Net Neutraility and You

[mookiemcgee]

but you don't pay $500/month out of you paycheck for healthcare

Wow, now I've got mookie complaining about Obamacare ... never thought I'd see the day.

Obamacare is not a good system, butit's 1000% better than the bullshit bill the republicans failed to pass this year.

The Canadian system is a good one. Proof is in the cost vs. outcomes relationship...

[saxitoxin]

Obamacare is not a good system

True.

The Canadian system is a good one.

False.

The Canadian, British, and Australian systems are good for delivering quantity of coverage, but at the total compromise of quality. I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to visit a filthy British factory hospital. The NHS is essentially a Clockwork Orange LARP that's been going on for the last 70 years.

The Swiss system delivers excellent quality, but is basically just Obamacare.

The Dutch system of private hospitals combined with state-guaranteed insurance is pretty good, but the rationing and waiting lines would not work in the United States where people are used to getting a physician's appointment on a day or two notice.

The only decent proposal for health care reform that would expand access while preserving American dominance in quality was that proposed by the brilliant Brian Schweitzer. Unfortunately, Loser Hillary - in her drive for personal power - crushed his presidential aspirations like she crushed all other more qualified and capable Democratic candidates.*

* Edit: Zionist buffoon Bernie Sanders is not one of said "more qualified and capable" candidates.

[waauw]

Margaret Thatcher debunked this sophistry years ago.



Americans have the third highest per capita income of any nation with a population more than 5 million. Americans own 18% of all household appliances (washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators) despite having only 4% of the world's population. Americans own more automobiles per capita than any other major nation in the world. Americans enjoy the cheapest electricity rates and the lowest per calorie food cost in the OECD.

Waauw think it's better to be a poor person in Laos (low income disparity) than a poor person in the U.S. (high income disparity).

Waauw would be happy earning $10 per year provided the richest person in Belgium were only earning $11 per year. He would be mad if he were earning $1 million / year if the richest person in Belgium were earning $1 billion / year.

Thatcherism is out-dated. Her lines of thought are no longer in line with modern economic research. The spectrum of economic equality matters. You're living in the wrong century, saxi.

And if you take a longer perspective, rising inequality becomes by far the most important single factor behind lagging middle-class incomes. Beyond that, when you try to understand both the Great Recession and the not-so-great recovery that followed, the economic and above all political impacts of inequality loom large.

It’s now widely accepted that rising household debt helped set the stage for our economic crisis; this debt surge coincided with rising inequality, and the two are probably related (although the case isn’t ironclad). After the crisis struck, the continuing shift of income away from the middle class toward a small elite was a drag on consumer demand, so that inequality is linked to both the economic crisis and the weakness of the recovery that followed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/opinion/krugman-why-inequality-matters.html

In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist Thomas Piketty argues that "extremely high levels" of wealth inequality are "incompatible with the meritocratic values and principles of social justice fundamental to modern democratic societies" and that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#Effect_on_democracy

The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

...Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=all

[nietzsche]

don't you think this is ridiculous?

the same people that suck Trump's orange **** are the same people against Net Neutrality. Is there any point in discussing it? No, it's the same about everything else, people choose their side for whatever reason, and they're not moving from there.

Only a few of you guys here are willing to discuss a topic with the possibility of changing your minds after being exposed to a good argument. I can count them with one hand, and will probably have many fingers left.

OT has gone to shit, second thread I venture to open since I came back and is all the same. This is the part that should've been deleted, not the past.

Bunch of racists and idiots.

Good bye.

[mrswdk]

I don’t understand how anyone who has read any of those old 2008 OT threads can claim with a straight face that OT used to be better than it is now.

[riskllama]

US is mega polarized - kinda stupid, really. sad, too.

[notyou2]

Obamacare is not a good system

True.

The Canadian system is a good one.

False.

