More bailouts...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally, I have no problem with companies not paying for health insurance, people should be responsible for that, on their own. Insurance companies need to offer some better, customizable deals, instead of charging a single, childless, 21 year-old man for pregnancy coverage. The idea of government run healthcare is good in theory, but that's it, it will fail the entire nation, except for the lazy moochers (because they'll never know how much better it is to be self sustaining).

As for how people get treated, well, if company A treats their employees like s***, and company B (in the same industry) offers benefits and competitive pay, employees from company A can quit and attempt to join company B. If company B is full, and company A keeps losing employees, maybe, just maybe, they can use some logic and realize that people want to work for company B for better conditions, and in turn make better conditions or incentives to stay working at company A.

That's the logic behind letting the free market work. In theory it will work, and similar situations have proven it will work as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest

Politicians on the other hand...


Who purchases the politicians though? Yup, evil CEOs.
56.gif


Se yes, I'd say a lot of CEOs have forced money out of my pocket for their projects that don't benefit me one iota.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Who has the power Gary? And who uses it? CEO's have NO power.

If politicians are taking bribes (and they are), then they are that much worse.


WHAT? CEOs have no power? How so? Most of them are the CEO AND the chairman of the board. They create Corporate PACs (political action committees) and can spend unlimited amounts of soft money to political parties that inevitably ends up for specific candidates. They don't put forth the enormous sums of money for nothing. They get the results they need from their pals in Washington. It's not bribery, it's perfectly legal. It's how they designed our system to work.

I'd surmise that the most powerful people in the world are the heads of the largest banks and multi-national corporations.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
Personally, I have no problem with companies not paying for health insurance, people should be responsible for that, on their own.


This has to be coming from someone who is either young and has no need for expensive health care ..or someone who is employed very well and still can afford healthcare at any cost ..or is working for a muni/state/fed/teacher who will be able to keep pace with healthcare costs regardless of prevailing conditions.

Tell me that you fork out massive sums of money in an elective manner and are of common income? Not likely at all. Only someone advantaged with the notion that health care should not be something that people should have ..at an affordable cost, would have such a notion.

You have to be in some bubble exempt from the realities that you don't mind others enduring. It's fine for them. Now when it comes to topics that encroach on your personal existence bubble ....THEN ..and ONLY THEN ..do they DESERVE to be addressed by the society as a whole.

It's not an unusual disposition ..just my speculation.

Quote:
Insurance companies need to offer some better, customizable deals, instead of charging a single, childless, 21 year-old man for pregnancy coverage.


No. The cartels have to be dismantled and the AMA/insurance racket has to stop shaking down and milking us for stuff at a premium. Costs have never gone down with any scale of economy. Less funding will just mean less access. Start executing profiteers ..then you may effect the "market" out of fear. A few hangings might start the ball rolling.

Quote:

The idea of government run healthcare is good in theory ....



Quote:

That's the logic behind letting the free market work. In theory it will work, and similar situations have proven it will work as well.


..and you expect "what" out of any other theory??
 
Gary the only ones you had right is that I am young and I work at a university (NOT a teacher). I am below poverty line with income and I do not have health insurance (though Humana One has a pretty good deal for my wife and I) yet. My wife and I don't need welfare, food stamps, etc, and we won't need those.

Insurance premiums have been effected badly by smokers and obese America, also the fact that doctors/pharmaceutical companies tend to prescribe pills instead of telling people to alter their diets/lifestyles if they want to live longer/healthier. My dad is a perfect example of that. If he quit drinking, removed fast food from his diet, ingested more nutrients, and was more active, he wouldn't be nearly as bad off. He could eliminate any dependency on diabetes medication, wouldn't need cortisone shots for hurting joints, and the list could go on.

People should have health insurance, it should be affordable, but people MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES (capitalized for emphasis, not screaming). Whenever you rely on someone else to take care of something else for you, you run the risks of really getting screwed. I'm sure you're much older than me, and have learned that lesson once or twice before. Just think about the idea of a bureaucrat being between you and medical coverage...now how many times have we seen that basic idea fail? You see what I'm getting at least, don't you?

