needs, then they need to be able to buy the meds they need without being forced to see a doctor I mean people want it both ways. Which is just hypocritical.... right .
I like the idea of a very basic public option - no elective procedures, expensive low chance of success treatments or things that can be obtained over the counter. People who want better care should be free to purchase better insurance. Doctors and hospitals should be free to choose whether or not to accept the public insurance, or to give better service to purple with better insurance.
I do not agree on addl plans, but I would add in a co-payment to prevent needless office visits as for elective surgery, that would be covered much like current coverage, if your in a car crash it would not be elective, but to improve non-defective issue with ones looks, that would be elective non-covered surgery now obviously I would say cover a child who has clef lip or something as that is not just basic beauty enhancement co-payments waved for emergency surgery, heart attacks, cancer, ect... .
What is 'basic' service though? As I mentioned, most health care ailments are user induced. Most things that aren't can be covered by insurance (i.e. in the case of an automobile accident) So more of a two-tiered system? Why not just have the insurance cover it and people can pay very basic premiums for it?
08 Providing universal health care is a slippery slope. Funding it is more problematic though. I don't think a doctor can make you take anything. Only prescribe and advise. Ideally people wouldn't need to take medication. If they did, it would be done the same way it has for millions of years: with herbs and the like. I'm glad we're in agreement.
As you add services, the cost for such healthcare increases significantly. It wouldn't actually be two-tiered, it would be a market solution with a public safety net. The public option would cover critical and catastrophic issues - providing a minimum level of care. You could expect long lines, fewer nifty gadgets, and many things to not be covered. It won't be first-class healthcare, but it will be just enough to get by. This will control costs, but will provide coverage. Things like pregnancy tests, non-critical surgeries and medications, visits for minor conditions like a cold or flu, etc. would not be covered. The market insurance policies will vary based on what you are willing to pay for. They could cover as much or as little as the buyer wanted. It would only depend on what a person was willing to pay. You could get anything from insurance that only covered basic doctor visits to insurance that covered every cost of anything a doctor could do. Top-quality coverage for everyone would be incredibly expensive, and since half of the recipients likely wouldn't pay anything for it, it would cost those that do far more than buying their own insurance does. Why should a bunch of people get the same coverage for free that others have to pay a huge price for?
As an American living in Canada I hear ya. I was shocked that docs that here in BC anyway, do not seem to do regular blood pressure screening for example. Here it feels like the doc just wants to get a patient out the door as soon as possible rather than taking time to care for their patient. Living in America I was lead to believe that the Canadian system was pure nirvana, where healthcare was free for all and superior to the American health system in every way... and the reality is nowhere near what most Americans think it is. I say again America, be careful what you wish for, because the reality may not meet the dream.
If we shouldn't have "socialized health care" then Israelis shouldn't have it either as it is paid for by USA tax dollars.
The face of "Obamacare": This angers many far right Republicans but as far as I am concerned, she deserves to live. She will now be a productive citizen, pay her taxes, and her children will do the same. Under RepubliCONcare she would have died and the far right would have rejoiced.
She wasn't responsible before, what makes you think she'll suddenly change now? She could have been responsible and spent the $50 a month that a catastrophic health plan would have cost - which would have covered this issue completely. Instead she kept the money for herself, then expected an insurance company to pay for her care anyway. Responsible people plan ahead for emergencies. This woman has already shown that she is irresponsible. I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon - especially since now she doesn't have any consequences for her irresponsible behavior.
So it would be like the Democrats are wanting where they would just force people to buy a health insurance plan? Essentially forcing people to pay for something it just another tax. This sounds like a two-tier system to me. What if you don't want any health care coverage? And that's the problem here in Canada. Everyone wants top care but doesn't want to pay for it. They also fail to accept any personal liability. It's not THEIR fault they had a heart attack and died waiting in the ER, it's the hospitals. It's ludicrous!
Well no BUSINESS in their right mind would say, "let me insure you since you already have a disease." And of course she wants to get pity because she decided NOT to opt into health care BEFORE she got sick.
It's not everything Mr. Moore paints it out to be. Long line ups of whiny people who have mostly debilitated themselves wanting faster service or threatening law suits taking more tax payer's money...I should counter-sue all these people to get my tax money recouped.
If what I described is a two-tier system, then the US has a two-tier income system - the amount you get from welfare is one tier, the amount you get paid to work is the second tier. All what I described does is stop pretending that the government doesn't already subsidize healthcare for everyone. The people who don't have health coverage now end up paid for by the taxpayers if they do get an illness - worse yet, with the new Obamacare rules, they are paid for by the responsible people who actually have been buying insurance. My proposal is to stop pretending that we don't subsidize healthcare and instead make that coverage very clear and very limited. The government coverage should be similar to the cheapest coverage available on the open market, and should be available for everyone. It would be "safety net" coverage - minimal coverage. The market would be wide open for anyone to buy whatever level of coverage above that they want, but the minimum would already be taken care of. It is very similar to the idea of welfare and food stamps. A minimum level of income is available for everyone that needs it. It isn't much, but it is enough to survive. Working people can earn as much as they are able, but a survival level of income is assured. My two-tier medical system would be very similar to our current two-tier income system.
its true, fat obese and unhealthy people do it themselves, and responsible people will pay for them in socialized health care. theres smokers too, but everyone should suffer commensurately with their countrymen, the responsible people should be forced to pay for the irresponsible people.
I hope you're being sarcastic. At least in the latter paragraph. Because the first is absolutely true.
But I don't think one can just arbitrarily say that one thing is coverable and another isn't. ANY government funded health care should be looked at like a private one. If it is something they caused or they could have prevented, deny them coverage.
Last-hope prostate drug not funded There are two tiers of men with advanced prostate cancer in Ontario: Those who get access to a remarkable drug through private insurance, and those who get a death sentence. The grim news is often delivered at the London Regional Cancer Program to men whose shoulders sag and jaws drop when told Ontario's Health Ministry has for 15 months refused to pay for a medication covered by every other Canadian province. "There's shock, fury and dismay," said oncologist Kylea Potvin. "Everyone thinks we have this wonderful universal health care system, but this is absolutely not the case. We've increasingly become a two-tier health care system where if you have money, you have access."
In Boise Idaho the wait times to get into see a doc at the ER is almost non existent on most days... (at St. Lukes Hospital anyway) and I have never had to wait more than a few days to see a specialist.
