Uh Oh! Socialism stops where self is concerned

[Ovedya]

I don't see what the big deal is. He chose to go to the premier heart surgeon for the procedure he needed, who is American. Big deal? It's one operation. It shows you guys have some surgeons who are at the pinacle of research and technique. Why shouldn't he be able to come to the states, or anywhere else for that matter, to get surgery? This kind of surgery is essentially a business.

A business which has been able to thrive in a competition-based system. A business which has been able to succeed in the world's foremost innovative environments - capitalism. Fact is, he came to America to get his heart surgery because of this fact; because American heart surgeons are the best in the world. And when you're life is potentially at stake and you can afford it, you go for the best.

I actually agree (shock horror!) that there should be levels of care. A core basic health care, given to all, and the rest is user pays, you get what you pay for... if you want the absolute best than you can pay through the teeth.

Guess what? That's exactly what we have. Basic insurance is pretty expensive, but it's essentially catastrophic care. Aside from your regular "wellness visits" and the occasional doctor visit, everything else is "pay as you go." In terms of real health care it stinks to high heaven. But that's what non-competition does. It allows the big companies to come in and take "territories" for themselves with no competition. The result is the free-market system is stifled and those companies can set the rules of engagement.

The solution is pretty simple: Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Open up the healthcare system to everyone everywhere. Health care companies will be forced to compete with one another, thus driving down costs.

Now that's if you are insured. If not the solution is simple: Go down to the free clinic. In some states/cities doctors are mandated to serve a certain number of community service hours at local clinics. Others do it out of charity.

But this situation doesn't prove to me that socialising essential health services is a dismal failure. I am at work so I can't comment on Ovedya's video, sorry.

I wish that you would watch it (It's called "ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!"). Take the time to see how poor such systems are. Canada's been held up as a good model for what should happen in America, but it does have some serious shortcomings, some serious flaws. Even if it were overall a great system for most, because it "works" in Canada does not mean it would work in America. Our own history has shown time and time again that when bureaucracy increases - when bloated bureaucratic systems are created - efficiency decreases, quality decreases, services decrease, and people suffer.

Government is not the solution. In fact oftentimes it's the problem. When "Ma Bell" was deregulated by the government in the early 80s what happened was a lot of companies sprouted up to fill the void. Eventually those companies got larger, and the bigger fish began swallowing up the smaller fish. Today we have a little over a handful of phone companies that run "territories" in different states. The level of competition is a lot more limited than it once was, but hey, no monopolies, right? Yet competition is still limited, therefore rates are as a comparison, more than what they were under "Ma Bell" in some states. Same thing's happening with the cell phone companies. Some of those companies were actually created during the deregulation of the phone industry. Verizon happens to be one of those.

[~candice~]

I am not suggesting that America takes on the Canadian health care model...

I am flat out at work, and you have put time and effort into your posts so I will reply in kind later when I have time.

[Ovedya]

I am not suggesting that America takes on the Canadian health care model...

I am flat out at work, and you have put time and effort into your posts so I will reply in kind later when I have time.

I appreciate the effort you have already put into your posts, considering your time restraint. Go earn your keep. I've got time to wait.

[nagwalk]

The thing I get tired of is the perception that we do not have choice. No government chooses my doctor. No government decides how many times I may visit my doctor. I also reject the perception that we have a lower quality of doctor care here. WE have a shortage of doctors in the more remote parts of the country but that is because the doctors themselves have restricted the number of doctors they will accept from other countries. Being a busy premier, Danny decided to combine the operation, recovery and holiday and pay for it himself.

I trust folks are not depending on you tube for their education. There are many Canadians on this forum. Ask us directly about concerns you may have about our health care before you hop onto the Fox News band wagon.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Danny decided to combine the operation, recovery and holiday and pay for it himself.

That's actually an incorrect statement in light of what "Danny", himself, has said.