Medicaid is abused, and that is essentially government healthcare to those on welfare. People freak out when they wake up coughing that they want shots and vaccines, when it's nothing that can be fixed with shots and vaccines. People want the same s*** for a common cold, when all they need to do is rest, stay warm, eat plenty (healthy eating would work best), and go about their daily lives. That destroys the healthcare system as well. Local hospitals where I'm at are possibly going to get shut down due to insufficient funds (though part of that may be due to our idiot politicians who increase their pensions and decrease funding to police and fire departments).

As for other theories, if letting the free market go doesn't fix it, then you raise taxes for government to control it. Then it goes back to what I said in the "gas tax" thread, where the taxes would work fine at first, then they'd spend the extra on bulls*** and then want to raise the taxes more and more. Vicious cycle ain't it?

There comes a time when government gets too big...big like Big Brother.
 
You're not going to save a dime with cutting people out of the system. That is, unless you intend to truly make medicine to be accessed by the rich. It's because we don't have basic healthcare that those who use a $1000 emergency room as their doctor and the $30,000-$100k+ final death throws.

The unhealthy lifestyle is 100% free market and free will at its best.

You can't play both sides of the coin and have only the razor's edge cutting as you want to see it. Tobacco was big money. Fast food is big money.

The basic notion is that you hold people accountable for their actions ..yet seem to give the "free market" a pass when it enables ..and, in fact, promotes those same behaviors.

Aren't they accountable too? Or are they 100% inanimate entities that are run by non-humans that are given universal dispensation for anything and everything that they do?

No system is exempt from manipulation and/or corruption. Most of the notions that I see held as "truths" tend to be reasoned "I'm better off with my brand of corruption" and little more. They're more personal belief systems than they are solutions.

I don't necessarily offer perfection, but I will not ignore the liabilities of the alternatives.

Bring me something better ..not just rehashed pathetic with a slant.
 
I'm not saying the free market is perfect (nothing is), but sometimes excessive government is way more of an issue. I agree and disagree with a lot of things government and the free market do. Swaying the government and swaying the free market are two entirely different things.

Quote:
The basic notion is that you hold people accountable for their actions ..yet seem to give the "free market" a pass when it enables ..and, in fact, promotes those same behaviors.

The free market is promoting it to make money, but people still make the choice to give them money. If people didn't, then the market would shift to another idea. Think of a worthless invention, that very few people use/bought, I'm sure that invention wouldn't be sold very long. That's the same concept I'm getting at.

If people are accountable for their actions, and a lot of people pull away from unhealthy living, then fast food and tobacco will start changing their ideas to keep making money. Unhealthy lifestyle is more of freewill than the market. The market follows because people choose not to improve. As I've said before, if you ever want to become one of those evil rich people, then invent something that makes Americans lazier.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I don't think that leaves me anywhere Tempest.

China has acknowledged that they've got too many people, and seem quite comfortable in the rate of attrition in their various systems.

So you are saying that these government run and owned (nationalized) mining operations not only have the worst safety record, they are being used as extermination camps buy their owners?

Thanks for supporting my position.
 
Originally Posted By: MarkC
"The fantasy behind your argument is that people automatically become philanthropic because they are a member of government."

I never said or implied such a thing, are you having trouble understanding what you read?

Then you can surly point to where I said "that corporations are any less greedy and corrupt than governments" because I don't recall ever saying that.

Nice circular reasoning you have there Mark.
LOL.gif


I took no more of a leap with your statement than you did with mine.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Who has the power Gary? And who uses it? CEO's have NO power.

If politicians are taking bribes (and they are), then they are that much worse.


WHAT? CEOs have no power? How so? Most of them are the CEO AND the chairman of the board. They create Corporate PACs (political action committees) and can spend unlimited amounts of soft money to political parties that inevitably ends up for specific candidates. They don't put forth the enormous sums of money for nothing. They get the results they need from their pals in Washington. It's not bribery, it's perfectly legal. It's how they designed our system to work.

I'd surmise that the most powerful people in the world are the heads of the largest banks and multi-national corporations.

You are exactly making my point. In order for this to be, politicians have to be on the take. And yet people want even more and more government in their lives.