The Canadian, British, and Australian systems are good for delivering quantity of coverage, but at the total compromise of quality. I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to visit a filthy British factory hospital. The NHS is essentially a Clockwork Orange LARP that's been going on for the last 70 years.

The Swiss system delivers excellent quality, but is basically just Obamacare.

The Dutch system of private hospitals combined with state-guaranteed insurance is pretty good, but the rationing and waiting lines would not work in the United States where people are used to getting a physician's appointment on a day or two notice.

The only decent proposal for health care reform that would expand access while preserving American dominance in quality was that proposed by the brilliant Brian Schweitzer. Unfortunately, Loser Hillary - in her drive for personal power - crushed his presidential aspirations like she crushed all other more qualified and capable Democratic candidates.*

* Edit: Zionist buffoon Bernie Sanders is not one of said "more qualified and capable" candidates.

The quality suffers very little, what suffers is the timeliness. Yes you may have to wait a little longer to get your displaced shoulder reset. However, if you are having a heart attack, they do the work right away, AND, it's free. You don't leave $200,000 in debt, or get turned away while still having the heart attack.

I think I prefer the universal health care model, even if I have to wait 6 hours to get a cast on my broken arm.

[saxitoxin]

Obamacare is not a good system

True.

The Canadian system is a good one.

False.

The Canadian, British, and Australian systems are good for delivering quantity of coverage, but at the total compromise of quality. I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to visit a filthy British factory hospital. The NHS is essentially a Clockwork Orange LARP that's been going on for the last 70 years.

The Swiss system delivers excellent quality, but is basically just Obamacare.

The Dutch system of private hospitals combined with state-guaranteed insurance is pretty good, but the rationing and waiting lines would not work in the United States where people are used to getting a physician's appointment on a day or two notice.

The only decent proposal for health care reform that would expand access while preserving American dominance in quality was that proposed by the brilliant Brian Schweitzer. Unfortunately, Loser Hillary - in her drive for personal power - crushed his presidential aspirations like she crushed all other more qualified and capable Democratic candidates.*

* Edit: Zionist buffoon Bernie Sanders is not one of said "more qualified and capable" candidates.

The quality suffers very little, what suffers is the timeliness. Yes you may have to wait a little longer to get your displaced shoulder reset. However, if you are having a heart attack, they do the work right away, AND, it's free. You don't leave $200,000 in debt, or get turned away while still having the heart attack.

What country are you talking about? It would be impossible for an insured person in the United States to be left "$200,000 in debt, or get turned away while still having the heart attack." If insurance didn't pay for what it was insuring, why would people buy insurance?!

A typical insurance plan obligates the insured to pay 20% of of the first $25,000 of medical expenses (in other words $5,000) accrued in a calendar year, less one annual physical. All amounts between $25K and $1MM ($2MM since 2011) are covered at a 100% rate. This is how American insurance generally works and has nothing to do with Obamacare.

-Example 1: In other words, using this policy as an example, a person who has a bad viral infection and is treated on an inpatient basis six times by a physician next year (at an average per visit cost of $200, or $1200 total, plus $800 in imaging and blood tests) will accrue $400 in medical expenses.
-Example 2: A person who has a massive, once-in-a-lifetime heart attack that requires bypass surgery and one week hospitalization should accrue $5,000 in medical expenses.
-Example 3: A person who has a massive heart attack, the next month has a bad viral infection, the following month is hit by a bus and breaks their leg, the month after is stabbed in a bar fight, and the month after that gets herpes, should accrue $5,000 in medical expenses. (IOW mrswdk)

No insured person would go "$200,000 in debt, or get turned away" unless they were seeking a new experimental treatment, which is usually not covered by insurance. But, in Canada the same would be true by default since Canada doesn't have the advanced medical science the U.S. possesses so such experimental treatments would not be available in the first place.

But by all means continue to believe the Fake News that heart attacks put people "$200,000 in debt in the U.S." if it will distract you from the reality of your filthy factory hospitals, stone age medical science, and bread lines for basic treatment, while your own leaders - who don't want to deal with the crap they've given you - jet south to our beautiful, advanced medical palaces for treatment.