His own words were to the effect that he didn't trust the incompetent Doctors in Canada, that he didn't want the procedure done under the duress of an out of date process (ie; broken sternum or ribs), and that he didn't want to wait for an elective surgery which could take months and that it was he and his Doctors opinion that he should take care of it right away.

Ask us directly about concerns you may have about our health care before you hop onto the Fox News band wagon.

I'm not sure what this extraneous statement has to do with anything. I am operating on the principle of Free Market economics and first hand experience. I personally know many in the Health Care field. They are not enamored with this whole possibility.

Peace,

Dave

[Isaiah 6:8]

Why is it, that Liberals automatically assume that you form all your ideas based off of Fox News? That is another subject altogether. First of this health care bill is not about health care. It is in truth a way for the government to take the money from the insurance industry and stuff it in their own pockets, while creating more government control of the private lives of citizens. This I did not hear from Fox news. I did not hear it from any news source. I heard this from one of my best friends, who, works as a independent insurance contractor for American Family Insurance. As a person who would be directly affected by this bill I inquired on his thoughts and thats what he told me in a nutshell. Its simply a money grab in disguise.

Matthitjah is right. If we did what he said, allow inter state insurance etc that would drive costs down. My boss at work who buys the insurance for our employee plan read the entire bill. It has some down right scary things in it. Like you have lived to long, you cost us to much, it is now time for you to die, so lets get you a counselor to let you prepare for your death as we cut off your meds. Yes this is a bill I can stand by! Yea not so much. My boss said he could insure the entirety of the us to the very same high standard he insures us at, for just over one billion dollars using the system we have in place now, minus the interstate restrictions.

The bill also avoids a major part of the health care system that needs to be reformed but is not even talked about. The rip off prices that the medical industry charges for medicine and bandages etc. $35 per pill for a Tylenol, brand 400 milligram pill. Some charge 60 for a single ibuprofen, and 7 for a single band aid. Doctor looked at my foot that I burned, did not touch me, walked away, had his assistant wrap it up, $250.

These are the problems, there are a few solutions, this Health Care Bill is a crock and not about health care.

as for Canada, its a system that like ours has its strong and weak points. My wife comes from Norway a country with a social heath care system.

It has strong and weak points, we are not comparing apples to apples however, As each one has differences.

-Isaiah-

[Ovedya]

The bill also avoids a major part of the health care system that needs to be reformed but is not even talked about. The rip off prices that the medical industry charges for medicine and bandages etc. $35 per pill for a Tylenol, brand 400 milligram pill. Some charge 60 for a single ibuprofen, and 7 for a single band aid. Doctor looked at my foot that I burned, did not touch me, walked away, had his assistant wrap it up, $250.

Actually this is also the fault of insurance companies. Insurance companies set the rates they pay out for all medical services and supplies in terms of percentage. So hospitals that contracted with insurance companies intentionally jack up the prices so they can survive. Running a hospital is in the range of 50%-80% in terms of overhead, and insurance companies regularly bilk hospitals and doctors. Why do they bilk them? Because they can. No competition to worry about.

as for Canada, its a system that like ours has its strong and weak points. My wife comes from Norway a country with a social heath care system.

It has strong and weak points, we are not comparing apples to apples however, As each one has differences.

-Isaiah-

We're not even comparing apples to apples in terms of our countries either, which is why arguments for nationalized health care fall flat. Norway is Norway and America is America: Different cultures, different views about health, different lifestyles, and different diversities of people.

[~candice~]

If this weren't so sad it would be pathetic.

"This was my heart, my choice and my health,"

Let that quote sink in for a moment.

Of course, the lowly common man who couldn't write the check or spare for the travel would have to subject himself to a broken sternum or ribs, a waiting list, and sub standard care.

Folks, this stuff is just nothing more than the old days of Serfdom which the Judeo/Christian ethic of Social Justice did away with.

Socialism in Medicine will leave more people sick and push more people towards deaths door.

Do you have proof to back up your rhetoric?

