Conquer Club

jay_a2j wrote:5 gal. of gas = $20 + a $20 co-pay = $40 just to go to the doctors! And God forbid he should give you a prescription...that's another $5 co-pay plus gas to get it filled!

Obviously you'd have to get rid of the petrol after you've used it to go to the doctor's instead of using what's left, otherwise your argument will make even less sense.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Why should the government be seeking to provide healthcare? Can't private charities and individual doctors, as was done (extremely successfully) pre-1945?

charities depend on donations, and why shoul;d anyone donate to people too lazy to get their own health insurance?

True dat.

So... you answered your own question. Good man.


Sandbek:
Who gets to 'deem themselves sick'? And please define the 'failure' of, say, the British NHS, and try and do it without making groundless assertions.

Guys to find out who taylor is go to flamewars and just read a bit. I'm sure it will enlighten and put this entire thread in a new light

TaylorSandbek wrote:Some good arguments for anti-healthcare is that it is proven to fail everywhere it has been established. Everybody and their uncle are abusing the systems, that for anything serious, it takes so long that some people will end up in worse condition, death.

Lol?
It has proven to fail everywhere? Quite a bold claim to make as it's not backed up by any statistics.

Also, it is awfully close to wealth distribution, which is even closer to socialism. Everyone's money being taken from them, and given to anyone who deems themself sick,

Deems themselves sick?

The difference between healthcare and other types of service is that people don't go to the doctor for fun. They just don't. There is no reason to go to the doctor if you aren't sick, whether the system is private or not.

Give me one good reason why someone who isn't actually sick would go to the hospital?

Well, they may be sick, but not really seriously ill. There is just such a big window for people to abuse the system. If its "on the government", everyone will be a lot more apt to go to the doctor at the slightest ache or pain.

There are long lines to wait for anything in other countries with socialized medicine, because of what I have just said.

I do not prescribe to this, this theory of socialized medicine, because I do not believe in my money going into a big pot for everyone to take from and get free medicine from. Id much rather just pay for myself when needed, and everyone else do the same.
Why should we take away part of the free market, and institute a government controlled option?

On the other hand, if you go to see the doctor over that slight pain in, say, your hip, that hairline fracture or beginning arthritis is more likely to be noticed early and can then be dealt with before that slight pain becomes excruciating agony. And early treatments are actually cheaper than trying to get things repaired once the shit has hit the fan, also the patients usually need less time before they can go back to work again if they were treated early rather than late.

Thats not addressing the issue of government controlling something else.

Im not trying to be the proverbial cynic here, but do we really need government's hand in something else in our life? They can hardly keep together what they have atm.

TaylorSandbek wrote:Well, they may be sick, but not really seriously ill. There is just such a big window for people to abuse the system. If its "on the government", everyone will be a lot more apt to go to the doctor at the slightest ache or pain.

We are encouraged to go to the doctor more here. Doctors are qualified to diagnose - you and I are not. How do you know a slight ache or pain isn't something serious?
One example: a rceent study found that 50% of Uk men with cancer symptoms would avoid going to the doctor.
A hike in your no-claims bonus is a disincentive to seek medical help.

There are long lines to wait for anything in other countries with socialized medicine, because of what I have just said.

Based on... what?
I have had a recent brush with the NHS - got knocked off my bike, was in hospital within 30 mins and was seen by an ER doctor within a couple of hours - for nothing more serious than a cut nose. On a Friday night in central London. Pretty good eh?

I do not prescribe to this, this theory of socialized medicine, because I do not believe in my money going into a big pot for everyone to take from and get free medicine from. Id much rather just pay for myself when needed, and everyone else do the same.

Uh, roads? Schools? What about the police? Are you unhappy about paying into a pot so that just anyone can get help when they get robbed or raped or ripped off?
This is what it comes down to, whether you give a shit about anyone except yourself. It's not anti-socialism or republicanism or any ism at all, just pure, grasping selfishness. That's all.

PLAYER57832 wrote:EXCEPT, as I have tried to point out before, I am NOT talking about some Illusionary place I see in textbooks or on TV. The reality ... I live just north of Pittsburgh. We are considered "rural", though we live in a fair-sized town. The number of families that are considered "low income" and qualify for reduced or free lunches, as well as other aid is over 80%. This is generally WITH both parents working. It is skewed a little because in divorced families, only the biological parents' incomes count. It is much WORSE in towns around us. Bradford, home to Zippo lighters, for example has a very high percentage of folks on welfare.

In Buffalo, you see factory after factor closed and boarded up. I was told a few years ago, by a company executive who needed such data, that the roughly 80% of working people up there got $8.00 an hour or less. Just try to get a house and raise a family on that WITHOUT assistance!

Out west, where I also have family, the homeless rate in Santa Barbara is so high that they have opened up their beaches to people living in RV's or cars. They do so because it cuts down on crime. These are FAMILIES, many with working adults. Those who are not working have been laid off and are looking.

