Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 460
  1. #151
    nightflier
    Guest

    Well I was responding tongue-in-cheek, but let's discuss...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloth Ears
    I'm not sure whether you mean charity within the U.S or foreign aid.
    If it is foreign aid then it depends on whether you count the total amount provided or the amount per capita. On a per capita basis you're actually one of the most miserly nations on the planet. If it is within the U.S. then it is clearly not enough to keep beggars off your streets.
    I meant foreign aid, total provided. And regarding domestic charity, the vast majority is going to religious institutions (I'm including tithes in this), for better or for worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloth Ears
    My understanding of the history of the Boston Tea Party was the objection by colonists because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives (i.e. Government). Not taxes per se.
    Yes, but there was also an underlying current in much of the published press, pamphlets and literature of the time (as much as was slipped by the Brits), representing a much more modern libertarian (that is, American Libertarian) stance questioning the need for taxes altogether. Many of the horror stories reported contrasted the taxes paid by colonists and the dearth of services received in return. Ironically, the popular criticism was that Britain was using the money to fight wars in Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloth Ears
    Not true - try living and paying taxes in any Scandinavian country! What is true is that you spend more on arms than any other nation.
    I have. And it's still true. When you add up all the taxes we pay in addition to our income taxes, per capita, we pay more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloth Ears
    The view of the individuals right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is one shared by Australians even though we don't have a declaration stating such. We like to think we are distant cousins far across the sea who have always stood by the American people in war and peace.
    I agree that both Canadians and Australians have stood by us and are standing still standing by us in Afghanistan and other places around the globe. However, your British ancestry (politically speaking) established a very different dynamic between governement and the individual. Ours stems from a very abrupt and violent split from Britain (aided by other world events, yes, I know) and a longer time apart, so to speak. During that time, our concept of individualism, especially as influenced by life on the frontier, grew in a different direction from yours (even though we do share many similarities there too). As an example, our rigid stance on having no foreign entanglements, is strikingly different from what you experienced as subjects of a British empire, and then as friendly participants with Britain in foreign affairs, after independence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloth Ears
    So don't shoot me - I just have a hard time understanding your rejection of medical support for all Americans. I thought that was what a universal health care system was supposed to do.
    Shoot? I don't even own a gun, although that's a pretty unpopular perspective here as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloth Ears
    Kind regards from Oz!
    Hence my references to Baum's novel. I was being a bit facetious, I hope that was noticed.

  2. #152
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9
    Thanks for your comments ForeverAutumn.

    Canadians & Australians are very similar in their views and definitely not as 'loud' as our American cousins. And yes - I am a male of the species!
    Cheers
    CE

  3. #153
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9
    Hey nightflier, thanks for the clarification.

    "Well I was responding tongue-in-cheek, but let's discuss..." - sorry I'm a bit slow sometimes!

    Regarding foreign aid - my point is that with 300 million people as opposed to our 20 million your capacity to generate funds through taxation and charity should not be measured by the total amount, but rather on a per capita basis. This gives a more accurate measure of the contribution of the individual (be they generous or selfish) and further, allows a comparison of relative contribution rates of charity, taxes, etc. When this view is taken you can see that some rather small countries (by population) really do punch above their weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    Ironically, the popular criticism was that Britain was using the money to fight wars in Europe.
    Yes it is ironic that the only thing that has changed is that the U.S. is using the money to fight wars in Europe and elsewhere! Here are some figures on your countries relative spend on the military.

    Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World Share (%)
    ó World Total 1464.0 100
    1 United States 607.0 41.5
    2 China 84.9[54] 5.8
    3 France 65.7 4.5
    4 United Kingdom 65.3 4.5
    5 Russian Federation 58.6[54] 4.0

    So why would it be so bad to fund a universal health care system by taking from your military budget and applying it to your health care budget? Quite clearly you already have the funds to do that without raising taxes. Maybe a nuke less nurture more approach would be more humanitarian (and dare I say Christian).