It's a self defeating argument. The more you say government is controlled by CEO's or whatever, the more you make government programs look like payoff's (which is the case).
So please, keep it up.

This is why I said, the more powerful the government, the GREATER the corruption...EVERYTIME.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Without government regulation, industry would still have 6 year olds losing limbs cleaning up cotton gins.


Or pushing coal carts up narrow mine shafts.

We'd still have above ground nuclear testing if it hadn't been banned by the 'enviro-nazis' following the St Louis Baby Teeth Study.

We'd still have leaded gas because we all know unleaded gas will lead to cars only running 2-3 years then we'll all have to turn to walking.

Don't get me started on fluoride and CFCs.

Yep. The left, the papers, and the government are always out after us.
 
Nationalized health care is a dismal failure every time it is tried. Long waits, unmotivated personnel, shortages, poor equipment...it's all common.

Quote:
Their mother, Calgarian Karen Jepp, was transferred to Benefis Hospital in Montana last week when she began showing signs of going into labour, and no Canadian hospital had enough neonatal intensive-care beds for all four babies.

But when Jepp began experiencing labour symptoms last Friday, the unit at Foothills was over capacity with several unexpected pre-term births.

There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit, forcing CHR officials to look south of the border.

Jepp was transported to Benefis hospital in Great Falls last Friday -- making her the fifth Alberta woman to be transferred south of the border this year because of neonatal shortages in Calgary.

Dr. Tom Key, the Montana perinatologist who delivered the babies, described the decision to send Jepp outside of Calgary as "unselfish."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=41ccae74-8325-449a-b89f-e68957ca25ae&k=79546&p=1
Quote:
number of pregnant women from Alberta are being sent to other cities to deliver their babies because of a lack of neonatal beds in Calgary.

At least five Alberta women with high-risk pregnancies have been transferred in recent days. Mandy Martin of Lethbridge, Alta., who is expecting triplets, was flown alone to Toronto's Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre on Feb. 5. Her husband Devin Martin, and her father flew in to be at her side Sunday.

The 23-year-old mother of two, who is in her 25th week of pregnancy, was transferred to the Ontario city so that doctors could closely monitor the developing fetuses when the Calgary Health Region couldn't find a vacant local neonatal bed.

Four other Alberta women were flown to Montana. Caroline Lupypciw, 20, gave birth to a girl in Great Falls, Mont., on Thursday. She and her baby flew home to Alberta on Saturday when a neonatal bed opened up for the newborn at Calgary's Rockyview General Hospital.

Alberta's booming economy has resulted in a population boom that has caught officials off guard. To make things worse, Calgary Health Region said there are no neonatal beds available in Western Canada.

"I wouldn't say I'm angry about everything, just disappointed in the system," Martin said.

In the past, B.C. doctors have flown local women who were about to deliver preemies to Edmonton or Seattle, Wash., because of a shortage of neonatal beds.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/02/11/calgary-babies.html
All too common with government run healthcare. Expect the same or worse if the US goes to the same system.
Quote:
The problems for Canada's sick people come from several fronts including lack of access to drugs, shortages of doctors and other healthcare professionals, and the elimination of hospital bed space.

Last summer in Newfoundland, the Minister of Health announced that that some health care facilities would be closing between May and September. These hospital bed closures were reportedly to "accommodate staff vacations". Ontario has a critical shortage of radiation therapy machines and technicians. This year, not a single new graduate qualified to be a radiation technologist. The one lone radiation clinic in all of Manitoba reported last summer a waiting list 371 names long. From April 1999 to July 2000, over 1,400 patients in Ontario were sent to the U.S. for treatment at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of $15,000 - $20,000 per patient. This was the reality of free Canadian health care.

As a cost containment measure, Ontario doctors are paid under "billing thresholds," meaning they are paid by the number of patients they see regardless of time spent or comprehensiveness of the care provided. If they hit the limit, they must send "overpayments" back to the government. In the first seven months of 1999, 251 Ontario physicians went over their limits and sent checks totaling $7.2 million back to the government.

There is currently a major battle raging between the provinces and the Canadian federal government -- the primary source of funds for Canada's national health plan.