Yes you may have to wait a little longer to get your displaced shoulder reset.

I find the blasé tone of this statement absolutely terrifying.

If I were to displace my shoulder I would expect to have it set within 30 minutes of walking through the front doors of an ER. I can't even imagine living someplace in the year 2017 where that was not the expectation, standard, or norm. I am shocked that there are places in the world where people just shrug and accept they may have to "wait a little longer" to get treatment for a traumatic bone injury.

[patches70]

This thread is about "net neutrality and you". The OP seems to think that because net neutrality is gone that the internet is going to become terrible for you.

That is ridiculous. Net neutrality was in effect for, at most, two years. The average American isn't going to notice anything different at all. Nothing, nada, no effect. It's still gonna be the same old internet it's always been. It means absolutely nothing to the average Joe. DDS made this thread and now that net neutrality is gone I swear to God he's not going to be able to point to a single thing that happens adverse or positive, that wouldn't have happened with net neutrality in place.


Now, if DDS is the owner and operator of a big IP company, cable company or wtf ever, he might have some issues. But he's not.

The whole chicken little the internet is falling the internet is falling is hilariously absurd. DDS by his own admission didn't even use the internet before 2015 or so. He doesn't know any better. The rest of you who have been using the interwebz for decades, you suckers didn't notice a damn thing different when net neutrality took effect and you won't notice a damn thing different now that it's gone.

I challenge anyone to provide some issue that they personally have to endure that would not have happened if net neutrality was in effect and prove that net neutrality would have kept said issue from happening. It won't happen. The internet wasn't broken before net neutrality and it's not broken after net neutrality.

This isn't about pro Trump, at least from my perspective. It's about making a big ado about nothing. If any of you don't want to provide examples of how you personally have been affected adversely by the doing away of net neutrality or are unable to, I offer this alternative.
I challenge anyone from the United States to show something that changed when net neutrality took effect and prove that it was because of said net neutrality. That absolute best any of you could do is provide anecdotal examples without any possible way of showing that it was net neutrality that helped or improved a damn thing. Anecdotal doesn't mean shit. Facts mother fuckers, show some examples of how net neutrality actually benefited you or how the ending of net neutrality has now adversely affected you and have the data and proof to show that it was because of or lack thereof net neutrality.

Ya can't do it chumps because net neutrality didn't have a damn thing to do with you, the users, browsers and general riff raff of the interwebz. This was all about the much higher up stuff intercompany stuff that has always been and always will be unseen and behind the scenes and frankly levels above any of your all paygrades.

Prove me wrong.

[notyou2]

Obamacare is not a good system

True.

The Canadian system is a good one.

False.

The Canadian, British, and Australian systems are good for delivering quantity of coverage, but at the total compromise of quality. I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to visit a filthy British factory hospital. The NHS is essentially a Clockwork Orange LARP that's been going on for the last 70 years.

The Swiss system delivers excellent quality, but is basically just Obamacare.

The Dutch system of private hospitals combined with state-guaranteed insurance is pretty good, but the rationing and waiting lines would not work in the United States where people are used to getting a physician's appointment on a day or two notice.

The only decent proposal for health care reform that would expand access while preserving American dominance in quality was that proposed by the brilliant Brian Schweitzer. Unfortunately, Loser Hillary - in her drive for personal power - crushed his presidential aspirations like she crushed all other more qualified and capable Democratic candidates.*

* Edit: Zionist buffoon Bernie Sanders is not one of said "more qualified and capable" candidates.

The quality suffers very little, what suffers is the timeliness. Yes you may have to wait a little longer to get your displaced shoulder reset. However, if you are having a heart attack, they do the work right away, AND, it's free. You don't leave $200,000 in debt, or get turned away while still having the heart attack.