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    When you add up all the taxes we pay in addition to our income taxes, per capita, we pay more.
    Well I suppose it depends on were you get your information from. (Do you have a reference I could view supporting your statement?). I was referring to tax as a percentage of GDP. I use GDP because it represents the 'wealth or earnings' created that is then distributed amongst a population via the country's particular financial system. (The fairness of this distribution system is another topic altogether)! Here is a link to the figures stated in the "Economist" magazine which supports my position.
    http://www.economist.com/markets/ind...ry_id=12480352

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    As an example, our rigid stance on having no foreign entanglements, is strikingly different from what you experienced as subjects of a British empire, and then as friendly participants with Britain in foreign affairs, after independence.
    Well it is quite clear the rigid American stance has turned 180 degrees! Also Australians get dragged into foreign entanglements with America even though we are not subjects of the U.S. empire - or are we?

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    IShoot? I don't even own a gun, although that's a pretty unpopular perspective here as well.
    We don't have a right in Australia to 'bear arms' as you do. Individual possession was banned here in 1997. Mind you we only have the cuddly Koala bear. No Grizzleys in this part of the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    Hence my references to Baum's novel. I was being a bit facetious, I hope that was noticed.
    I told you I was a bit slow - certainly no Wizard of Oz!!

    In summary - America has all the funds it needs to provide every American with a comprehensive and world class universal health care system. You have the infrastructure, expertise, technology and population base to support this fundamental social objective.
    It appears as an outsider that all you need to do is reassess your national priorities and spending without increasing the tax burden on anyone. The easiest way seems to be by moving funds from your death (and destruction) budget to your life (and health) budget.
    I wish you every success in achieving this end.

    Kind Regards
    Cloth Ears

  4. #154
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421
    With my being an emergency medicine doctor I've been following this post in the back ground and trying to stay out of it. I would like to make a few points about some and I mean some of the problems and cost of our health care system presently and problems with universal health care WHICH I SUPPORT..

    First off, our system is not that bad. If you have a medical problem, you can go to any emergency dept and get treatment, regardless of your ability to pay. The is a law called EMTALA and you cannot turn any one away for any reason period! we are not even allowed to ask if you have insurance or the abiltiy to pay. The government knows this and thats why nothing has been done sooner about health care because the emergency dept is the saftey net of health care in this country. If your having a heart attack and have no money, you will get state of the art care. You don't even have to pay. Last year our hospital collected only 28% of charges in our dept. That is one of the reasons that health care is so expensive because collections are low and the bills need to be paid. So prices are inflated to make up the cost of doing business so that the hospital can stay afloat and pay its bills and its employee's. Some one has to pay for the people that are not paying their bills.

    Defensive Medicine- despite what the experts say about it being only a $60 billion dollar problem, I would bet my life savings that it is much higher. Every doctor I know practices defensive medicine several times a day for fear of missing something and harming a patient and being sued. That threat is always hanging over Dr's heads and unecessary tests such as CT scan, MRI's and Ultrasounds are ordered. Hell, people come in now and demand unecessary test's because of wrong information from a friend, relative, internet or nurse care line. The lawyers are playing this down because its money out of their pocket if major malpractice reform is passed. (as if they dont make enough money, many make $200-400/hr, but their in it to help the public). And if you don't think Dr's are worried about being sued, your wrong. There have been many Dr's that have commited suicide or gotten divorced because they lost a nusance suit when they were just trying to help a patient.

    Product liability is another problem. Thats why drugs and new technologies cost so much.

    End of life care is another big expense. In fact it is where most of our health care dollars are spent- the last 6 months of life (and this is a big issue with universal healthcare that no one wants to touch because it it political suicide if the right thing is done to limit end of life care for terminal illnesses) . Every one wants to live forever and families can't let loved ones die with dignity.

    Every one wants to feel good all the time and few people know any basic healthcare concenring colds, fever, sprains, injuries and such. If they started teaching this now in grade school and every couple of years, in 10-15years we would see a decline in Dr. visits.

    I could go on and on and delve into other area's but I wont.

