Universal Health Care...

[Balloon guy 158]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...Tale-Of-Woe.htmBut hey, don't let facts confuse the MSM.

VB...this is called a burn, and you are the singeeeeeI expect then that All_In will now be providing a link about how muslims are not actually strapping bombs on children to kill dirty Jews because America is so bad.I will wait patiently.

[vbnautilus 48]

VB...this is called a burn, and you are the singeeeeeI expect then that All_In will now be providing a link about how muslims are not actually strapping bombs on children to kill dirty Jews because America is so bad.I will wait patiently.

I was just clarifying what the point of posting the story was supposed to be, not saying that I agreed with it.

[brvheart 1,752]

Only in america...Man robs bank to get medical care in jailhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/2...al-care-in-jail

The muslim suicide bomber link was awesome.Anyway, you understand that that man is insane, correct? I thought all you guys knew each other.

I think the point is supposed to be that its a bad situation when prisoners get better health care than free poor people.

Medicare.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Only somewhere else...9-year-old girl kidnapped, drugged, strapped into explosive vest, and told to be suicide bomberhttp://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/2...?iref=allsearch

I'm not sure how you think this is even vaguely relevant...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...Tale-Of-Woe.htmBut hey, don't let facts confuse the MSM.

Yes, this guy is crazy, but we can still examine his overall concern: the access to healthcare for the poor in this country. I've never understood the counter argument from your side (the one that your article describes). Essentially, the argument is that the poor actually DO have plenty of access to healthcare because hospitals will treat them if it is medically necessary, right?If that is your argument (if I've paraphrased it correctly), isn't that exactly socialized medicine? Aren't you then exactly advocating a safety net paid for by the government and subsidized by the tax-payer? I mean, someone eventually has to foot the bill for people who go into emergency rooms and can't pay. And that bill is expensive. So, your solution is that we should simply keep it an unorganized, ad-hoc system, sweep it all under the rug, and pretend there isn't a problem?

The muslim suicide bomber link was awesome.

It really wasn't.

[All_In 0]

Only somewhere else...9-year-old girl kidnapped, drugged, strapped into explosive vest, and told to be suicide bomberhttp://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/2...?iref=allsearch

i guess that post makes sense if u are equating your country to a third-world muslim country...i guess they are worse than u, great logic! lol.

[All_In 0]

Is your point that we should base policy on the fear of what the lowest form of humanity will do?

no, u should base policy on equating healthcare with your rights, rather than who is higher in your class-system.

[All_In 0]

I think the point is supposed to be that its a bad situation when prisoners get better health care than free poor people.

yep. sometimes people here are pretty dense and can't figure things out.

[All_In 0]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...Tale-Of-Woe.htmBut hey, don't let facts confuse the MSM.

where i live healthcare is easy to obtain, and it's not a private industry. it also treats people equally i.e. the rich aren't the only ones to receive 'preventative' healthcare. your system, according to u, will provide poor people with healthcare, but only if their illness has progressed to a point where they are very sick. do u honestly believe that the US system is better than what every other 'industrialized' nation does? do u honestly believe that your quality of healthcare should depend on how much money you have (which is an extension of the opportunities you were given, do we have a choice of to whom and where we are born?)?

[hblask 1]

no, u should base policy on equating healthcare with your rights, rather than who is higher in your class-system.

The right to other people's labor? No thanks, it's been tried.

[hblask 1]

where i live healthcare is easy to obtain, and it's not a private industry. it also treats people equally i.e. the rich aren't the only ones to receive 'preventative' healthcare. your system, according to u, will provide poor people with healthcare, but only if their illness has progressed to a point where they are very sick. do u honestly believe that the US system is better than what every other 'industrialized' nation does? do u honestly believe that your quality of healthcare should depend on how much money you have (which is an extension of the opportunities you were given, do we have a choice of to whom and where we are born?)?

Equal misery <<<<<< unequal excess

[hblask 1]

Yes, this guy is crazy, but we can still examine his overall concern: the access to healthcare for the poor in this country. I've never understood the counter argument from your side (the one that your article describes). Essentially, the argument is that the poor actually DO have plenty of access to healthcare because hospitals will treat them if it is medically necessary, right?If that is your argument (if I've paraphrased it correctly), isn't that exactly socialized medicine? Aren't you then exactly advocating a safety net paid for by the government and subsidized by the tax-payer? I mean, someone eventually has to foot the bill for people who go into emergency rooms and can't pay. And that bill is expensive. So, your solution is that we should simply keep it an unorganized, ad-hoc system, sweep it all under the rug, and pretend there isn't a problem?

First, much of the care for the poor comes through local, community, and state programs that are flexible and responsive. Neither of those adjectives describes anything the federal government does.Second, yes, I have no problem passing the costs of those in need onto others via voluntary mechanisms of competition, goodwill, etc.But there is a huge difference between an entitlement for EVERYONE vs an entitlement for those who are down on their luck and trying to work their way back.It's the difference between the welfare system pre-Clinton and the welfare system now (well, pre-Obama, anyway). Incentives matter, both to the individuals who may need care and to the providers that provide it.

[colonel Feathers 5]

The poor needs no care, less care, less poor.

[Balloon guy 158]

where i live healthcare is easy to obtain, and it's not a private industry. it also treats people equally i.e. the rich aren't the only ones to receive 'preventative' healthcare. your system, according to u, will provide poor people with healthcare, but only if their illness has progressed to a point where they are very sick. do u honestly believe that the US system is better than what every other 'industrialized' nation does? do u honestly believe that your quality of healthcare should depend on how much money you have (which is an extension of the opportunities you were given, do we have a choice of to whom and where we are born?)?

The bolded is not true in any country, in any time, in all of history.And it never will be.Our 'saftey net' is based on compassion to not let people die from illness. But we also recognize that once you make the populous dependent on the government, then the people will become slaves.Watch what happens in Greece when the people who have been raised to expect the government to supply them with their 'rights', suddenly find that the government can no longer deliver.And having the US system inventing all the new drugs and treatments because of the incentive of getting rich, resulting in your healthcare becoming better, shows that your system is flawed.

[brvheart 1,752]

Yes, this guy is crazy, but we can still examine his overall concern: the access to healthcare for the poor in this country. I've never understood the counter argument from your side (the one that your article describes). Essentially, the argument is that the poor actually DO have plenty of access to healthcare because hospitals will treat them if it is medically necessary, right?If that is your argument (if I've paraphrased it correctly), isn't that exactly socialized medicine? Aren't you then exactly advocating a safety net paid for by the government and subsidized by the tax-payer? I mean, someone eventually has to foot the bill for people who go into emergency rooms and can't pay. And that bill is expensive. So, your solution is that we should simply keep it an unorganized, ad-hoc system, sweep it all under the rug, and pretend there isn't a problem?

No. I like privately owned hospitals, not ones run by the feds.

It really wasn't.

It was a very important reminder for All In. Plus, she deserved it for dressing slutty.

[All_In 0]

The bolded is not true in any country, in any time, in all of history.And it never will be.

so how does the canadian system of healthcare not treat everyone equally??

Our 'saftey net' is based on compassion to not let people die from illness. But we also recognize that once you make the populous dependent on the government, then the people will become slaves.

so the 'compassion' in your system only surfaces once the person is close to dying...nice.as for the slave comment, well, that is probably even more incorrect than your previous comment. the northern european countries are always ranked among the top countries to live in, and they are socialist. the US comes in WAY down the list.

Watch what happens in Greece when the people who have been raised to expect the government to supply them with their 'rights', suddenly find that the government can no longer deliver.

their debt per capita works out to about 44G...in the US it's 45G...wonder what's in store for the US? AND...in greece they retire at 55 (53?) w/ 80% of their salary...u americans get treated like sh*t by big business and your gov....and your debt is more than greece, lol.

And having the US system inventing all the new drugs and treatments because of the incentive of getting rich, resulting in your healthcare becoming better, shows that your system is flawed.

no it doesn't. u may think u sound smart with a comment like that, but it just shows how clueless u r.

[All_In 0]

No. I like privately owned hospitals, not ones run by the feds.It was a very important reminder for All In. Plus, she deserved it for dressing slutty.

why do u prefer private hospitals? talking out your azz again?and the suicide vest link was totally out of left field...grasping...

[hblask 1]

so how does the canadian system of healthcare not treat everyone equally??

For one, the level of care widely varies by region, with care relatively accessible in cities, while places with smaller poplulations, doctors use lotteries to see who gets to be treated.Additionally, politicians regularly use their clout to line-jump the waiting lists.And finally, the rich can easily cross the border and get care in a timely manner, while the poor cannot.But other than that, yeah, pretty equal.

[hblask 1]

why do u prefer private hospitals?

Here's a bunch of reasons.Here's some more

[Balloon guy 158]

so how does the canadian system of healthcare not treat everyone equally??

You think Jim Pattison waits months for an MRI?

so the 'compassion' in your system only surfaces once the person is close to dying...nice.as for the slave comment, well, that is probably even more incorrect than your previous comment. the northern european countries are always ranked among the top countries to live in, and they are socialist. the US comes in WAY down the list.

We don't rank in an arbitrary who's the bestest list?Than why is America the #1 country for people to dream about?Cause we're the best, regardless of Euro-chic losers who are trying their hardest to pretend they aren't failing.

their debt per capita works out to about 44G...in the US it's 45G...wonder what's in store for the US? AND...in greece they retire at 55 (53?) w/ 80% of their salary...u americans get treated like sh*t by big business and your gov....and your debt is more than greece, lol.

Welcome to Ironyville: Population: you

no it doesn't. u may think u sound smart with a comment like that, but it just shows how clueless u r.

Are you trying for the Lifetime President of Ironyville? Cause with this campaign slogan you are unbeatable.Unbeatable.

[mrdannyg 274]

For one, the level of care widely varies by region, with care relatively accessible in cities, while places with smaller poplulations, doctors use lotteries to see who gets to be treated.Additionally, politicians regularly use their clout to line-jump the waiting lists.And finally, the rich can easily cross the border and get care in a timely manner, while the poor cannot.But other than that, yeah, pretty equal.

Did you read the article? The draws were held to be accepted into specific practices, not whether they had care or not.And the 5 million figure is ridiculous. I am one of those 5 million without primary care. I am a 27-year old healthy male, and there are doctors, clinics and hospitals within an hour of me. I don't have a regular doctor by choice. This is true for the vast majority of those people.

[Nashtak 0]

[Balloon guy 158]

Did you read the article? The draws were held to be accepted into specific practices, not whether they had care or not.And the 5 million figure is ridiculous. I am one of those 5 million without primary care. I am a 27-year old healthy male, and there are doctors, clinics and hospitals within an hour of me. I don't have a regular doctor by choice. This is true for the vast majority of those people.

You would also make up part of the 40 million uninsured in America....A friend of mine who lives in Canada between Montreal and Ottowa, told me that his small town ( pop;25,000 ) had an issue where the local doctors were full of patients, so they didn't have a doctor to see. The doctor is only paid X amount and they reach this amount with X patients, so once they reach the level they stop seeing patients.Usually this was reached around Wednesday.He now has a doctor, which is good because he just had a bout with colon cancer.He is a successful businessman who got on the board of the local hospital to raise money for stuff. They got a donor to offer $1mm to buy a new MRI machine. They had to go through tons of red tape to get the government to allow them to buy it, but the government refused to increase their hospital budget to run the MRI machine. It took 4 years to get the paperwork filled out and approvals etc and they finally got the okay, luckily the donor was willing to honor his agreement 4 years later.

[mrdannyg 274]

You would also make up part of the 40 million uninsured in America....A friend of mine who lives in Canada between Montreal and Ottowa, told me that his small town ( pop;25,000 ) had an issue where the local doctors were full of patients, so they didn't have a doctor to see. The doctor is only paid X amount and they reach this amount with X patients, so once they reach the level they stop seeing patients.Usually this was reached around Wednesday.He now has a doctor, which is good because he just had a bout with colon cancer.He is a successful businessman who got on the board of the local hospital to raise money for stuff. They got a donor to offer $1mm to buy a new MRI machine. They had to go through tons of red tape to get the government to allow them to buy it, but the government refused to increase their hospital budget to run the MRI machine. It took 4 years to get the paperwork filled out and approvals etc and they finally got the okay, luckily the donor was willing to honor his agreement 4 years later.

Your friend is either lying or dumb. Doctors do not have a set salary. They bill, just like they would in the states, according to what they've done. I did the billing in a couple doctor's offices for several years. The difference is the bills go to the government instead of to individuals. That's all. Maybe his doctor was satisfied earning X dollars, so he only chose to see X number of patients, but that was his choice.

[Balloon guy 158]

Your friend is either lying or dumb. Doctors do not have a set salary. They bill, just like they would in the states, according to what they've done. I did the billing in a couple doctor's offices for several years. The difference is the bills go to the government instead of to individuals. That's all. Maybe his doctor was satisfied earning X dollars, so he only chose to see X number of patients, but that was his choice.

Both are highly possible.Cause he's Canadian.So there are no caps on what a doctor in Canada can earn? I didn't know that.

[AmScray 355]

Health care in prisons is terrible, while free poor people have many high quality options.

Please elaborate more on the quality of health care in prisons, versus the options available to the uninsured.