In 1995, the Canadian feds cut the provincial health care budgets by $45 billion. In response, Ontario limited the number of enrollees to medical schools in an effort to cut costs. Combined with a burgeoning population, retirement of older doctors and a mass exodus of medical professionals to the United States, the province is now facing a perilous doctor shortage.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519173/posts
There are also as many MRI machines in Philadelphia as there are in all of Canada.
 
Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
Insurance companies need to offer some better, customizable deals, instead of charging a single, childless, 21 year-old man for pregnancy coverage.


Dad's worked int he Health Insurance industry for 30 years.

"Community Rating" still needs to be applied, because as soon as "customised" cover starts being introduced, the low risk groups become cheaper, and the higher risk and elderly become expensive, until it's not really "insurance" per se anymore.

Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
The idea of government run healthcare is good in theory, but that's it, it will fail the entire nation, except for the lazy moochers (because they'll never know how much better it is to be self sustaining).


Biggest thing in favour of Govt run healthcare IMO is that there's no duplication of services, having seperate managements, boards, finance sections, claims processors, databases, or the need to make a profit.

I've seen what Tyco charge for a foot long piece of rubber in a plastic and paper pack, and it's a LOT more than the cost of a slingshot rubber by a factor of 100.

Healthcare will never be sustainable while companies make ridiculous claims for silly little things.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Nationalized health care is a dismal failure every time it is tried. Long waits, unmotivated personnel, shortages, poor equipment...it's all common.


Where that Phillidelphia vs Canada MRI number came from.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1302-Philadelp...l-profitability


Took a lot more searching to find those problems with Canada's system. How much does Canada pay vs US? You have the stomach to look into our system?

We in the US overpay for a system that is worse than all of the industrialized world. It is a national embarrassment. The Scandinavian countries pay 25% less than us and live longer. The UK does not have a perfect system but pays 2/3 that we do and still they live longer despite the deep fried lunches. Nasty, backward Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than we do.

Complacency in our own failed system is pathetic.
 
Last edited:
This is funny.

I actually LIVE in Canada. The healthcare system is far from perfect. But it's not as bad as many make it out to be.

My town recently got a whole new hospital, all new equipment. My wife has given birth to all three of our children in the old hospital, all without issue or any apparent lack of staff.

And while ER wait times are sometimes long, I've never witnessed anybody with anything severe having to wait.

My grandfather recently spent a number of months in the ICU at the new hospital and the new equipment and his treatment were fantastic.

I also have experience with the hospital system in the New Brunswick, again, not bad.

You can poke fun at Canadian health care all you want. But in the end, if somebody develops cancer here and needs years of treatment, they aren't taking out a whole new mortgage just to pay for it.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
This is funny.

You can poke fun at Canadian health care all you want. But in the end, if somebody develops cancer here and needs years of treatment, they aren't taking out a whole new mortgage just to pay for it.


Exactly.

It might not take a full rebuild of our system. If the insurance companies see the writing on the wall and think a revamp of the system is going to happen, so many 'new efficiencies in the private health care providers' will emerge.

Ending the current form of medical malpractice lawsuits is a second step in effectiveness but matter for another topic.
 
Last edited:
They changed the rules down here regarding suing doctors.

Now there has to be a 15% permanent disability caused in order to be able to sue, and there's no pain and suffering.

So the lady that was sewed back up with a set of forces and a couple of sponges, and it took her surgeon years to send her for an X-Ray to find why she was in so much pain...couldn't even try to get a single cent.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
ConfederateTyrant said:
"Community Rating" still needs to be applied, because as soon as "customised" cover starts being introduced, the low risk groups become cheaper, and the higher risk and elderly become expensive, until it's not really "insurance" per se anymore.


I wish that were true for car insurance. Last time I signed up, they wanted to infer what kind of reproductive organs I might have, and charged me more because mine are on the outside.
 
Yep, car insurance down here is the same.

Health, home, and life are community ranked (except life and smoking), but they've messed with the various car insurances.

I've got a 70% annual premium discount due to previous performance in not crashing. After holding it for more than the last 10 years, I can't lose it, but it would really suck to be a 19 year old Male in Sydney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top