Once injured, what was your bill?(U.S.A.) Other countrys can add, doubt CND and the UK have health insurance problems.(it's free

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Once injured, what was your bill?(U.S.A.) Other countrys can add, doubt CND and the UK have health insurance problems.(it's free
Author Message
Mod
Posted: Apr 7, 2009 at 20:40 Quote
marty660 wrote:
How about the US government starts spending the money spent on wars on public healthcare, then he can have both.

That's not how capitalism or imperialism works.

O+
Posted: Apr 7, 2009 at 22:22 Quote
laurie1 wrote:
This would never happen as Canada is a democracy and not a socialist country.

What?


More on topic:
I have had good experiences with both American and Canadian health care. I sustained a very, very severe concussion playing soccer in Phoenix which left me convulsing on the field. An ambulance ride, multiple MRI's, and a few hours later they determined that I had no brain damage, and was generally good to go. MRI's would not happen in a few hours in Canada (I think). My bill for all this was a measly $25 000 dollars. Luckily, it was covered by $20 travel insurance.

In Canada, my dad was in a car accident which led to a month long hospitalization. Total cost? $0. In both cases the system worked. In America my insurance paid, in Canada my dad's taxes paid. But I can't imagine what the bill for a month long hospitalization would have been in the states. I don't care what tax bracket you are in, a stay like that will cripple you and your family if it isn't covered by insurance.

Posted: Apr 8, 2009 at 8:00 Quote
marty660 wrote:
How about the US government starts spending the money spent on wars on public healthcare, then he can have both.

If Canada and its comparatively smaller population is the clusterf*ck that it is with subsidized health care, I would absolutely hate to see what would happen to the American system if they went the same route.

Its a double edged sword, make people pay for health care and those that can't afford it suffer or make it so that everyone has access to it free of charge and watch people die while waiting to see a doctor.

Posted: Apr 8, 2009 at 11:59 Quote
laurie1 wrote:
marty660 wrote:
How about the US government starts spending the money spent on wars on public healthcare, then he can have both.

That's not how capitalism or imperialism works.

OK
well then how about the USA keeps wasting killing people instead of healing people. Over like, prestige or something. And then when they're out of money they can buy kool-aid, problem solved.
Rolleyes lol I can see it.


France has the world's best health care system in the world. And they are essentially a public health care system. The USA is the only industrialized/western nation without a public health care system, I don't even understand where these arguments against it are coming from because it's pretty clear private health care is a thing of the past which is dying out in favour of modern publicly funded health care systems.

Posted: Apr 8, 2009 at 12:34 Quote
France is also smaller then Texas... and I'm pretty sure as a whole the people there are healthier as they aren't... well... Americans...

If anything give a tax break to citizens and tell them it must be used on insurance, otherwise the government will take it back...

Mod
Posted: Apr 8, 2009 at 12:49 Quote
The French are socialists. I think there should be a two-tier healthcare system whereby new medical school graduates have to do a couple years of mandatory service in the public sector and then, they can apply to a private practice. This will ensure that the needs of the majority are met. Also, most private clinics only hire the best of the best and they are usually more than just doctors as they specialize in something. I am all for the private system. Canada already has some characteristics of private healthcare as some drugs are exclusive to some provinces (covered by a province’s healthcare system but not other provinces). Might as well come out and say that healthcare should be privatized.

O+
Posted: Apr 8, 2009 at 19:14 Quote
laurie1 wrote:
The French are socialists.

Now I am not an expert in French politics. But five minutes of research to me that currently the UMP is in power. They are a liberal-conservative party. This means they are a right-central party. Now right central in Europe may be different than right central in America, but regardless this is not considered a socialist party.

Now you dismiss the French as socialists, yet advocate for the two tier health-care system they use. Five minute of research told me that the French have a choice between using private or public facilities. Furthermore, the French 'detest socialized medicine'. They view Canada as having socialist medicine. French people pay to use their health care, and can pay to see what they feel are better doctors if they choose.

Mod
Posted: Apr 8, 2009 at 19:30 Quote
I mean they adopt socialist policies not that their government is a true socialist regime. European politics is a lot different than North American politics because of the European Union.

France's citizens still pay higher taxes than Canadians. Even if you can afford to be in the private part of two tier healthcare, you still have to pay to fund the public system. Why should someone who does not use the public sector side have to pay taxes for healthcare if they don’t use it? Seems like all these people in the public system are just freeriders. No wonder it's abused and it takes months to get tests done. There should be user fees to cover the costs and provide people with the basic necessities. Someone who doesn’t use something shouldn’t have to pay for it!

O+
Posted: Apr 9, 2009 at 1:49 Quote
laurie1 wrote:
I mean they adopt socialist policies not that their government is a true socialist regime. European politics is a lot different than North American politics because of the European Union.

France's citizens still pay higher taxes than Canadians. Even if you can afford to be in the private part of two tier healthcare, you still have to pay to fund the public system. Why should someone who does not use the public sector side have to pay taxes for healthcare if they don’t use it? Seems like all these people in the public system are just freeriders. No wonder it's abused and it takes months to get tests done. There should be user fees to cover the costs and provide people with the basic necessities. Someone who doesn’t use something shouldn’t have to pay for it!

But France has almost no wait lists. And people choose to use the private system based on having the means. But the public system is always available to them. The 'freeriders' in the public system pay their taxes as well, they just choose to utilize the public system.

Fundamentally I think you have a problem with poor people. You view them as lazy, and feel that they are in this position by choice. I agree with you in a lot of cases, but there are definitely people out there who work hard and just can't afford a $25 000 hospital visit. These people make up the majority of Canada, and that is why the system is there. They are not freeloaders though, they pay taxes too. If you have the means, and want faster service, nothing is stopping you from going elsewhere. But, the option to use the free health care is there the same for you as anyone else.

For lack of a better analogy, imagine you work for a company called Canadaco. everyone in the company gets free coffee. You want Starbucks, and feel that it is unfair that you have to chip in to the company coffee fund. The majority of the company disagrees with this, as you may occasionally have a quick cup of the free coffee if you are rushed. The company is a democracy.

For the record, I don't mean to attack you, I am just intrigued by your extreme capitalist views on the world.

Posted: Apr 9, 2009 at 8:15 Quote
laurie1 wrote:
France's citizens still pay higher taxes than Canadians.

They pay 20% of their annual salary on average, I think.
Iin the US it's like 17% or something? At any rate, we pay more I'm pretty sure.

Mod
Posted: Apr 9, 2009 at 8:31 Quote
I bleed old Tory blue at heart. None of this new Progressive Conservative stuff really fits my political ideals/beliefs exactly but out of the major three, it is the best one that I can believe in. I mean if you don’t vote, you shouldn’t have a say!

France is a small country in terms of landmass and population so they are able to obtain a very successful healthcare system as there aren’t as many people there using the system. If people don’t use something, they shouldn’t have to pay for it in order to keep it afloat. That just leads to abusive behavior. If there was a nominal user fee attached to going to the emergency room, this would free up a lot of beds and relieve the pressure on our system. People would be able to get better, faster, and more personal care. I have several friends with parents who were doctors in Canada and then they moved to the US to practice and the difference is night and day. Although they do not agree 100% with the fees associated with the American system, they do donate their time and services to several different organizations on a fairly regular basis which is pretty neat to hear. They like how they don’t have to deal with people coming in just looking for a place to sleep off a hangover or seniors who need people to talk to as they are lonely. Sure, that may have sounded harsh but wouldn’t you want your expertise going to saving lives rather than having some drunk sleep off their hangover or consoling an elderly person looking for some companionship? If there was a nominal fee attached, these people wouldn’t end up in the ER.

I don’t really have an issue with poor people but I don’t think that the rich should have to makeup for their shortcomings. I mean why should I have to pay a rather large personal income tax when I am a significant contributor to society? Obviously if one is wealthy, they are doing something to contribute in society and the government already gets more than their fair share of revenue from the wealthy. The wealthy are more likely to make large purchases as they have money so the government gets the GST. The government also gets revenue from the business tax. Obviously, a successful business will be paying a significant amount of money already. Basically, the government overtaxes the wealthy. Essentially, they are telling the wealthy to be “lazy” and not contribute to society as you will be penalized for it through taxes. If anything, the non-contributors to society should pay more than the wealthy as they are draining the system and think that freeriding is acceptable. I believe that everyone who can work should. There should be no free handouts unless there is something physically stopping you from working. Therefore, I support some form of the welfare state. Help those who are disabled and unable to work or need a hand up but don’t give them this “cradle to grave” support at a wealthy person’s expense! That just isn’t fair and is demoralizing to wealthy people. Why work if all I am going to do is be paying taxes to support people I don’t even know. A prime example of this is “Octo Mom.” As if 6 kids wasn’t enough with one being disabled she had to have 8 more! That is just an absurd abuse of the system!!!! All of those kids should have been taken away from her as she can’t even take care of her original 6 children.

As for paying for healthcare, I have third party insurance that covers me more than the Province of Alberta’s (Alberta Blue Cross) does. I think we pay less than $500 a year for our family of 4. Once again, if I do not use a service, I shouldn’t have to pay for it. If I decide to use a public service, then I should pay. I went to private school all my life, why should I have to pay provincial taxes to keep this system afloat if I have never stepped foot in a public school institution?

If I don’t use it, I shouldn’t have to pay for it!

Posted: Apr 9, 2009 at 8:39 Quote
This was such an epic grave dig.

O+
Posted: Apr 9, 2009 at 16:28 Quote
The wealthy are taxed more because they can afford it without noticeable sacrifices to their quality of life.

France has about twice as many people as Canada.

I agree with the establishment of a nominal fee to stop abuse of the health care system. I actually think it is a great idea.

BUT...and I do go quite off the topic of health care here

You are advocating for the complete segregation of wealth between a very small wealthy upper class, and the filthy hordes below them. Removing the social services which help the lower and middles classes seems to be a surefire way to the guillotine. History tells us that this societal model is unsustainable in every way. I can't think of a single case which indicates otherwise.

I'm all for working hard, being wealthy, and flaunting it. But I'm not down with people starving and dieing at my golden feet. Even if they can eat cake.

Further more, as far as I can tell you are a student. You still receive money from the government, and if you don't you are doing you're taxes wrong. What right do you have to complain that you are taxed to death?

Mod
Posted: Apr 9, 2009 at 16:42 Quote
Yes, I am a student and to a degree, the government does subsidize it. Then again, everyone who goes to post-secondary institutions is subsidized. The difference is some attend these institutions with no financial aid while others do. Either way, if you are on financial aid or just attending post-secondary not on financial aid/assistance, there is no difference in tuition prices. There might be a small fee to file the paperwork but that's it. The amount of people who abuse their financial aid is absurd. The government should physically allot the payment of tuition and residence. People who are on financial aid don't need to go out to eat and party. Their aid should be limited strictly to textbooks, residence and tuition. Anything else they want to do, they should pay for themselves.

Posted: Apr 12, 2009 at 7:19 Quote
I have three words whichwill make a substantial proportion of you hate me.

Tax.
The.
Rich.


 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.013523
Mobile Version of Website