What country are you talking about? It would be impossible for an insured person in the United States to be left "$200,000 in debt, or get turned away while still having the heart attack." If insurance didn't pay for what it was insuring, why would people buy insurance?!

A typical insurance plan obligates the insured to pay 20% of of the first $25,000 of medical expenses (in other words $5,000) accrued in a calendar year, less one annual physical. All amounts between $25K and $1MM ($2MM since 2011) are covered at a 100% rate. This is how American insurance generally works and has nothing to do with Obamacare.

-Example 1: In other words, using this policy as an example, a person who has a bad viral infection and is treated on an inpatient basis six times by a physician next year (at an average per visit cost of $200, or $1200 total, plus $800 in imaging and blood tests) will accrue $400 in medical expenses.
-Example 2: A person who has a massive, once-in-a-lifetime heart attack that requires bypass surgery and one week hospitalization should accrue $5,000 in medical expenses.
-Example 3: A person who has a massive heart attack, the next month has a bad viral infection, the following month is hit by a bus and breaks their leg, the month after is stabbed in a bar fight, and the month after that gets herpes, should accrue $5,000 in medical expenses. (IOW mrswdk)

No insured person would go "$200,000 in debt, or get turned away" unless they were seeking a new experimental treatment, which is usually not covered by insurance. But, in Canada the same would be true by default since Canada doesn't have the advanced medical science the U.S. possesses so such experimental treatments would not be available in the first place.

But by all means continue to believe the Fake News that heart attacks put people "$200,000 in debt in the U.S." if it will distract you from the reality of your filthy factory hospitals, stone age medical science, and bread lines for basic treatment, while your own leaders - who don't want to deal with the crap they've given you - jet south to our beautiful, advanced medical palaces for treatment.

Yes you may have to wait a little longer to get your displaced shoulder reset.

I find the blasé tone of this statement absolutely terrifying.

If I were to displace my shoulder I would expect to have it set within 30 minutes of walking through the front doors of an ER. I can't even imagine living someplace in the year 2017 where that was not the expectation, standard, or norm. I am shocked that there are places in the world where people just shrug and accept they may have to "wait a little longer" to get treatment for a traumatic bone injury.

I was talking about Canada. What if you don't have insurance Saxi. How do you pay the medical bills? Does the care received change according to what you can pay?

[notyou2]

This thread is about "net neutrality and you". The OP seems to think that because net neutrality is gone that the internet is going to become terrible for you.

That is ridiculous. Net neutrality was in effect for, at most, two years. The average American isn't going to notice anything different at all. Nothing, nada, no effect. It's still gonna be the same old internet it's always been. It means absolutely nothing to the average Joe. DDS made this thread and now that net neutrality is gone I swear to God he's not going to be able to point to a single thing that happens adverse or positive, that wouldn't have happened with net neutrality in place.


Now, if DDS is the owner and operator of a big IP company, cable company or wtf ever, he might have some issues. But he's not.

The whole chicken little the internet is falling the internet is falling is hilariously absurd. DDS by his own admission didn't even use the internet before 2015 or so. He doesn't know any better. The rest of you who have been using the interwebz for decades, you suckers didn't notice a damn thing different when net neutrality took effect and you won't notice a damn thing different now that it's gone.

I challenge anyone to provide some issue that they personally have to endure that would not have happened if net neutrality was in effect and prove that net neutrality would have kept said issue from happening. It won't happen. The internet wasn't broken before net neutrality and it's not broken after net neutrality.

This isn't about pro Trump, at least from my perspective. It's about making a big ado about nothing. If any of you don't want to provide examples of how you personally have been affected adversely by the doing away of net neutrality or are unable to, I offer this alternative.
I challenge anyone from the United States to show something that changed when net neutrality took effect and prove that it was because of said net neutrality. That absolute best any of you could do is provide anecdotal examples without any possible way of showing that it was net neutrality that helped or improved a damn thing. Anecdotal doesn't mean shit. Facts mother fuckers, show some examples of how net neutrality actually benefited you or how the ending of net neutrality has now adversely affected you and have the data and proof to show that it was because of or lack thereof net neutrality.

Ya can't do it chumps because net neutrality didn't have a damn thing to do with you, the users, browsers and general riff raff of the interwebz. This was all about the much higher up stuff intercompany stuff that has always been and always will be unseen and behind the scenes and frankly levels above any of your all paygrades.

Prove me wrong.

The net has changed a great deal in it's short lifespan and is about to change even more. If you thing giving corporations control of things and deregulating them to the corporations benefit is a good thing, then lets wait and see.

[patches70]

The net has changed a great deal in it's short lifespan and is about to change even more. If you thing giving corporations control of things and deregulating them to the corporations benefit is a good thing, then lets wait and see.

So, you have no examples of how net neutrality has helped you or getting rid of net neutrality has harmed you personally?

I thought so.

[saxitoxin]

Obamacare is not a good system

True.

The Canadian system is a good one.

False.

The Canadian, British, and Australian systems are good for delivering quantity of coverage, but at the total compromise of quality. I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to visit a filthy British factory hospital. The NHS is essentially a Clockwork Orange LARP that's been going on for the last 70 years.

The Swiss system delivers excellent quality, but is basically just Obamacare.

The Dutch system of private hospitals combined with state-guaranteed insurance is pretty good, but the rationing and waiting lines would not work in the United States where people are used to getting a physician's appointment on a day or two notice.

The only decent proposal for health care reform that would expand access while preserving American dominance in quality was that proposed by the brilliant Brian Schweitzer. Unfortunately, Loser Hillary - in her drive for personal power - crushed his presidential aspirations like she crushed all other more qualified and capable Democratic candidates.*

* Edit: Zionist buffoon Bernie Sanders is not one of said "more qualified and capable" candidates.

The quality suffers very little, what suffers is the timeliness. Yes you may have to wait a little longer to get your displaced shoulder reset. However, if you are having a heart attack, they do the work right away, AND, it's free. You don't leave $200,000 in debt, or get turned away while still having the heart attack.

What country are you talking about? It would be impossible for an insured person in the United States to be left "$200,000 in debt, or get turned away while still having the heart attack." If insurance didn't pay for what it was insuring, why would people buy insurance?!

A typical insurance plan obligates the insured to pay 20% of of the first $25,000 of medical expenses (in other words $5,000) accrued in a calendar year, less one annual physical. All amounts between $25K and $1MM ($2MM since 2011) are covered at a 100% rate. This is how American insurance generally works and has nothing to do with Obamacare.

-Example 1: In other words, using this policy as an example, a person who has a bad viral infection and is treated on an inpatient basis six times by a physician next year (at an average per visit cost of $200, or $1200 total, plus $800 in imaging and blood tests) will accrue $400 in medical expenses.
-Example 2: A person who has a massive, once-in-a-lifetime heart attack that requires bypass surgery and one week hospitalization should accrue $5,000 in medical expenses.
-Example 3: A person who has a massive heart attack, the next month has a bad viral infection, the following month is hit by a bus and breaks their leg, the month after is stabbed in a bar fight, and the month after that gets herpes, should accrue $5,000 in medical expenses. (IOW mrswdk)

No insured person would go "$200,000 in debt, or get turned away" unless they were seeking a new experimental treatment, which is usually not covered by insurance. But, in Canada the same would be true by default since Canada doesn't have the advanced medical science the U.S. possesses so such experimental treatments would not be available in the first place.

But by all means continue to believe the Fake News that heart attacks put people "$200,000 in debt in the U.S." if it will distract you from the reality of your filthy factory hospitals, stone age medical science, and bread lines for basic treatment, while your own leaders - who don't want to deal with the crap they've given you - jet south to our beautiful, advanced medical palaces for treatment.

Yes you may have to wait a little longer to get your displaced shoulder reset.

I find the blasé tone of this statement absolutely terrifying.

If I were to displace my shoulder I would expect to have it set within 30 minutes of walking through the front doors of an ER. I can't even imagine living someplace in the year 2017 where that was not the expectation, standard, or norm. I am shocked that there are places in the world where people just shrug and accept they may have to "wait a little longer" to get treatment for a traumatic bone injury.

I was talking about Canada. What if you don't have insurance Saxi. How do you pay the medical bills? Does the care received change according to what you can pay?

You didn't qualify that your horror stories of "$200,000 of debt" and being turned away for treatment applied to 7% of the U.S. population - you implied that was the norm. I'm talking about norms - what most Canadians experience. You're talking about anomalies - what a tiny fraction of Americans experience.

Only 7% of Americans have a frame of reference with your stories about "$200,000 of debt" or being turned away because - pre 2011 - 93% of Americans had health insurance. However 99.9% of Canadians have experienced breadlines for third-world quality health care in filthy factory hospitals.

It's a choice of giving almost everyone a brand new Cadillac (U.S.) or everyone a used Pontiac with two flat tires and a cracked windshield (Canada). Remember that the next time one of your politicians crosses the border for treatment in one of our medical palaces because he doesn't want to risk his life in the Bulgarian-style paupers clinics 99.9% of Canadians are forced to use.

[saxitoxin]

From referral by a general practitioner to consultation with a specialist. The waiting time in this segment increased from 9.4 weeks in 2016 to 10.2 weeks this year. This wait time is 177% longer than in 1993, when it was 3.7 weeks. The shortest waits for specialist consultations are in Ontario (6.7 weeks) while the longest occur in New Brunswick (26.6 weeks).

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies ... anada-2017

Hilarious. Two years ago I I asked to see a dermatologist for a minor skin discoloration behind my ear which turned out to be an allergy. I went in the following week - but they'd initially offered me to come in the next day, I only didn't due to my own schedule.

[mookiemcgee]

Obamacare is not a good system

True.

The Canadian system is a good one.

False.

The Canadian, British, and Australian systems are good for delivering quantity of coverage, but at the total compromise of quality. I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to visit a filthy British factory hospital. The NHS is essentially a Clockwork Orange LARP that's been going on for the last 70 years.

The Swiss system delivers excellent quality, but is basically just Obamacare.

The Dutch system of private hospitals combined with state-guaranteed insurance is pretty good, but the rationing and waiting lines would not work in the United States where people are used to getting a physician's appointment on a day or two notice.

The only decent proposal for health care reform that would expand access while preserving American dominance in quality was that proposed by the brilliant Brian Schweitzer. Unfortunately, Loser Hillary - in her drive for personal power - crushed his presidential aspirations like she crushed all other more qualified and capable Democratic candidates.*

* Edit: Zionist buffoon Bernie Sanders is not one of said "more qualified and capable" candidates.

The quality suffers very little, what suffers is the timeliness. Yes you may have to wait a little longer to get your displaced shoulder reset. However, if you are having a heart attack, they do the work right away, AND, it's free. You don't leave $200,000 in debt, or get turned away while still having the heart attack.

What country are you talking about? It would be impossible for an insured person in the United States to be left "$200,000 in debt, or get turned away while still having the heart attack." If insurance didn't pay for what it was insuring, why would people buy insurance?!

A typical insurance plan obligates the insured to pay 20% of of the first $25,000 of medical expenses (in other words $5,000) accrued in a calendar year, less one annual physical. All amounts between $25K and $1MM ($2MM since 2011) are covered at a 100% rate. This is how American insurance generally works and has nothing to do with Obamacare.