Up in the Bay Area (which is a HUGE and diverse area that includes far more than San Francisco) AND over to the Sacramento area, you see job booms, but the only way people can afford even a basic home is if they either have EXTREMELY good jobs or work 2-3 jobs ... usually BOTH parents. (and we wonder why kids are having problems?)

You realize that there is a reason why Pittsburgh is called the "pitts" right? Buffalo has likewise been in a economic slump for decades, as is much of upstate and western New York. The reasons are simple, the regions have never evolved from the industrial base they were derived from which they now lost. Basically it sucks there and no one wants to locate their buisnesses there.

Califorina is the exact opposite problem; it's paradise there and there are far too many people to comfortably live there even if everyone had a job which is not the case.

Nappy, one thing that is absolutely vital to understanding the United States is that you can't even compare it to Europe, much less a specific nation within Europe. The US is so large that there are an infinite examples of different levels of the economy, from Manhatten, to Buffalo, to New Orleans, to Santa Barbara.

TaylorSandbek wrote:Well, they may be sick, but not really seriously ill.

Oh so now only seriously ill people should be treated at hospitals? So a person with what she thinks may be a mole she got from sunbathing shouldn't go see a doctor as she's not seriously ill?
So what if 6 months later they discover it wasn't actually a mole but a melanoma and she might as well make up her will as she's as good as death?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

There is just such a big window for people to abuse the system. If its "on the government", everyone will be a lot more apt to go to the doctor at the slightest ache or pain.

Well more power to them!
Even if this was true (which it isn't), why is it a big deal? They may discover one in the 5 patients actually has a thing that might develop into a serious disease if the person hadn't come to the doctor.

There are long lines to wait for anything in other countries with socialized medicine, because of what I have just said.

Not to cast suspicion on your claims or anything, but have you ever been to a hospital in an European country?
Because I sure as hell haven't seen these long lines you speak off, and certainly no long lines like those outside of ER-rooms in the US of A.

I do not prescribe to this, this theory of socialized medicine, because I do not believe in my money going into a big pot for everyone to take from and get free medicine from. Id much rather just pay for myself when needed, and everyone else do the same.

It's brilliant because your way makes it more expensive.

Why should we take away part of the free market, and institute a government controlled option?

Because the free market isn't the best option for everything.

OK let's get back to health care. If I may I would like to say a word about the Canadian system.

They killed Kenny
You Bastards!

OK, Kenny's fictional and everyone kills him, but the name was changed to protect the guilty. I know some friends who have a house in a small village in Canada. They had a lovely neighbor. She was eldery but 100% mobile and able to live a normal life. Then her children managed to get power of attourney. They moved her to a nursing home. They cut her off from the outside world, no visits, no telephone, no communication. My friends were at one point going to court to get her out of the home but the legal system was totally screwing this lady and giving everything to their children. They only stay in Canada for a few weeks at various points in the year. When they came back they found out that the kids put her on a morphine drip and she died shortly thereafter. They euthanized her (non voluntray euthanasia) which is clearly illegal under that name but can easily be swept under the rug.

So really, what's the good of healthcare if your children can lock you up and get rid of you when you reach old age just so they can get their grubby hands on your prooperty a decade or two before your normal time?

Do you have any proof for your aspersions?

Snorri1234 wrote:Oh so now only seriously ill people should be treated at hospitals? So a person with what she thinks may be a mole she got from sunbathing shouldn't go see a doctor as she's not seriously ill?

Hospitals really should be divided into three parts and a fourth part added to the system. Most of the problems of hospitals occur because they are no so divided. There are three functions of hospitals, emergencies, illness and surgery. The latter two don't like each other very much. Surgery and disease don't get along together well. Emergencies are mostly the problem of triage and seeing if immediate surgery is needed or whatever immediate care is necessary. Finally there is the notion of routine care.

A person with a mole should not go to the hospital but to an office or a clinic, ideally an office or clinic where people are getting routine tests. (It is silly to combine the people who are getting tests for potential problems to be in the same waiting room as those who are suffering from viral or bacterial infections. Yet people do avoid doctors because they don't want to get sick!)

Making everything an "emergency" only puts massive strain on the emergency portion of the hospital and in turn can cause significant delays to those who really have emergencies. And again the last thing you want if you have a gaping open wound is to pass through an admission room full of people with the viral disease of the day.

Unless you divide the health system into the component parts and deal with them differently because they have different problems you will never get an efficient health care system.

The1exile wrote:Do you have any proof for your aspersions?

No but my friends who have the house in Canada were fighting the battle for years. "Proof" is a hard thing to come by especially if people are trying to cover things up.

tzor wrote:No but my friends who have the house in Canada were fighting the battle for years. "Proof" is a hard thing to come by especially if people are trying to cover things up.

