On October 07 2012 10:07 Falling wrote: Grr. I don't like his attack on Canada's healthcare though Government doesn't determine who get's healthcare- doctors do.
I am not sure what you mean by this. In Canada the government decides what treatments are covered mand what treatments aren't. If the treatment you need is not on the list then you don't get it. Here is a pretty detailed example of how it works:
...and this is the big flaw in socialized medicine. It is rationed. The government can't give top quality care to everyone for every condition. Only a market-based healthcare system can do that. This is why so many Americans are resistant to socialized medicine. They have access to world class healthcare already through their private health insurance (generally employer-provided).
On October 07 2012 10:07 Falling wrote: Grr. I don't like his attack on Canada's healthcare though Government doesn't determine who get's healthcare- doctors do.
I am not sure what you mean by this. In Canada the government decides what treatments are covered mand what treatments aren't. If the treatment you need is not on the list then you don't get it. Here is a pretty detailed example of how it works:
...and this is the big flaw in socialized medicine. It is rationed. The government can't give top quality care to everyone for every condition. Only a market-based healthcare system can do that. This is why so many Americans are resistant to socialized medicine. They have access to world class healthcare already through their private health insurance (generally employer-provided).
That's why you have socialized healthcare with a private option so those who want to spend money on more lucrative/riskier treatment can go ahead and do so.
On October 07 2012 10:07 Falling wrote: Grr. I don't like his attack on Canada's healthcare though Government doesn't determine who get's healthcare- doctors do.
I am not sure what you mean by this. In Canada the government decides what treatments are covered mand what treatments aren't. If the treatment you need is not on the list then you don't get it. Here is a pretty detailed example of how it works:
...and this is the big flaw in socialized medicine. It is rationed. The government can't give top quality care to everyone for every condition. Only a market-based healthcare system can do that. This is why so many Americans are resistant to socialized medicine. They have access to world class healthcare already through their private health insurance (generally employer-provided).
You do realize that canada's healthcare system is hybrid iirc, if you want special treatment you have to pay for it yourself but you can get it. Also it's a lie to say that a market based healthcare system can provide top quality care to everyone, when a market based system leaves people out nearly entirely short of trips to the ER, which actually isn't due to the market; having to treat people who show up in the ER is by law.
On October 07 2012 13:27 xDaunt wrote: As I have said before, I'd rather have government-provided baseline coverage for everyone with the option for individuals to buy better care. That way, minimal access is guaranteed and the quality of care of is preserved.
Best solution this side of the revolution
I can't understand this mentality, how do you define "minimal access" when it comes to your health? Just enough to get your ass out the door and die on the steps? Access should be universal, you get better.. What is "quality of care"? I always feel the quallity of care when I'm at the doctors office...
Looking back at it, he might have meant something different by basic care than me.
If we focused more on preventative care, I bet things would be a lot cheaper. Also, we keep old people alive too long, it's kind of silly.
On October 07 2012 13:27 xDaunt wrote: As I have said before, I'd rather have government-provided baseline coverage for everyone with the option for individuals to buy better care. That way, minimal access is guaranteed and the quality of care of is preserved.
Best solution this side of the revolution
I can't understand this mentality, how do you define "minimal access" when it comes to your health? Just enough to get your ass out the door and die on the steps? Access should be universal, you get better.. What is "quality of care"? I always feel the quallity of care when I'm at the doctors office...
Looking back at it, he might have meant something different by basic care than me.
If we focused more on preventative care, I bet things would be a lot cheaper. Also, we keep old people alive too long, it's kind of silly.
It's not the avg lifespan that is silly although people are outliving their retirement funds due to extended lifespan, it's how much we spend to keep people alive for say 5 extra days of life, which usually leads to very expensive medical bills incurred for just a few days of poor quality of life.
On October 07 2012 13:27 xDaunt wrote: As I have said before, I'd rather have government-provided baseline coverage for everyone with the option for individuals to buy better care. That way, minimal access is guaranteed and the quality of care of is preserved.
Best solution this side of the revolution
I can't understand this mentality, how do you define "minimal access" when it comes to your health? Just enough to get your ass out the door and die on the steps? Access should be universal, you get better.. What is "quality of care"? I always feel the quallity of care when I'm at the doctors office...
Looking back at it, he might have meant something different by basic care than me.
If we focused more on preventative care, I bet things would be a lot cheaper. Also, we keep old people alive too long, it's kind of silly.
It's not the avg lifespan that is silly although people are outliving their retirement funds due to extended lifespan, it's how much we spend to keep people alive for say 5 extra days of life, which usually leads to very expensive medical bills incurred for just a few days of poor quality of life.
Yeah this is what I'm talking about, it's not like I've investigated the matter but I bet we could save a lot of money if we'd just stop doing that. I've seen some of my family members in situations like that and it's pointless - they aren't happy it's just a waste of everybody's effort. No idea of the magnitude of this expenditure though.
On October 07 2012 13:27 xDaunt wrote: As I have said before, I'd rather have government-provided baseline coverage for everyone with the option for individuals to buy better care. That way, minimal access is guaranteed and the quality of care of is preserved.
Best solution this side of the revolution
I can't understand this mentality, how do you define "minimal access" when it comes to your health? Just enough to get your ass out the door and die on the steps? Access should be universal, you get better.. What is "quality of care"? I always feel the quallity of care when I'm at the doctors office...
Looking back at it, he might have meant something different by basic care than me.
If we focused more on preventative care, I bet things would be a lot cheaper. Also, we keep old people alive too long, it's kind of silly.
It's not the avg lifespan that is silly although people are outliving their retirement funds due to extended lifespan, it's how much we spend to keep people alive for say 5 extra days of life, which usually leads to very expensive medical bills incurred for just a few days of poor quality of life.
Yeah this is what I'm talking about, it's not like I've investigated the matter but I bet we could save a lot of money if we'd just stop doing that. I've seen some of my family members in situations like that and it's pointless - they aren't happy it's just a waste of everybody's effort. No idea of the magnitude of this expenditure though.
It's an obscenely high number. I've seen the stat before.
Jon Steward doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit. That's about par for the course. Thought the entire debt was attributable to Bush because Clinton left him with a surplus ... Derp.
On October 07 2012 14:43 Kaitlin wrote: Jon Steward doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit. That's about par for the course. Thought the entire debt was attributable to Bush because Clinton left him with a surplus ... Derp.
That was awful yeah. All he had to do was mention how Obama reduced the deficit, and that reducing the debt would have required running a surplus.
On October 07 2012 14:43 Kaitlin wrote: Jon Steward doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit. That's about par for the course. Thought the entire debt was attributable to Bush because Clinton left him with a surplus ... Derp.
I'm 40 minutes into the video and other than that one part where Steward messed up, he is killing Bill. Literally owning Bill in this debate at the moment or in xDaunt's way 7-1 for Steward so far. (I just made that number up)
EDIT: You can make the same argument with Bill crying about the government paying for birth control but not accepting the fact that the government is paying for Viagra.
second EDIT: John's rising platform was funny at first, but really fucking annoying as time is going on.
Becoming alarmed that Obama has lost so much of his aura. Such a far cry from 4 years ago when people were in the streets celebrating as though the country was about to be saved.
I'm revising my earlier opinion. I think there are far more dissatisfied Obama supporters than we care to acknowledge, and I feel conservatives and moderates will be more motivated to vote this time because they really don't like Obama. Basically this could be way closer than I had anticipated. Both candidates seem to have no real good ideas, I guess the difference is we've already seen Obama's brain in action, so I really think people will consider taking a chance on Romney just for the hell of it. Americans are impatient (and in this recession, we deserve to be) and impulsive, and circumstances are aligning such as Obama is appearing very mortal. I'm so interested I think I might actually vote this time.
Seems like Romney is at it again, blasting Obama for defense cuts which will cost a lot of jobs.
"They would make devastating cuts to our military. It's a strange proposal in the first place, even stranger that it's being put in place," Romney said. "The impact will be immediate, and significant right here in Virginia: 136,000 jobs will be lost in Virginia as a result of this move."
On October 07 2012 10:07 Falling wrote: Grr. I don't like his attack on Canada's healthcare though Government doesn't determine who get's healthcare- doctors do.
I am not sure what you mean by this. In Canada the government decides what treatments are covered mand what treatments aren't. If the treatment you need is not on the list then you don't get it. Here is a pretty detailed example of how it works:
Sure, yes they decide which treatments are covered so you can't call in your alternative medicine or your energy healer and get that covered by taxes. But the actual treatments, what the doctor is prescribing to you is determined by doctors, not governments. And the government isn't sitting their determining whether your treatments are costing too much. The doctors decide what is the best step for your health. Furthermore the hospitals are run by regional boards not the federal or provincial government.
And as others have said our hybrid system can cover what pure public healthcare can't or won't.
Seems like Romney is at it again, blasting Obama for defense cuts which will cost a lot of jobs.
"They would make devastating cuts to our military. It's a strange proposal in the first place, even stranger that it's being put in place," Romney said. "The impact will be immediate, and significant right here in Virginia: 136,000 jobs will be lost in Virginia as a result of this move."
EPT
Government doesn't determine who get's healthcare- doctors do.