-Example 1: In other words, using this policy as an example, a person who has a bad viral infection and is treated on an inpatient basis six times by a physician next year (at an average per visit cost of $200, or $1200 total, plus $800 in imaging and blood tests) will accrue $400 in medical expenses.
-Example 2: A person who has a massive, once-in-a-lifetime heart attack that requires bypass surgery and one week hospitalization should accrue $5,000 in medical expenses.
-Example 3: A person who has a massive heart attack, the next month has a bad viral infection, the following month is hit by a bus and breaks their leg, the month after is stabbed in a bar fight, and the month after that gets herpes, should accrue $5,000 in medical expenses. (IOW mrswdk)

No insured person would go "$200,000 in debt, or get turned away" unless they were seeking a new experimental treatment, which is usually not covered by insurance. But, in Canada the same would be true by default since Canada doesn't have the advanced medical science the U.S. possesses so such experimental treatments would not be available in the first place.

But by all means continue to believe the Fake News that heart attacks put people "$200,000 in debt in the U.S." if it will distract you from the reality of your filthy factory hospitals, stone age medical science, and bread lines for basic treatment, while your own leaders - who don't want to deal with the crap they've given you - jet south to our beautiful, advanced medical palaces for treatment.

Yes you may have to wait a little longer to get your displaced shoulder reset.

I find the blasé tone of this statement absolutely terrifying.

If I were to displace my shoulder I would expect to have it set within 30 minutes of walking through the front doors of an ER. I can't even imagine living someplace in the year 2017 where that was not the expectation, standard, or norm. I am shocked that there are places in the world where people just shrug and accept they may have to "wait a little longer" to get treatment for a traumatic bone injury.

I was talking about Canada. What if you don't have insurance Saxi. How do you pay the medical bills? Does the care received change according to what you can pay?

You didn't qualify that your horror stories of "$200,000 of debt" and being turned away for treatment applied to 7% of the U.S. population - you implied that was the norm. I'm talking about norms - what most Canadians experience. You're talking about anomalies - what a tiny fraction of Americans experience.

Only 7% of Americans have a frame of reference with your stories about "$200,000 of debt" or being turned away because - pre 2011 - 93% of Americans had health insurance. However 99.9% of Canadians have experienced breadlines for third-world quality health care in filthy factory hospitals.

It's a choice of giving almost everyone a brand new Cadillac (U.S.) or everyone a used Pontiac with two flat tires and a cracked windshield (Canada). Remember that the next time one of your politicians crosses the border for treatment in one of our medical palaces because he doesn't want to risk his life in the Bulgarian-style paupers clinics 99.9% of Canadians are forced to use.

So 22 million people are an anomoly? 0.00 million people in Canada have $200,000 in medical debt

[saxitoxin]

So 22 million people are an anomoly?

No, 7% are not an "anomoly" - they are, however, an anomaly.

[tzor]

Obamacare is not a good system, butit's 1000% better than the bullshit bill the republicans failed to pass this year.

First of all, Establishment Republicans don't want to repeal Obamacare. That's been painfully obvious the past year. It was just another campaign lie.

That doesn't mean there are a whole lot of other systems that are far superior to Socialized Medicine or the hybrid nonsense of Obamacare.

Unfortunately Europe fall into the Marxist trap into thinking that there were only two solutions Communism or Fascism and as result everything is heavily flavored with the former. They wouldn't know the Free Market if was right in front of their faces saving their asses from Nazis and designing their recovery afterwards.

[tzor]

Obamacare is not a good system, butit's 1000% better than the bullshit bill the republicans failed to pass this year.

First of all, Establishment Republicans don't want to repeal Obamacare. That's been painfully obvious the past year. It was just another campaign lie.

That doesn't mean there are a whole lot of other systems that are far superior to Socialized Medicine or the hybrid nonsense of Obamacare.

Unfortunately Europe fall into the Marxist trap into thinking that there were only two solutions Communism or Fascism and as result everything is heavily flavored with the former. They wouldn't know the Free Market if was right in front of their faces saving their asses from Nazis and designing their recovery afterwards.