You are making wild sweeping statements based on one operation. As the article states, Newfoundland is small and doesn't have the population base to generate highly specialised health care like he wanted. What he needed, however, was still available to him there.

This guy could afford to go elsewhere and did. This doesn't imply there is something wrong with Canadian socialised health care. I'm sure the millions of Canadians who rely on it are quite thankful for it. Surely a cracked sternum is better than no health care at all?

If you go to YouTube and search for Steven Crowder's Channel. He did a short "documentary" on the Canadian healthcare system in which he tested the system (in Ontario). Watch the video and see for yourself.

Canadians are satisfied with their healthcare system for two reasons primarily: 1) The greater majority of those that use the system use it for simple things like colds, flu, physicals, etc. So of course the majority would be satisfied, because the majority has very limited experience with the system. 2) There's little choice: Use the system or don't. Canadians are largely ambivalent about the system. They have to go during office hours or they simply don't get treated. They have to follow the bureaucracy or they simply don't get in to see a doctor. There is a complacency involved with bureaucratically run systems: Once the initial frustration subsides eventually people fall in line because they realize that nothing can be done to change the bureaucracy. Eventually people become so institutionalized that they actually believe that the system is the greatest thing in the world. Look at North Korea as a perfect example.

One statistic I read stated that in certain parts of Canada there is 1 physician for every 1,000 residents. People must schedule their appointments with their doctors sometimes months in advance or they simply don't get in. At the gov't run clinics patients are treats in triage. Not unusual by any means. But when you consider that some wait as long as 5 or 8 hours just to see a nurse practitioner (not even the doctor) it becomes an issue.

Again, watch the Crowder piece. In one part they actually have to wait more than 5 hours to see a nurse practitioner for a sprained ankle. To get a simple blood test a nurse recommends that he pay a private doctor to get it done, due to the horrible bureaucratic red tape they would have had to go through. Imagine you're a person concerned that he's contracted HIV or some horrible disease, or that you're concerned you might have kidney problems and you need to get a blood test to confirm. In Canada's system you might have to wait weeks just to get the blood drawn. In America we can get you into a clinic the same day, and get your result back in 3 days.

Trying to watch the video now. Do you mean the one called 'Hannity: Steven Crowder on Obamacare" (5min 15)? It is interesting. I suspect though that you might have meant another longer video (which I have failed to find and cannot comment on).

I'm not sure that the interview I watched gives an accurate depiction of the median service in Canada though, with all things, we report the worst cases, the longest waiting times, etc etc. While I agree that kind of extreme waiting time is horrendous, I don't think that the extremes give us an adequate picture of the normal. I don't doubt that the things he described actually DID happen, but that what he observed was extreme. Moderate experiences tend not to be reported.

However, the Canadian health care system (talking only of the socialised part now) is not perfect and suffers from the same ails that other socialised health care systems have, like here in Australia. Waiting times can be large, and that is a natural consequence of socialised health care. Procedures are not the most recent and sometimes the equipment isn't either.

But is this all a reasonable criticism? This is still only essential health care and I don't think that socialised health care NEEDS to give the absolute pinacle of medical research, the most up to date equipment, the most specialised doctors etc etc. Socialised health care meets a basic core need, the higher care in my opinion is still the domain of private business. I think over time people have developed the perception that socialised health care must deliver the highest possible standard of medicine or be a dismal failure, and I believe that to be a false dichotomy.

As a core belief, I think that all citizens should have access to essential medical services. I realise this isn't popular, and I can't point to a bible verse that says that we are entitled to health care, but it is what I base my thoughts on health care around.

Determining what is "essential" is very tough. Everyone dies, and if you say that preventing death is essential, then all medical services are essential. So I am not denying that there is a very sensitive and delicate problem associated with determining what should be considered essential. Similarly, a medical service which costs thousands or tens of thousands of dollars is out of access for many people.

I do not believe that socialised medicine needs to have only one supplier (the government) and further I believe that having multiple suppliers can result in higher efficiency and lower costs. I am not against the government sending essential health care out to multiple tender, infact I wish they would! This would also offer people some choice (not a lot though, because price often eliminates all choice!). My only demand is that each person has access to essential medical services.

This does come at a cost and I am not ignorant of this fact, and I believe this is where differences of opinion come in. In essence I do not object to the government taxing me in order to pay for socialised essential health care. I know Dave (correct me if I am wrong Dave.... ) thinks of this as theft, and so do many other Americans that I have spoken to about this issue.

I wish there was a better way but I don't know what that is? I think the boat has long since sailed on a world where people would freely give the money it took in order to care for another person's health, enough that each person with genuine need would be covered. Health care is expensive, way more expensive than it should be, and people are already taxed to a moderate to high degree. I don't think the church can afford to bear this burden. So what else can we do? I might be more tempted to rely on charity if the cost of health care wasn't so extreme. A few hundred years ago I might have relied on the regenerated hearts of man to respond to genuine need, however we live in an incredibly sinful selfish society and I don't see this working either (in the sense that I foresee genuine need going unmet if left to unregenerated man to meet the needs)... So I completley acknowledge that semi-socialist essential health care is NOT ideal, and has draw backs, but from my perspective, and with my goal in mind, I do not see a workable alternative solution on the cards at the moment.

Going back to the health care model... Under this model (the model I propose, as PM of Australia ), the higher eschalons of health services remains privatised and benefits from market pressure to be competitive. People also have the choice to buy into this health service or not. If you want to go to China for health care, so be it. If you want to go to Sweden, so be it. If I want to go to America, so be it. If I want to go to New Zealand, so be it. If a Canadian or Australian or Pom wants to go to America to access higher health care, so be it! That is how private business works.

I've said it before, but I will say it again just in case.... I am not forcing America to accept socialised health care. I believe that you guys, as Americans, have the right to seek out and fight for whatever medical system that you think serves your own interest best, it is your country. I however am happy with the semi-socialised health care that I have here.

I hope this explains my position a little better.

[Shiloh62]

Must be nice to not have to live by the system that you govern. What a hippocrate.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Ovedya thank you your the first one to give me a reason for the huge cost of the medical items. As for the apples and apples thing, Andy one major problem we have in the states that you do not is a huge influx of illegal immigrants. In California,(where I happen to reside) illegals are able to go to the hosptial and get free health care since its imposable to bill or to collect on them. This cost is passed on to the people who actually pay taxes and have a social security number to track them down with. On the Border in California, all the low cost health clinics have gone out of business because of this fact. We have in the U.S. anywhere from 11-20 Million illegals that already do not contribute to the country tax wise at all, and they would be given even more freebies. This is robbery from every hard working American by raisin our taxes, and not taking into account those who do not contribute. This bothers me greatly as my Legal Resident Alien wife, has gotten sick with out insurance and we have had to pay through the nose, but if my wife simply lied and said she spoke no English, and did not give her Social Security Number she would have not had to pay back a dime.

Socialism is Robin Hood. Rob from the rich to give to the poor. The problem is the Government is robbing from everyone, to give to the poor yes but they are not just robbing from the rich. It is still THEFT. I seem to remember the commandment in the Bible "Thou Shall Not Steal" so why is stealing from everyone, to pay for the poor justifiable.

Oh and For the record, the individual's who have money far, far out give the government. The problem is not that people will not help, as they will, the problem is when the people rely on the government for every thing, they forget how to not only take care of themselves, but they forget how to take care of others.

We have a system that is broken, but its not a bad system, it needs the kinks worked out, but Stealing from the people to FORCE them to do what you do not want to do flies in the face of every thing this great nation is founded on. BTW the first bill also had a jail term if you refused to go along with the government system and did not buy your own insurance. Jail? For failure to pay the government insurance fees. Yes. This is why we are so against this "socialized health care"