I know! Ron Paul '08!

Nickbaldwin wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:5 gal. of gas = $20 + a $20 co-pay = $40 just to go to the doctors! And God forbid he should give you a prescription...that's another $5 co-pay plus gas to get it filled!

Obviously you'd have to get rid of the petrol after you've used it to go to the doctor's instead of using what's left, otherwise your argument will make even less sense.

The NEAREST doctor to us is 15 miles. For many specialties, including female medicine, allergies, behavioral health (ADHD children's assessments and so forth), ETC., we have to go 30 miles MINIMUM. For really specialized care (cancer treatments, advanced surgery, etc.) you have to go over 100 miles.

My Car gets, ON THE FREEWAY 22 miles per gallon. Gas costs $3.99, for the cheapest kind. The gas station is another 5 miles off the route to the doctor.

There is very minimal public transportation. You can go once a week to the nearest town, once a month to the bigger town (30 miles). Bicycles are not viable except in the summer ... and then mean negotiation a winding road with almost no shoulder (edge) in parts, where people typically travel 60 mph, though the speed limit ranges from 40-55mph.

OUR co-pay now is $15.00 , but perscriptions (IF covered) are $8. If we go to the "emergency room" (for true emergencies) or even just to the local clinic. (where you go when your child has a fever or such and the doctor's office can't see them ... usual, since they generally need 2 days lead time, particularly in the height of cold and flu season.

BEFORE my husband left his job of over 20 to take a new one, our "co-pay" was $20, PLUS we had to pay 100% of ALL charges up until we met not one, but TWO $500 deductibles. The "co-payments" DID NOT count towards that $500.

THIS is the insurance that roughly 10% of our town & surrounding communities STILL HAVE.


As for my "sob stories". Mine is no where near a "sob story". It is just ONE example of many, many within my community AND across the nation.

As for my lack of "statistics". First, I have provided some, but since they don't agree with your opinion, you reject them ... and any other data you don't happen to like. Most of what I have said falls into the realm of "common information". That is, is so accepted, been published so many times it no longer requires citation. Unfortunately, that does NOT apply to the internet.

To get something published in the print world, you have to pass through a few checks. The publisher verifies (to some extend) what you say because they are liable for errors. Sometimes it fails. Newspaper editors have to decide between printing something fast and checking things out. SO, they hire reporters they trust .. until something happens.

In Science, the checks are VERY rigorous. First, journals do NOT make money. They are for educational purposes. So, the incentive to publish for profit is NOT with the publisher (in most cases ... in some cases the publisher is an agency or institute that might be said to have a bias, but those are also known and their data is not considered as credible). Some are considered "grey literature". Many US Government information is considered "grey". Some "grey literature" is actually as good or better than the independent journals. Official Publications of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration are one example. (NOT to be confused with data put out by or sponsored by these organizations, but published in regular scientific journals). In other cases .. . stuff put out by "research groups" that have a definite interest in promoting one or other opinion fall on the opposite end. You review this information with EXTREME caution.

Back to the CREDIBLE, scientific journals. BECAUSE science data can be difficult to discern, unless you are in the field and up on the latest techniques, they go through a PEER REVIEW process. That is, other scientists in the field have to review and critique the information. They check techniques, accuracy of data ... various other things. THEN it gets published.

There IS pressure on individual scientists and projects to produce publishable data. Funding for them depends upon it. BUT, that is for the projects, usually the publication is seperate.


ANYWAY, the internet neatly circumvents this in several ways.

First, it costs essentially "nothing" (very little anyway) to set up a web site. Anyone even halfway skilled with graphics and photo editing and a decent command of the English language can create wonderful looking cites with all kinds of information and data. They can throw in a bunch of publications and make it look real. You don't even have to make sure the information is real. Most people won't or cannot check those references. Of those few who do, the majority will just read the brief summary and be done. So, you could cite a real study by a legitimate organization, but attribute data incorrectly. By the time anyone figures it out ... its all gone.

OR,if you ar really serious... just cit a reference that cites a reference that cites a study. The more obscure and "official looking", the better.

Anyway, this has ended up as much a primer on internet info versus other information.

The internet CAN lead you to all those wonderful sources and lots og credible information. However, the irony is those tend to be rather boring and therefore far less popular than those other studies. Generally, (not always, but very, very often), you have to page back 3-4 pages on Google queries to get REAL information. This is MORE true on controversial subjects because Google bases its priorities, on popularity, not truth. (it can't "do" truth, for one thing).

SO, here is the thing. I can certainly come up with studies. EVEN THOUGH most of what I have said is either personal experience, which cannot be referenced better. OR, is information considered "public" and not subject to citation.

AND you will come up with 10, 20 other articles voicing your opinion.... and so forth.

