0
pop

Fuck you American healthcare system

Recommended Posts

Quote

The system in the USA ain't all it is cracked up to be - neither is Canada, but I will take the socialized system over the crap I have today......



Imagine if all those trillions that were invested in the Iraq war were actually invested in i USA's interests rather than the oil companies interests what a great counrty it could be!

I have heard many shocking stories (from Frinds who have experienced them) abouth the healthcare system in the USA.

No govornment is perfect but if you are denied to be seen to when you have a broken arm (a good friend had this experience after a snowboarding incident) due to insurance complicatons then there is something wrong with that govornment.

Healthcare is a govornments' responsability. Not a corporations'.

healthcare has to be paid for in some way or another yes, but it has to be offered when it is really needed not when it has been paid for.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Healthcare is a govornments' responsability. Not a corporations'.



In your opinion, obviously.



I personally think that healthcare is an INDIVIDUAL's responsibility. I'm even for a limited government role...though I don't think it's the government's *responsibility*. I think that the government can take on the role of providing a health "safety net" if the citizens decide that's what they'd like to do. It's altruism....not responsibility, imho.

linz
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In your opinion, obviously.



yes obviously, if you want to consider your country great.

eg. I understand the Tanzanian govornment can't go and pay for every citizen to go to the doctor.

But the USA should be able to, if it want to be considerd the great country it makes itself out to be.

Break your arm in my country and it will cost you absolutely nothing for the treatment, even if you are a tourist! no insrance nessescary. I was operated on within 8 hours of breaking my arm and that included a hour ride in a helecopter.

The money is there for all this, but it could be doing the right thing or sitting an some fat cats bank account!
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

In your opinion, obviously.



yes obviously, if you want to consider your country great.

eg. I understand the Tanzanian govornment can't go and pay for every citizen to go to the doctor.

But the USA should be able to, if it want to be considerd the great country it makes itself out to be.

Break your arm in my country and it will cost you absolutely nothing for the treatment, even if you are a tourist! no insrance nessescary. I was operated on within 8 hours of breaking my arm and that included a hour ride in a helecopter.

The money is there for all this, but it could be doing the right thing or sitting an some fat cats bank account!



Sitting in some fat cat's bank account? That statement right there proves you really DO know nothing about healthcare in the US.

If you want to say you feel your country's system is better, that's fine and well - go for it. But, if you're going to talk about how bad the US system is, you may want to do some actual research on it before you sound off (as most of us opposing socialized healthcare have).
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The money is there for all this, but it could be doing the right thing or sitting an some fat cats bank account!



I disagree with mnealtx's assessment of your statement. I think you've proven instead that you think very little of the concept of private property. Some fat cat's bank account? You wish you were that fat cat, don't you? Honestly, where do you envious and spiteful types get the nerve to lay claim to someone else's money? I'm glad I'm not that pathetic sounding.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think you've proven instead that you think very little of the concept of private property. Some fat cat's bank account? You wish you were that fat cat, don't you? Honestly, where do you envious and spiteful types get the nerve to lay claim to someone else's money? I'm glad I'm not that pathetic sounding.



Assuming that comment is aimed at me?

All I expect is to be fixed if I am broken. if I am going to be in excruciating pain i should be fixed.

O.K. the OP felt woozy but this is about healthcare not an individual case.

The fact of the matter is that healthcare has become a very profitable busines rather than a public service. without regulation the private businesses become more concerned with making money than healthcare itself.

i'm not saying healthcare should be entitrly the responsability of the govornment, but it is up to the govornment to make sure unethical practices do not be allowed to operate.

Human nature is something we are all aware of, humans are selfish and greedy. especially when it comes to money.

Heathcare is not about money, it is about healthcare.

And by the way I Do wan't to make a good go of it in business and havean enjoyable life, I do not however desire to have billions to my name!

a significant amount of those trillions that have been sifted off the money all americans pay in taxes to be better off as americans, i.e. Iraq

are sitting in the bank acoount of a few fat cat americans (and others).

Is war about ethics or money?, many trillions have been spent on a war intead of healthcare and education. Is healthcare about money or ethics?, humans are greedy/selfish/stupid. To say that it is the responsability of each individual to look after thier own healthcare is asking for trouble.

you may well be responsable, what about those that don't have the capacity to be responsable?

do we simply let those with disabilities die on the street because they are no able to support themselves or think for themselves?

Ethics or money, you decide.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Personally I think I would rather live in a society willing to spend a little to keep us ALL a little healthier

Yeah, but, ya know -- I can really understand being irritated at someone who wants a pregnancy test done at the ER because that way they don't have to pay the $15.


Now, you certainly know that horror-story anectdotes are a time-tested means of demonizing an entire side in an issue. It's reminiscent of Regan's "welfare queen", or Bush-1's Willie Horton ads. I'm surprised you'd be swayed by a talking point like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Would you feel better if I mailed you a check?



Um, no, but next time you'rin chrch taling about loving your fellow man, pls stand up and say that there are limits, we can only love them until it comes to collectively caring for each other. If someone is going to die or is is disabled, etc and they don't have insurance, well, fuck em. Don;t worry, this will draw great applause, as most of your church-going contemporaries feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Why is it that R's have to go to Asia or Africa to find worse places? Let's talk Europe, esp Scandinavia.



What part of "I don't owe you a fucking thing" is difficult for you to understand?



What part of, please get cancer and be denied by your HMO don't you understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>>>>>>>>>>>>A non-self-centered person would turn away that free education opportunity. More accurate is, "It's funny that those who chastise the self-centered want others to give them more."


Quote

No, a non-self-centered person would want all of society cared for equally.

Is a person who hasn't hit a lick in life, but thinks that he's owed the best of care, self centered?
Is a person who works his ass off to give his family the best, and feels no need to give it to the person who refuses to work, self centered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ethics or money, you decide.



Sorry, no. The government *taking* money from me to give to someone else is not charity, it's coercion.

There are already mechanisms in place to take of those who are unable to manage for themselves.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Would you feel better if I mailed you a check?



Um, no, but next time you'rin chrch taling about loving your fellow man, pls stand up and say that there are limits, we can only love them until it comes to collectively caring for each other. If someone is going to die or is is disabled, etc and they don't have insurance, well, fuck em. Don;t worry, this will draw great applause, as most of your church-going contemporaries feel the same way.



You never did say how much of your take-home pay you're sending in extra to support all those folks, being the great collectivist that you are - care to give us a number?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Personally I think I would rather live in a society willing to spend a little to keep us ALL a little healthier..

It's kind of funny that people only want something if it costs someone else something.

What I have to offer is free, but most of America doesn't want it.

Get off of your fat ass, get some exercise, and quit sticking burgers in your face.

Not directed at you, personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A gal I know who works in the ER routinely sees women come in for pregnancy tests. On the nights she's working triage, she points out the door at the Rite-Aid across the street and suggests they pick up a pregnancy test there for 10 or 15 bucks instead of burning through several hundred in the ER. The answer is always some variant of the same thing..."Yeah, but the state won't pay for that and they will pay for this." I don't want to support that kind of selfish fucktardedness.



It would be no different than if they had private health insurance that paid for a preg test in a doc's office, but didn't pay for an OTC preg test in a box - some would choose to go directly to the doc. Me - I could pay about $30-$40 a week on Nexium if I bought it OTC; but instead, with my group prescription plan, I pay nothing - zero deductible - to get it with a prescription. If I was a company instead of an individual, that would be called "good business".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If I was a company instead of an individual, that would be called "good business"

True dat. Just as it's true there are companies that help people to virtually divest themselves of assets so they can qualify for Medicaid nursing home care, and still have the use of those assets.

I can understand that feeling. I've done stuff like that. But it's not carrying one's own share of the load. I save for my old age so that I can be covered in my old age. But maybe, just maybe, it would be easier if one could show a Medicaid card at the pharmacy and get certain OTC items. Or a food stamp card to get band-aids.

Some of the people on public assistance really are just about that poor. Some aren't. You can't demonize the ones who are doing their best because of the ones who are milking the system. OTOH, some people really are lazy. It's not necessarily up to me to judge for a lot of really good reasons. But yeah, I'm still human too.

Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was my comment to you in Jan 2007 on this topic

Quote

This is a big topic debate over here.

Personal autonomy and responsibility vs. government control.

You argue the small picture ("when I got hurt" or "when my friends got hurt" especially in high risk hobby situations, not activities required for daily life.... and I'm not calling you a liar, but I do find it HIGHLY unlikely that they would be turned away from an ER due to lack of ability to pay. That would have been an EMTALA violation and those hospitals would risk serious repercussions)

I wonder if you can see forest for the trees here. Or if you're so used to the government just providing that you can't visualize the self responsibility




This was your reply

Quote

it is the greedy fucked up attitude such as yours where you are not willing to share a very small portion of your income for the wellbeing of yourself and all, that is destroying our planet just now.

you are now the first person to be blocked by me,

take your fucked, selfish seppo attitude somwhere else please.




I don't think you want to discuss or debate the issues. "I'm right" is your cry and anyone that doesn't side with you is selfish. There is no looking at how to resolve this. I have admitted that this system is broken and I've been saying it for more than a year. . . but I actually do something to help. (ie my clinic full of medicaid and writing off bills instead of sending it to collections, but I can only do that so much because my nurse likes eating, the receptionist has a family, there's supplies, insurance, overhead.... if I give too much, my clinic folds and then what help am I)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

It's funny understandable that most of the extremely self-centered rational individuals posting here were also beneficiaries of a taxpayer subsidized education and are now paying taxes to support subsidized education but do not want to pay more taxes for subsidized health care (which they were not beneficiaries of).



Fixed it for you.



No, you didn't fix anything. You just attempted to deny the blatant hypocrisy of those who took taxpayer handouts for things they wanted, but don't approve when someone else gets one.



What hypocrisy? I got subsidized education and approve of someone else getting subsidized education. Do you believe we should subsidize gun ownership?
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

A gal I know who works in the ER routinely sees women come in for pregnancy tests. On the nights she's working triage, she points out the door at the Rite-Aid across the street and suggests they pick up a pregnancy test there for 10 or 15 bucks instead of burning through several hundred in the ER. The answer is always some variant of the same thing..."Yeah, but the state won't pay for that and they will pay for this." I don't want to support that kind of selfish fucktardedness.



It would be no different than if they had private health insurance that paid for a preg test in a doc's office, but didn't pay for an OTC preg test in a box - some would choose to go directly to the doc. Me - I could pay about $30-$40 a week on Nexium if I bought it OTC; but instead, with my group prescription plan, I pay nothing - zero deductible - to get it with a prescription. If I was a company instead of an individual, that would be called "good business".



Yes, it is different with a private plan. Your fellow participants in the plan have the option of shopping for cheaper, more restrictive insurance if too many people are using the more expensive, community-funded options and driving up their costs.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


The Preamble [to the U.S. Constitution]:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

&

Article 1
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”



I think the Framers were very precise with their language. Providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare do not carry the same level of involvement or priority. See the difference?


:)
[Devil’s advocate argument]

“Provide” suggests money & equipment, i.e., what is delineated and no more. And furthermore, per the precision interpretation view, it must be “common defence” not individual and not specialized.

“Promote” potentially suggests much, much more. There’s an advocacy connotation to promote that provide does not have. To promote is to pro-actively help or encourage some situation to exist or flourish. One promotes a campaign or promotes world peace; one provides what are the basic necessities. Promote includes not only paying for the basics but establishing programs to generate and insure the general welfare of the citizens of the US of A.

Of course, promote also means “to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc.” One might interpret the Preamble to mean that “general welfare” should be promoted above “common defence” based on a pseudo-linguistic analysis of the kind you propose. :)
[/Devil’s advocate]

I’m not aware of any historical evidence to support either interpretation.

I would instead assert that in some areas the Framers were intentionally precise (e.g., 2-year money for the Army, ages for elected officials) and in other areas intentionally ambiguous, such as w/r/t “general welfare.”

Why? It would interesting (to me at least) to explore how historically radical the idea of a standing, professional *federal* Army was at the time (as opposed to the English tradition of universal military obligation for all able-bodied free men at the will of the King or Queen). The Framers were concerned with regard to what the States (via their elected/appointed representatives) would approve, so Army was explicitly included. What was the ability/obligation/options available to the federal government w/r/t a professional Army under the Articles of Confederation? Why was the Army limited to 2-year money? A commitment from the States –- who resisted/feared strong centralized govt, a la England and who had their own “well-regulated militias” -- to support a standing *federal* Army (as opposed to the civilian volunteer force of the Revolutionary Army) must have been radical!

Jenner hadn’t ‘invented’ the smallpox vaccine when the Constitution was signed. (General Washington did use cowpox variolation to inoculate troops against smallpox.) . I highly doubt that the Framers of the Constitution would likely have imagined all that “health care” means in the early 21st Century (or the associated expenses). Similarly, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say anything about telephony or electronic communication; it has, however, been interpreted to have governance over those areas and other that have evolved. The concept of universal public education was radically liberal offshoot of the Enlightenment. The Framers, however, were brilliant men who recognized change happens and who crafted a document that could adapt to serve a world more than 200 years later.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I see that. Unlike nerdgirl and wendy, I am occasionally wrong. (PLEASE LET ME DO VIDEO!!)



Lighting & audio postitions are available. ;)

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Last night I drove down the street to get some food, and while in the parking lot, I suddenly felt really dizzy, the ground gave way, and I found myself collapsing unto the ground.



Mikal my friend I hope you can find the medical help you need to get to the bottom of this problem. Stroke, brain cancer, blood pressure issues or just good weed? I don't know? But the first three are not to be joked about.

Quote

So here is a big fuck you, privatized American healthcare system. Next time I have an emergency I am going back to Canada, where I never had to wait more than 2 hours to get FREE help.



I AM NOT ABOUT TO DEFEND THE US HEALTHCARE SYSTEM ... but ... I am sorry if you got the wrong impression about Canada's system. As far as I am concerned it is broken as well. Part of our problem is that most of our doctors and nurses have headed south where they can make better money practicing their professions. The other part of our problem is that we refuse to spend the money to keep our doctors and nurses here. But we are famous for promising the lemmings things we can not deliver on.

Have a look at this, 3 patients die waiting for a bed in Ontaro.

and here in Alberta, Canada's richest province, we are about to go to the polls to decide whether the longest serving government in the western hemisphere should be allowed to continue to govern (37 years now the Conservative Party of Alberta has ruled, 2nd only to Cuba's Castro). Yes I am one of 250,000 residents of the rich city of Calgary who can not find a primary care doctor. There is no shortage of money here in oil producing Alberta. So much so our premiere was so proud the other day to announce his new 20 year plan to build a state of the art cancer research center here in Calgary on top of the high school he plans to open in the city to help students who seek careers in medicine. But I am sorry premiere Ed Stelmach, most cancer patients don't have 20 years to wait for your empty electioneering promises.

But in all this, while people are dying around us, politicians are promising 20 year plans for healthcare and 50 year plans for cleaning up the environment and we think nothing about giving our professional athletes $39 million dollars over the next six years. I am no socialist, but how fucked up is that? We can't spend $39 millions dollars over the next 20 years to help people from dying. But we are so happy to give one man the same amount of money.


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Healthcare is a personal service some need more or less of.



Just like education. Want to argue against providing a basic education to all Americans? Did YOU attend a public school or college?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hey TK thanks for the response. It would seem that in your case the Canadain system would have been better. Although I'd rather have the MRI.



Note that in Canada they have privatized MRI offices, where you can pay approx $800CAD and get your MRI faster then what the government is offering. They have these places all over Vancouver. So its not like you are only dependent on the social system, however with the social system NO ONE is turned down.
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the article:

Quote

"We did have an extraordinarily busy day," he said, adding there were no patient complaints that day.



Dead people don't complain.

Quote

Offloads are at their worst in the city's northwest section, said Mark Ferguson, vice-president of the Toronto Civic Employees Union Local 416.

"You saw this coming when they started to close hospitals," he said, noting the northwest area lost three hospitals.



Hmm. Why close hospitals? Because they are too expensive to operate?

Quote

"People will start seeing the tracking of (emergency) wait times," Ostfield said. "If you can't track it, you can't lower it."



THIS, people, is government at its finest. People are saying there is a problem - people are dying while they are waiting. So, to solve the problem, you first must determine whether it is actualy happening, so you track it. Then you must determine HOW long people are waiting with more tracking. In order to get truly accurate results, you'll need to track it over time. By directing a few million to the agency responsible, you'll have good data over a five year period. Then you can really figure out what to do to solve the problem.

Actually, not quite. The five year trend shows that deaths are increasing. You really cannot say why. It calls for another study to show why deaths are increasing. Within five years, and after $50 million later, you've got your answer - people are waiting too long for treatment.

Now that you have your answer, you can fund a task force to solve the problem of wait times. The initial drafts are completed, and things are ready for approval. Ah, but now it gets held up by the conservatives in Parliament.

Furthermore, the nurse's and doctor's unions complain that they are overstretched by the bureaucracy, and additional bureaucracy just creates more hassle.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0