So 22 million people are an anomoly? 0.00 million people in Canada have $200,000 in medical debt

You know what is the most effective way to not be in medical debt. Don't get medical treatment in the first place. The rationing system does wonders in keeping down costs (it would be interesting to note how many surgeons are actually cross border surgeons because they are not allowed to do enough surgeries in Canada to pay the bills so they also work in the US) but at the same time if you don't have or significantly delay important medical procedures your quality of life sucks real bad or you flat out DIE.

I have an elderly friend who just went though an ankle replacement. Do you think she would even be allowed to have that procedure if she was in Canada? HELL NO. So she would be hobbling around and possibly wheelchair bound for the rest of her life. Now she has a few months of "the boot" and then she is relatively back to normal.

[Bernie Sanders]

God bless the American healthcare system!

The number 1 reason why Americans declare bankruptcy!

We are number 1, we are number 1, we are number 1!

Fuk yea!

[2dimes]

Yeah sore, in Canada if an old person needs a new hip we club them. Make sure you tell everyone stupid enough to fall for it. It's funny when people are ignorant.

[tzor]

God bless the American healthcare system!

The number 1 reason why Americans declare bankruptcy!

Followed by
#2 Job Loss
#3 Poor/Excess Use of Credit
#4 Divorce/Separation
#5 Unexpected Expenses

And do you know why? Because the real number one financial problem, home mortgage defaults doesn't count as a "bankruptcy." The delinquency rate is currently 3.62% ... think about that for a moment.

[tzor]

Yeah sore, in Canada if an old person needs a new hip we club them. Make sure you tell everyone stupid enough to fall for it. It's funny when people are ignorant.

Nova Scotia continues to limp in last in hip, knee replacement wait times

About 90 per cent of Nova Scotia patients receive their hip replacement within 750 days and knee replacements within 800 days.

Yea, I know of someone who has been waiting for his hip replacement. The reason was because of problems with infections, however.

[saxitoxin]

God bless the American healthcare system!

The number 1 reason why Americans declare bankruptcy!

Medical expenses are also a top 3 reason for personal bankruptcy in Canada. Which is even more startling since Canadians, overall, go bankrupt more often than Americans.

https://bankruptcy-canada.com/bankruptc ... ankruptcy/

Guess I'd rather go bankrupt having a heart replacement in a state of the art medical palace than in a shack that looks like a Bulgarian chainsaw factory.

[saxitoxin]

Yeah sore, in Canada if an old person needs a new hip we club them. Make sure you tell everyone stupid enough to fall for it. It's funny when people are ignorant.

Nova Scotia continues to limp in last in hip, knee replacement wait times

What do people do when they have to wait six months for hip replacement? They must just be bed ridden as they queue? This is so sad. In this day in age, too. I can't even imagine.

To top it off, after you're done waiting for half a year, the surgery is performed in a room that looks like it's the set of Saw.

[Dukasaur]

Yeah sore, in Canada if an old person needs a new hip we club them. Make sure you tell everyone stupid enough to fall for it. It's funny when people are ignorant.

Nova Scotia continues to limp in last in hip, knee replacement wait times

What do people do when they have to wait six months for hip replacement? They must just be bed ridden as they queue? This is so sad. In this day in age, too. I can't even imagine.

I've been eligible for knee replacement surgery since 1998. That's almost 20 years. The reason I haven't had my knee replaced is not that the healthcare system is denying it to me, but that I can't afford to take 3 months off work for the recovery period.

It takes 25 to 50 years for your knee or hip to wear out. It takes for most people another 10 years before they make up their mind and decide whether the hassle of surgery and recovery is better or worse than living with the existing pain. After you've waited 10 years to decide, waiting another 6 months for the surgery itself is hardly a big deal. Like your MRI example earlier, you're talking about treatments for slowly-developing, long-term conditions like arthritis. It's a strawman. People who need surgery immediately for life-threatening or otherwise catastrophic conditions, get it immediately.