I choose not to do that. If that means a few people will reject what I say, so be it. The truth is that most of those objecting are interesting only in confirming their own, often very narrow opinions. That is not debate. That is stubbornness.

tzor wrote:
A person with a mole should not go to the hospital but to an office or a clinic, ideally an office or clinic where people are getting routine tests. (It is silly to combine the people who are getting tests for potential problems to be in the same waiting room as those who are suffering from viral or bacterial infections. Yet people do avoid doctors because they don't want to get sick!)

Well duh, this is why we in the civilised world have General Practicioners. I usually don't go to my gp as my dad will make a appointment with a specialist directly, but for most other people they usually go to see their doctor not in the hospital but in the clinic.

This is also why I said "doctor" and not "hospital".

Making everything an "emergency" only puts massive strain on the emergency portion of the hospital and in turn can cause significant delays to those who really have emergencies. And again the last thing you want if you have a gaping open wound is to pass through an admission room full of people with the viral disease of the day.
Unless you divide the health system into the component parts and deal with them differently because they have different problems you will never get an efficient health care system.

Duh.

PLAYER57832 wrote:My Car gets, ON THE FREEWAY 22 miles per gallon. Gas costs $3.99, for the cheapest kind.

It's because you have a fuel inefficient vehicle (like the vast majority of America for the last 40 years) that gas is running out and it now costs $3.99
Thank you (and the rest of America) for burning fuel so wastefully.

Maybe if it had cost you lot $3.99 20 years ago, we would have really advanced hybrid / electric / hydrogen fuel cell engines NOW.

But no, your government has plowed trillions of your tax dollars into making B2 bombers and the like. A real contribution to humankind....
Healthcare for the masses or stealth planes. 6 litre V8's or green energy alternatives.
Wake up ffs.

tzor wrote:OK let's get back to health care. If I may I would like to say a word about the Canadian system.

They killed Kenny
You Bastards!

OK, Kenny's fictional and everyone kills him, but the name was changed to protect the guilty. I know some friends who have a house in a small village in Canada. They had a lovely neighbor. She was eldery but 100% mobile and able to live a normal life. Then her children managed to get power of attourney. They moved her to a nursing home. They cut her off from the outside world, no visits, no telephone, no communication. My friends were at one point going to court to get her out of the home but the legal system was totally screwing this lady and giving everything to their children. They only stay in Canada for a few weeks at various points in the year. When they came back they found out that the kids put her on a morphine drip and she died shortly thereafter. They euthanized her (non voluntray euthanasia) which is clearly illegal under that name but can easily be swept under the rug.

So really, what's the good of healthcare if your children can lock you up and get rid of you when you reach old age just so they can get their grubby hands on your prooperty a decade or two before your normal time?

This and far worse can and does happen right now, in the US.

Pedronicus wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:My Car gets, ON THE FREEWAY 22 miles per gallon. Gas costs $3.99, for the cheapest kind.

It's because you have a fuel inefficient vehicle (like the vast majority of America for the last 40 years) that gas is running out and it now costs $3.99
Thank you (and the rest of America) for burning fuel so wastefully.

Maybe if it had cost you lot $3.99 20 years ago, we would have really advanced hybrid / electric / hydrogen fuel cell engines NOW.

But no, your government has plowed trillions of your tax dollars into making B2 bombers and the like. A real contribution to humankind....
Healthcare for the masses or stealth planes. 6 litre V8's or green energy alternatives.
Wake up ffs.

I agree. and a friend of mine worked on some of the early hyrdrogen car experiments (or experiments that lead to the car, might be more correct).

I rode my bike a LOT before I had kids. Now I live in a town without safe bike routes along the roads.

Too many people out here equate anything like fuel economy with either "cutting into business" or "those crazy environmentalists and liberals". Strangely, the bigger businesses actually ARE starting to pay attention to some of these issues. Seems it doesn't pay to be unprepared when the ocean rises by several feet.....

tzor wrote:

The1exile wrote:Do you have any proof for your aspersions?

No but my friends who have the house in Canada were fighting the battle for years. "Proof" is a hard thing to come by especially if people are trying to cover things up.

This seems like the type of thing that cant really be used to discredit the system as a whole (irrespective of other arguments).

If we are going to argue that because there is the possibility of fraud, especially fraud of this variety, which one would hope is uncommon...or at least not that common, then you will never come up with a system that approaches working.

What we need is every country in the world to be like Sweden.

suggs wrote:What we need is every country in the world to be like Sweden.

Yes.

Snorri1234 wrote:

suggs wrote:What we need is every country in the world to be like Sweden.

Yes.

3 chicks to every one guy?
I'm sorry, our American tv deosn't tell us about any country doing anything better than us. I'm Googleing this...

AMERICA RULES WHOOO!!!

Snorri1234 wrote:

suggs wrote:What we need is every country in the world to be like Sweden.

Yes.

yes.