|
On June 22 2011 12:19 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:02 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote:
What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that. Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed.
Taxes in Canada are ridiculous.
30-50% income tax depends on your career, property tax, carbon tax, and everything else you use your money for gets ~12% provincial tax + government tax.
|
On June 22 2011 15:40 Zedders wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote:
why should i have to pay for someone else's health care? because they are the people you live with on this earth. If you are ever on a soccer team and sprain your ankle, would you want to have to quit the game all together simply because there are those that could replace you? The cost of public health care is also split between the masses. As we all know there are many more rich then poor, but the system (well the one in canada) tries to tax the richer to make the disparity between the classes minute. it's a socialist system, so that's all up to the masses to decide on what is best considering the situation the land is under. I think that since we really cannot say one life is more important than another, because there are too many exceptions, we must take a broad standpoint of socialists for healthcare and provide it as equally as possible.
Wut. That's not true. There are a ton more poor than rich. I think what you're trying to get at is that the very few rich control the vast majority of the $$$.
On June 22 2011 15:41 tuestresfat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:19 seiferoth10 wrote:On June 22 2011 12:02 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote:
What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that. Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed. Taxes in Canada are ridiculous. 30-50% income tax depends on your career, property tax, carbon tax, and everything else you use your money for gets ~12% provincial tax + government tax.
Income tax in US for 2010 was 10-35% depending on your annual income bracket and status (single, married, etc...).
Also for reference, income tax rates in the US haven't always been this rate. Some points in history have seen much higher tax rates depending on the income bracket. In 1952-53 tax rates went from 22.2% to 92% depending on your income bracket. The current US income tax rate is considered quite low even just in the context of US history, never mind the rest of the world.
|
On June 22 2011 15:40 Game wrote:
iCanada, you guys are also not spread nearly as thin. Your cities are CITIES. We have like 3 cities in the entire US - NY, LA, Miami. Other than that, we actually cover our entire landmass, whereas it is way too cold for you to do so. That's really a horrible comparison considering that Canada doesn't use more than half of its land.
However, I don't dispute the "you can do it" part.
over 90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the usa border.
But i dont really see what this has to do with healthcare when did land mass come into play, someone explain plz
Also Canada has 34 million ppl
Usa has 300 million ppl.
Maybe some of you amurricans should immigrate to Canada so we can expand...USA needs to transfer some workers to their expansions.
Something I've learned. Canadians and Americans are pretty much indistinguishable. At least the northerners...I've heard things about people from the south (racism and such) but the cultures are ridiculously similar, so is the dialect (for the most part) and the food..
|
On June 22 2011 12:19 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:02 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote:
What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that. Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed.
Increased taxes damage the economy and that you can only support an advanced health care system if you have a strong economy. At some point, a person has to create wealth so that equipment can be purchased and doctors can be paid. Every time you raise taxes, you reduce your society's ability to produce wealth, and therefore eventually reduce your ability to provide health care.
|
On June 22 2011 15:48 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 15:40 Zedders wrote:On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote:
why should i have to pay for someone else's health care? because they are the people you live with on this earth. If you are ever on a soccer team and sprain your ankle, would you want to have to quit the game all together simply because there are those that could replace you? The cost of public health care is also split between the masses. As we all know there are many more rich then poor, but the system (well the one in canada) tries to tax the richer to make the disparity between the classes minute. it's a socialist system, so that's all up to the masses to decide on what is best considering the situation the land is under. I think that since we really cannot say one life is more important than another, because there are too many exceptions, we must take a broad standpoint of socialists for healthcare and provide it as equally as possible. Wut. That's not true. There are a ton more poor than rich. I think what you're trying to get at is that the very few rich control the vast majority of the $$$.
oops i meant the opposite...more poor then rich 
|
United States373 Posts
dude just calling the ambulance in the US costs around 5,000 dollars,what a joke. My friend's mom broke her arm and after calling 911 they got slapped with a 5,000 dollar bill. America's healthcare system is pretty broken atm.
|
On June 22 2011 15:00 zobz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 13:05 mcc wrote:On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote:
why should i have to pay for someone else's health care? Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance  When you're paying health insurance you're not paying for anybody else's health, except incidentally as part of a voluntary, beneficial system of shared risk. When you pay for public healthcare though, you're essentially paying for other people's insurance. Unless of course other people are paying for your insurance, but you get the point.
When you pay for public healthcare you are also part of a beneficial system of shared risk as other people also pay into the system. It just includes additional "down-on-luck/being a minor" component in most countries (I assume).
|
On June 22 2011 15:58 recklessfire wrote:
dude just calling the ambulance in the US costs around 5,000 dollars,what a joke. My friend's mom broke her arm and after calling 911 they got slapped with a 5,000 dollar bill. America's healthcare system is pretty broken atm.
They called an ambulance for a broken arm? That was pretty dumb. Hell, driving over to the local ED is WAY cheaper than using the ambulance.
Yeah ambulances are expensive because they are for emergencies. Idiots think they are having a medical emergency when they aren't, but the EMTs still have to take them to the hospital. You should only use the ambulance if it is physically impossible to make it to the hospital and there is no one around to assist you.
One time I saw a mother take her child to the ED just for an ear infection. I facepalmed hard for that one, that's what primary care docs are for.
Oh, and another pet peeve: EDs and Urgent Care are two different beasts. If your condition isn't life threatening go to Urgent Care, you'll be seen by a primary care doc that can probably help you for a fraction of the cost. ED's are staffed by docs specializing is stabilizing patients about to die, so if you're there because of your ear infection (and thanks to legislature, they HAVE to treat you in the ED no matter what your condition is), don't be surprised by the ridiculous bill.
Edit: fixed pronouns and whatnot
|
what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
|
On June 22 2011 04:37 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote:
So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place? Because he is in the US, where healthcare costs an extortionate amount of money, and without insurance, even the smallest of things can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars when they are available for free in many other countries.
I'm not sure what "foreigners" feel about the cost of healthcare...but it really isn't exorbitant (and I live in America). Only the people who feel like it'd be worth the cost of a few steaks and cigarettes a month to go without healthcare are really affected...
|
On June 22 2011 04:45 vyyye wrote:
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ask for a bit more money (not necessarily a ridiculous amount), not say what his purpose was and that way get a more guaranteed spot in jail?
Puzzling situation, your health care system has some flaws America.
It doesn't matter, he can just rob another bank for $1.
|
On June 22 2011 16:12 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 04:37 Ben... wrote:On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote:
So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place? Because he is in the US, where healthcare costs an extortionate amount of money, and without insurance, even the smallest of things can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars when they are available for free in many other countries. I'm not sure what "foreigners" feel about the cost of healthcare...but it really isn't exorbitant (and I live in America). Only the people who feel like it'd be worth the cost of a few steaks and cigarettes a month to go without healthcare are really affected...
The actual cost of healthcare without insurance is really really high. The cost of premiums of insurance is pretty low.
|
On June 22 2011 16:29 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 16:12 mierin wrote:On June 22 2011 04:37 Ben... wrote:On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote:
So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place? Because he is in the US, where healthcare costs an extortionate amount of money, and without insurance, even the smallest of things can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars when they are available for free in many other countries. I'm not sure what "foreigners" feel about the cost of healthcare...but it really isn't exorbitant (and I live in America). Only the people who feel like it'd be worth the cost of a few steaks and cigarettes a month to go without healthcare are really affected... The actual cost of healthcare without insurance is really really high. The cost of premiums of insurance is pretty low.
This is true. Hospitals purposely overcharge those without insurance. Because they can't expect everyone without insurance to pay, they make up the difference from those without insurance that do pay.
|
On June 22 2011 04:58 Phelski wrote:
obama's health care is this
1)make everyone buy private health care
2) if they dont, or cannot afford it, then they get taxed/ sued
Heavily subsidized if you can't afford it. The health care program isn't slated to go into full effect until 2014. Most of the state exchanges haven't even been set up yet
|
On June 22 2011 15:53 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:19 seiferoth10 wrote:On June 22 2011 12:02 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote:
What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that. Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed. Increased taxes damage the economy and that you can only support an advanced health care system if you have a strong economy. At some point, a person has to create wealth so that equipment can be purchased and doctors can be paid. Every time you raise taxes, you reduce your society's ability to produce wealth, and therefore eventually reduce your ability to provide health care.
That's a theory based entirely on the Laffer Curve (which itself is debatable), the thing is that current tax rates in the US are no where near the point where they reduce revenue or stifle innovation. Taxes are at historic lows
|
On June 22 2011 15:58 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 15:00 zobz wrote:On June 22 2011 13:05 mcc wrote:On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote:
why should i have to pay for someone else's health care? Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance When you're paying health insurance you're not paying for anybody else's health, except incidentally as part of a voluntary, beneficial system of shared risk. When you pay for public healthcare though, you're essentially paying for other people's insurance. Unless of course other people are paying for your insurance, but you get the point. When you pay for public healthcare you are also part of a beneficial system of shared risk as other people also pay into the system. It just includes additional "down-on-luck/being a minor" component in most countries (I assume).
That's the point I mean to emphasize. Any time you have a system which certain people can't afford, but are allowed into anyway, that means that someone else is paying for them. Or to put it in a less backwards way, health costs money, and health insurance also costs money, and if you want either one of those things you should be ready and able to pay for it legitimately, otherwise you can just take money from someone else against their will. You do benefit of course from the insurance, but the ratio of how much you benefit to how much you pay for it is obviously skewed to balance off the same ratio of the people who would not normally be able to afford it, but are allowed to have it anyway, which is conveniently skewed in their favour. You're paying for other people's insurance.
|
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote:
what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
There's a very common view among some on the right in this country that all social programs are illegitimate. It's pretty depressing.
|
france health care system does not work 10 billions € budget deficit in 2009, 12 billion € in 2010, the minister in 2010 planned for 14 billion € in 2014,
the system is based on people paying for the others
the amount of money circulating in french bank keeps lowering when the people(middle high class) supporting the whole system will have export all their money outside of the country
the charge will become unbearable for the middle classes to supports everyone
the only way out is either stop the whole health care system which will bring the lower class to civil war
or keep ignoring it till the middle class implose which will lead to civil war
actually the civil war is enivitable in france my post should be remembered in 20 years
|
I cant believe there is anyone actually stupid enough as to try and defend the current healthcare situation in the US.
May you all have a horrible accident, lose your jobs and have to watch your children die of a curable illness because you cant afford to pay for it.
|
On June 22 2011 17:15 antikk555 wrote:
I cant believe there is anyone actually stupid enough as to try and defend the current healthcare situation in the US.
May you all have a horrible accident, lose your jobs and have to watch your children die of a curable illness because you cant afford to pay for it.
Aww, thanks guy. It's good to see there are still some reasonable people here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