    As far as UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is concerned, I am a supporter of it. I think we need to take care of people as a society, but health care is NOT A GOD GIVEN RIGHT. It is just the right thing to do morally. The problems facing Universal care is immense. First off, who's going to pay for it. They way medicine is practiced in this country and peoples expectations of medical care are going to have to change because we can't afford to pay for it in its present state. The Government will dictate to some extent how we practice medicine whether we like it or not. We will all be handing over 50% of our paycheck to the federal govt to pay for universal coverage. Your all kidding yourself if you think that this is not the case. I know some people who have been dealing with the issue with the gov't and its a multi trillion dollar issue that will break the back of the country. The Clinton's tried to tackle this issue and failed because of the cost among other reasons.

    Currently, increasing taxes on the rich or top 1% of the earners (people making over $250,000 per year) will not pay for health care so the money has to come from some where.

    People will not like the changes that will be made to the quality of care. It will go down as payments to Dr's are decreased. It will take longer to get in to see specialists. End of life care will have to be rationed. (for example, one of my partners is Canadian, his 82 y/o father who lived in Winnepeg had a heart attack. He was given a clot busting drug to try and abort the attack. They refused to do a life saving heart catheterization and angioplasty {which would have been done here in the U.S. because in people 80 and older the risk of having life threating intracranial bleeding is much higher in this age group} because of the cost. Well, needless to say he died of an intracranial bleed.) The clot busting drug cost $1,500 and a heart cath cost about $10,000-15,000.

    We also run the risk of going broke and ending up wit a poor system like Austrailia's. They used to be a private system, but became a gov't run system. No they have one of the worst health care systems in the world. I won't go into the specifics about the system and its problems.

    With all that being said. If we take our time and don't rush this change to a universal sytem through like Obama is trying to do in less than a year in office. We may be able to come up with a good plan to cover every one or at least have a good 2 payer system.
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  5. #155
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    We also run the risk of going broke and ending up wit a poor system like Austrailia's.
    Broke! - heh you have a bad recession going on - we don't. Also you're already almost broke - just look at your deficit!

    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    They used to be a private system, but became a gov't run system.No they have one of the worst health care systems in the world.
    The worst in the world eh! Now that's a sweeping statement. (It's actually a private/public system that is sadly underfunded but at least it exists).

    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    I won't go into the specifics about the system and its problems.
    Gee - I wish you would - at least to support your sweeping statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    Currently, increasing taxes on the rich or top 1% of the earners (people making over $250,000 per year) will not pay for health care so the money has to come from some where.
    See my previous post for a worthwhile suggestion.

    Good luck friends - you're going to need it.

    CE

  6. #156
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Blackraven

    Some good points and thank you for bringing some perspective from the medical community. I think one example you give cuts to the heart of the issue (no pun intended) regardless of what type of system we have. You used the term rationed when describing the what happened in the case of your partners 82-year old father and implied that the under the Canadian system the treatment given was the treatment chosen because of costs. Assuming that everything you say is correct what "reforms" do you think would be possible to narrow the gap between the $1500 treatment and the $10,000-$15,000 treatment? Is it possible through various reforms to be able to reduce the cost of (I am not saying make it equal) of the more expensive treatment to a level were it does not become such an obvious CBA decision resulting in the type "rationing" you described? Because IMO if you could do that then you can talk about expanded coverage(s) for everyone.

    As I have stated the only thing that is really being debated is how do we get everyone into a system that produces the result you just described and IMO that is not reform just an expansion of benefits. To me reform implies change and all that is being discussed now is a rearrangement of the existing furniture.

  7. #157
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    ...
    Yes, but there was also an underlying current in much of the published press, pamphlets and literature of the time (as much as was slipped by the Brits), representing a much more modern libertarian (that is, American Libertarian) stance questioning the need for taxes altogether. Many of the horror stories reported contrasted the taxes paid by colonists and the dearth of services received in return. Ironically, the popular criticism was that Britain was using the money to fight wars in Europe.
    ...

    I agree that both Canadians and Australians have stood by us and are standing still standing by us in Afghanistan and other places around the globe. However, your British ancestry (politically speaking) established a very different dynamic between governement and the individual. Ours stems from a very abrupt and violent split from Britain (aided by other world events, yes, I know) and a longer time apart, so to speak. During that time, our concept of individualism, especially as influenced by life on the frontier, grew in a different direction from yours (even though we do share many similarities there too).
    ....
    The way the text books in Canada tell it, the British taxes on the colonies were to pay for the French & Indian wars that were largely fought on the colonists behalf. So the colonists, by rejecting the taxes, were arguably showing ingratitude.

    In fact the American Revolution (War of Independance) was a bourgeois i.e. middle class, revolution for which the stamp taxes and tea tax were merely a pretext. It really had a lot more to do with trade restrictions that affected mainly the wealthest classes of the American colonists. Wealthy Republicans today may truly be seen the decendants of these wealthy colonists. Bear in mind that many of these people were slaver owners and most felt strongly that only property owners ought to vote or had any reason to want to.

    Yet it's certainly true that the "frontier" played huge role in developing the American sensibility. The mythology of self-reliance and "rugged individualism" evolved from the circumstances that affected all classes of Americans from before the War of Independance until well into the 20th century. The frontier days began to end as cheap land became scarce in the West. But In fact it might be said that the frontier days didn't entirely end until the US became increasingly reliance on foreign resources, above all oil, after WWII.

    Its fair to say that both Canada and Australia developed a similar frontier ethos, but perhaps because of the continuing British influence, it had lessor and less persistent impact on the psyches of Canucks and Aussies.

    However the frontier days are well and truly over for the US. Consequently one must ask whether Americans will continue be well served by the a frontier ethos.

  8. #158
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    One SOB of a hangover from all the partying?
    LMao!!!....yup, yup...and a lotta ee-eerrr, ee-errr, squeeky beadsprings sounds as the largest generation of Americans was born....and for decades upon decades nobody ever spoke up about the obvious need for socialized healthcare...and now that that oldest, greatest generation is getting ready to face the twighlight and doesn't want to go gentle into that good night, the rest of us are expected to pay for it.

    Within five years there will be more Americans not working than working. That means no employer-covered healthcare.

    My objection to the current referendums presented by either side is that no plan is complete enough, no plan encapsulates the scope of the problem. Until there is a plan that involves an action plan against illegal immigration, a plan that affects true legal reform (specificaly against frivolous class-action lawsuits), and a plan that recognizes the need to extend the age limits for Social Security I'll never support any of the half-measures that are being put forth....

    ...Lotta good points, lotta good perspectives and, certainly, some excellent perspectives from members of this forum from other countries...but this current American perspective is unique...and disturbingly so, because the numbers add up badly...and there's no way mathematically to make it work out...
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  9. #159
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  10. #160
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloth Ears
    Broke! - heh you have a bad recession going on - we don't. Also you're already almost broke - just look at your deficit!


    The worst in the world eh! Now that's a sweeping statement. (It's actually a private/public system that is sadly underfunded but at least it exists).


    Gee - I wish you would - at least to support your sweeping statement.


    See my previous post for a worthwhile suggestion.

    Good luck friends - you're going to need it.

    CE

    CE, I love the fact that you are posting...often and voraciously. I've read the description of your country's health plan, I've read Feanor's experience, and I respect both. The problem is we, in America. are facing demographics that are astoundingly different from the candygram and get-well card that y'all have embraced.

    I'm glad that you all had the prescience to define the problem and find workable solutions within your existing systems. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that under the current set of circumstances we can accomplish the same feats...
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  11. #161
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.

    HEY?!?!... I represent that comment!!....
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  12. #162
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.
    There's the danger, GM -- to reject all criticism of the US as anti-American bigotry.

    The US is a great nation and American are not scumbags -- however the US is not above criticism. The US and Americans are they way they are because they have a history, but the world changes and Americans must ask themselves how they ought to respond to it.

  13. #163
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by bobsticks
    HEY?!?!... I represent that comment!!....
    You, 'Sticks, are a conflicted person.

  14. #164
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    You, 'Sticks, are a conflicted person.
    Absolutely my friend....and my conflict is such that it informs the American experience. We are completely and perfectly not beyond criticism...and because of the circumstances and the global implications I think that it is beyond crucial that we view this, the most important debate of our times, with the utmost severity.

    You're right, Bill Bailey, I'm conflicted because there are multiple points of view within this line of argument...all need to be respected but all need to reconcile a certain degree of acquiescence in the ultimate search for a solution...
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  15. #165
    Musicaholic Forums Moderator ForeverAutumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    First off, our system is not that bad. If you have a medical problem, you can go to any emergency dept and get treatment, regardless of your ability to pay. The is a law called EMTALA and you cannot turn any one away for any reason period! we are not even allowed to ask if you have insurance or the abiltiy to pay.
    I didn't know this. It must put a terrible drain on your emergency room resources. I imagine that many people who don't have insurance must go to the emergency room for treatement of non-urgent ailments just to get treatment.


    People will not like the changes that will be made to the quality of care. It will go down as payments to Dr's are decreased. It will take longer to get in to see specialists.
    That is our experience in Canada. Although urgent and life-threatening cases are given the highest priority and don't have to wait. But waiting months to see a specialist and weeks for routine tests is the norm. Heck, I have to book my annual mammogram at least a month in advance...but I don't have to pay for it. And if there was any sign of a lump or any abnormalty, I would be booked for a test in days.

    End of life care will have to be rationed. (for example, one of my partners is Canadian, his 82 y/o father who lived in Winnepeg had a heart attack. He was given a clot busting drug to try and abort the attack. They refused to do a life saving heart catheterization and angioplasty {which would have been done here in the U.S. because in people 80 and older the risk of having life threating intracranial bleeding is much higher in this age group} because of the cost. Well, needless to say he died of an intracranial bleed.) The clot busting drug cost $1,500 and a heart cath cost about $10,000-15,000.
    Not that I doubt what you are saying, but I'm always a little sceptical when I hear stories like this. It's quite possible that money was the motivator here, but could it also have been that risk that you bracketed? If the surgery was only $15,000 at the high end, then why didn't your collegue fly his father to Minnesota or North Dakota for treatment if the Manitoba gov't was unwilling to pay?
    Last edited by ForeverAutumn; 10-01-2009 at 06:55 AM.

  16. #166
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    There's the danger, GM -- to reject all criticism of the US as anti-American bigotry.

    I don't see where I've done that. Maybe the danger is in thinking that anytime an American sticks up for themselves that it makes us bigots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    The US is a great nation and American are not scumbags -- however the US is not above criticism. The US and Americans are they way they are because they have a history, but the world changes and Americans must ask themselves how they ought to respond to it.
    Nobody criticizes Americans more than Americans do. But I'm not sure why it goes unoticed.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  17. #167
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by bobsticks
    LMao!!!....yup, yup...and a lotta ee-eerrr, ee-errr, squeeky beadsprings sounds as the largest generation of Americans was born....and for decades upon decades nobody ever spoke up about the obvious need for socialized healthcare...and now that that oldest, greatest generation is getting ready to face the twighlight and doesn't want to go gentle into that good night, the rest of us are expected to pay for it.

    Within five years there will be more Americans not working than working. That means no employer-covered healthcare.
    Hmm, the only issue I can find with your very good point is that, as the "largest generation of Americans" (I assume you mean in numbers, not in weight) ages...they're already gonna get Medicare, no? A sunk cost. Hence, minimal impact on the debate going forward, the damage is already built in.

    Then way I see it, the burden of aging society is going to be passed on to the public either through taxes, or as part of of the cost of goods sold if included in ER sponsored health-care. You can argue which side is more incompetent, how many excessive mark-ups and middle-men will drive up costs vs how much inefficiency and bureaucracy the government will deliver, but it boils down to the same pile of goo and ends where it begins...a debate over fundamental philosphy...public vs private.

    Continue.

  18. #168
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.
    The Canadians I live among are very pro-USA. They just like throwing shots once in awhile in a good neighbo(u)rly way (and accept the ones that are fired back in kind). But I kinda understand where they're coming from. If we accept that every country is represented by its most public ambassadors (politicians, singers, movie stars, etc) then the rest of the world see the USA as being somewhere between Bill O'Reilly, K-Fed, and Oprah.

    We're guilty of it in the US too - I have yet to meet a single Canadian say "oot" or "aboot" and the majority of the population doesn't watch hockey, but perception lingers...

    Think nothing of it.

  19. #169
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Hmm, the only issue I can find with your very good point is that, as the "largest generation of Americans" (I assume you mean in numbers, not in weight) ages...they're already gonna get Medicare, no? A sunk cost. Hence, minimal impact on the debate going forward, the damage is already built in.

    Then way I see it, the burden of aging society is going to be passed on to the public either through taxes, or as part of of the cost of goods sold if included in ER sponsored health-care. You can argue which side is more incompetent, how many excessive mark-ups and middle-men will drive up costs vs how much inefficiency and bureaucracy the government will deliver, but it boils down to the same pile of goo and ends where it begins...a debate over fundamental philosphy...public vs private.

    Continue.

    Yes and no, my friend. Until there's legal reform how many lawsuits are gonna be seen to fruition through simple greed.

    Medicare is one thing but you and I both know that it's a simple matter of mathematics. There are two pies and they have a symbiotic relationship. One, is revenue, the other is taxation...ultimately you can't pull a piece out of one without effecting the other.
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  20. #170
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc

    We're guilty of it in the US too - I have yet to meet a single Canadian say "oot" or "aboot" and the majority of the population doesn't watch hockey, but perception lingers...

    Think nothing of it.

    Yeah, but you're just an average man...with average carpentry skills...and no matter what you've parlayed that into...can we really trust your perceptions?
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  21. #171
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by bobsticks
    Yeah, but you're just an average man...with average carpentry skills...and no matter what you've parlayed that into...can we really trust your perceptions?
    I call foul. You take that back mister. Kex is much more than just an average man.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  22. #172
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Clearly you didn't watch Kex's video...I understand and respect your willingness to stand up for our friend...none the less...

    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  23. #173
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by bobsticks
    Clearly you didn't watch Kex's video...I understand and respect your willingness to stand up for our friend...none the less...

    Duh.... OK. I think I see your point. It was behind that huge average guy right?
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  24. #174
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Believe me, BR, I respect you medical knowledge. But the you paragraph below reveals issues to be explored.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    ...
    People will not like the changes that will be made to the quality of care. It will go down as payments to Dr's are decreased. It will take longer to get in to see specialists. End of life care will have to be rationed. (for example, one of my partners is Canadian, his 82 y/o father who lived in Winnepeg had a heart attack. He was given a clot busting drug to try and abort the attack. They refused to do a life saving heart catheterization and angioplasty {which would have been done here in the U.S. because in people 80 and older the risk of having life threating intracranial bleeding is much higher in this age group} because of the cost. Well, needless to say he died of an intracranial bleed.) The clot busting drug cost $1,500 and a heart cath cost about $10,000-15,000.
    ...
    To be sure, I don't know or fully understand the circumstances of the case in question. (For that matter perhaps you don't fully either having received the info second hand for somebody who is biased to dislike the Canadian system, likely because he is earning 2-3x as much money in the US as he would in Canada.)

    Yes, I don't doubt it's true that a "heart catheterization and angioplasty" would not be sanctioned in Canada. Not merely because an 82 year life isn't worth saving, but because an operation on a person that age under those circumstances is risky and higly uncertain as to outcome. In general, (I allow I can't judge the specific case), are the chances of saving the life about the same with the clot-busting drug as with the operation given the potential trauma of the operation itself? In Canada rationality tends to prevail and there is less grasping at (expensive) straws.

    The question of cost of universal healthcare vis a vis mainly private healtcare is largely specious if you are expecting the equivalent outcomes -- if you are willing to let people die because they can't pay, then fine, that's another matter. Health outcomes in Canada are as good as in the US while the cost is approx. 65%. I believe there are two reasons, (1) the cost of administration on account of a one-payor system is in fact about 1/5 of what it is in the US, and (2) because there is a rational -- as opposed to an emotional but at the same time profit-driven -- approach to deciding with which procedures are appropriate and when. Call this socialism if you will.

  25. #175
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by bobsticks
    Yes and no, my friend. Until there's legal reform how many lawsuits are gonna be seen to fruition through simple greed.

    Medicare is one thing but you and I both know that it's a simple matter of mathematics. There are two pies and they have a symbiotic relationship. One, is revenue, the other is taxation...ultimately you can't pull a piece out of one without effecting the other.
    I'm not sure I'm 100% clear on where you're saying here.

Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •