moser53 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Living here in GF I see alot of Canadians out and about. I almost always go out of my way to ask them if they like there health care system. Overwealming support for there system. This is a very important and current topic. With my wife is about to loose her great policy at the end of the year and with her per existing conditions it scares the hell out of me. Every time you recieve a letter from your HC provider it scares the hell out of you. What should change? If anything? Maybe Jim does not want this topic since this is a sports forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Living here in GF I see alot of Canadians out and about. I almost always go out of my way to ask them if they like there health care system. Overwealming support for there system. This is a very important and current topic. With my wife is about to loose her great policy at the end of the year and with her per existing conditions it scares the hell out of me. Every time you recieve a letter from your HC provider it scares the hell out of you. What should change? If anything? Maybe Jim does not want this topic since this is a sports forum. Personally, I believe both systems impose sickness as a standard, rather than wellness. Most physicians in both systems never provide cures, they just stabilize sickness, which then manifests itself in numerous other ways. For 90% of health issues (with certain exceptions like acute injuries, genetic conditions etc), alternative medicine is the route to take. We are what we eat, yet that concept is foreign to the vast majority of the medical establishment. Physicans basically don't get any training in nutrition or alternative medicine, instead, pharmaceuticals are somehow viewed as holy potions when nearly all of them are highly toxic to the human body. The human body has an incredible capacity to heal, yet that ability is never nourished (literally). Alternative medicine is not government controlled, although the pharmaceutical industry for it's own future desperately wants it under the FDA. Imposing mandatory national health insurance on people actually violates people's civil rights and freedoms, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Living here in GF I see alot of Canadians out and about. I almost always go out of my way to ask them if they like there health care system. Overwealming support for there system. This is a very important and current topic. With my wife is about to loose her great policy at the end of the year and with her per existing conditions it scares the hell out of me. Every time you recieve a letter from your HC provider it scares the hell out of you. What should change? If anything? Maybe Jim does not want this topic since this is a sports forum. The for sure thing that should change is that heath provides should never be allowed to deny service to someone with a pre existing condition. I think that probably applies to your case directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I don't know. I don't think there is a viable fix to this problem. Obama's plan has some very glaring problems. If McCain had been elected, I'm sure his system would be just as faulty. I really don't know what is the solution. I have my opinions on what shouldn't be done (and for the sake of not going political, I'll keep them to myself), but say what not to do doesn't resolve much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Living here in GF I see alot of Canadians out and about. I almost always go out of my way to ask them if they like there health care system. Overwealming support for there system. This is a very important and current topic. With my wife is about to loose her great policy at the end of the year and with her per existing conditions it scares the hell out of me. Every time you recieve a letter from your HC provider it scares the hell out of you. What should change? If anything? Maybe Jim does not want this topic since this is a sports forum. It really depends who you ask - If they are healthy and haven't used the system much they probably are going to like it. Like most things that the gov. provides most think it's free. I know that many of you don't think that mandatory health insurance is the way to go (rights) but I think that's the only way we get the healthy people (young) into the system. It should be a law that everyone has to have a basic plan. Another thing that would help is to unmandate all "extras" that current health plans cover. If they could design a basic plan with incentives for "wellness" I think the plan would be affordable and people would take care of themselves better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Canadians love their system because they can just hop across the southern border and get treated without having to wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 It really depends who you ask - If they are healthy and haven't used the system much they probably are going to like it. Like most things that the gov. provides most think it's free. I know that many of you don't think that mandatory health insurance is the way to go (rights) but I think that's the only way we get the healthy people (young) into the system. It should be a law that everyone has to have a basic plan. Another thing that would help is to unmandate all "extras" that current health plans cover. If they could design a basic plan with incentives for "wellness" I think the plan would be affordable and people would take care of themselves better. I don't believe there is too much that the federal government does right and I definitely don't want them in charge of healthcare. Let's use the example of Social Security. It was meant to provide a form of retirement, so that people were not left as indigents later in life. It was just announced today that Bennie Madoff received a 150 yerar sentence for his "ponzi scheme". Since the arrest of Madoff, we have all become aware of what a ponzi scheme is and how in the end is not sustainable. How is what Madoff did and Social Security any different? Social Security is probably the biggest ponzi scheme ever created. Back in the good old days when families consisted of 4-5 kids, the scheme seemed to work. Now you have smaller families, less workers trying to subsidize the retirement of the "baby boomers". It clearly is not sustainable, yet we are forced to continue to subsidize this government venture. Government healthcare? No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I don't believe there is too much that the federal government does right and I definitely don't want them in charge of healthcare. Let's use the example of Social Security. It was meant to provide a form of retirement, so that people were not left as indigents later in life. It was just announced today that Bennie Madoff received a 150 yerar sentence for his "ponzi scheme". Since the arrest of Madoff, we have all become aware of what a ponzi scheme is and how in the end is not sustainable. How is what Madoff did and Social Security any different? Social Security is probably the biggest ponzi scheme ever created. Back in the good old days when families consisted of 4-5 kids, the scheme seemed to work. Now you have smaller families, less workers trying to subsidize the retirement of the "baby boomers". It clearly is not sustainable, yet we are forced to continue to subsidize this government venture. Government healthcare? No thanks. Oh I wasn't meaning gov. health care but improving what we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Oh I wasn't meaning gov. health care but improving what we have. If you are talking about passing laws that mandate everyone have healthcare, as you did in Post #5, you are inviting in the government. Once they are in the door, they will creep in deeper and deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 If you are talking about passing laws that mandate everyone have healthcare, as you did in Post #5, you are inviting in the government. Once they are in the door, they will creep in deeper and deeper. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't read your children bed time stories authored by Ron Paul. Obviously the private sector has done such a bang up job making sure everyone has fair and affordable coverage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 If you are talking about passing laws that mandate everyone have healthcare, as you did in Post #5, you are inviting in the government. Once they are in the door, they will creep in deeper and deeper. Then you get the government deciding who lives and who dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't read your children bed time stories authored by Ron Paul. Obviously the private sector has done such a bang up job making sure everyone has fair and affordable coverage! So the government has to step in? I don't understand that. In the private sector, the rules of captalism apply. If you price it too high, no one will buy and you will go under. If you price it too low, your overhead will be too high and you'll go out of business. Consumers run the industry. And yes, the industry isn't favorable to poor people. THAT is a problem, sure. However, when the government steps in, all is well? Are you sure? Who pays for these health care programs? The senators? Obama? Perhaps. Who decides what these programs cover and what they don't? Do you (which is the system that we're currently in)? Or does some bureaucrat (which is the system we're heading towards)? Universal health care seems like it is a great idea. And on paper, it is. So was socialism and communism. In reality, it doesn't work. Russia is still reeling from communism and its years since they've abandoned it. China is a giant slum that is just sanitized every time the World Community comes into town. See the Olympics. In ND, scores of Canadian citizens rather pay for their health care than wait an unknown amount of time to get it for free. We're not dealing in right or wrong here, folks. We're dealing in choice and with choice under attack, freedom is as well. Whether or not this is true, confresspeople enjoy the widest variety and most comprehensive health care package available. Are we going to get the same coverage they do? If so, who is going to pay for it? How is my spending money to pay for everyone's health care going to provide me with my own personal health care benefits? Why can't I simply spend that money on my own program and not pay it through taxation? If I can still have my own program why must I pay for the whole? Have any of you seen what government contracts are like? Since the cost to the government is deferred over millions of people, the corporations can charge a bankroll and still get it! There is a state run office in Fargo that provides great services to their constituents, but when it comes to maintaining their own facilities, get charged unbelievable amounts and the government pays it. For example, they buy toilet paper in bulk for the office restrooms. These boxes cost, on the retail market, something around the order of $40. They have something along the lines of 40 or 50 rolls in them... something like that. The office pays $150 for the same box! How do you think the healthcare systems are going to react when they have the government buying the health care? Are consumers going to act more responsible? Costs are going to skyrocket because they can and will. The taxpayer won't really notice a whole lot because it will be so dilluted by the sheer number of taxpayers that no one will complain. How does this fix that problem of costs being too high? Consumer responsibility will TANK because now that it is practically free, they'll go to the doctor for a minor cut, ache, pain, or whatever. This will inundate the system with patients causing backlogs. Since insurance and legal now requires extensive paperwork for each patient and every procedure (and all actions taken by medical staff leading up to the procedure even if it is just a verbal advice remedy), this produces an epic problem. Hospitals and clinics will find themselves unable to handle the traffic so there will be a shortage in doctors and medical staff. This will RAISE COSTS because of all the legal, insurance, training, and salary costs involved in the medical field. Meanwhile, facility space will not increase but rather become more prime real estate because of the capacity problems. So it will be a mess. What happens when messes like this occur? The likelihood of something being overlooked, rushed, or even improperly done becomes a LOT higher. Patient to Dr. time allotments become even less than what they are now, and things could go unnnoticed until too late. No, socialistic medicine isn't the answer. The answer is putting more money into the establishment of rural and free clinic (public health), reform in treatment in those fields to prevent misuse, and government mandated incentive programs pointing towards multiple methods of providing yourself with health care (HMO, PPO, Medical Savings Plans, etc.), and promotion of competition in the private sector. The more competition, the lower the prices because if you don't lower the price, your competitor may and you'll LOSE BUSINESS. My ideas aren't perfect but better that then going Canadian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't read your children bed time stories authored by Ron Paul. Obviously the private sector has done such a bang up job making sure everyone has fair and affordable coverage! Where did you get the idea that life is fair. I know that the Declaration of Independence said that all men are created equally, but nowhere does it say that everyone is entitled to have what his neighbor has. You are given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not at someone else's expense. Affordable health care is not a right. Do I wish it were more affordable? Of course. There are ways to cut expenses. One being tort reform, but the lobbyist wouldn't go for that. I've seen it first hand in Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Where did you get the idea that life is fair. I know that the Declaration of Independence said that all men are created equally, but nowhere does it say that everyone is entitled to have what his neighbor has. You are given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not at someone else's expense. Affordable health care is not a right. Do I wish it were more affordable? Of course. There are ways to cut expenses. One being tort reform, but the lobbyist wouldn't go for that. I've seen it first hand in Florida. Every person deserves access to affordable health care. I don't give a s*%t what some document from 300 years ago says. If it no longer makes sense, amend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Every person deserves access to affordable health care. I don't give a s*%t what some document from 300 years ago says. If it no longer makes sense, amend it. Wow. I think that statement is game. set. match. Screw the documents this country was made from.... Wow. That just blows my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB#11 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I don't give a s*%t what some document from 300 years ago says. If it no longer makes sense, amend it. It was actually 233 years ago. Obama doesn't really give a sh*t about our Constitution either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 It was actually 233 years ago. Obama doesn't really give a sh*t about our Constitution either. Neither does most of his party, they think the Constitution is a living and breathing document and should be changed if they feel the whim. There is no constitutional guarantee that all should receive health care. I have read the consitution and I see no where in there that says they should buy up companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Wow. I think that statement is game. set. match. Screw the documents this country was made from.... Wow. That just blows my mind. Like you care what some old document says. You'll just use any excuse to try to prevent your taxes from being raised. Too bad. I, and others, will out vote you and raise your taxes so that we can pay for these great government programs. Don't like it? Get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Like you care what some old document says. You'll just use any excuse to try to prevent your taxes from being raised. Too bad. I, and others, will out vote you and raise your taxes so that we can pay for these great government programs. Don't like it? Get out. What part of this do you not understand? There is no constitutional guarantee that all should receive health care. I have read the consitution and I see no where in there that says they should buy up companies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts