General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2158968

    The medical balancing act

    Locked

    by oz_media ·

    We have had numerous discussions abotu health care and whether government controlled medical is worthy or not, vs private, insured medical.

    Each time we have discussed it, the same tow issues are raised.

    Canadians say that they don’t mind and that the help is good. Americans say Canadians are often put on a waitign list and 98 year old Mr. Walters had to go to the USA for a hip replacement that was elective surgery in Canada.

    On the flip side, Canadians say teh US health care system only takes care of those who can afford it and leaves others to perish. americans defend that by saying that nobody is left withotu care, especially in emergency situations. If they receive care and cannot pay it, others pay for it with rising premiums.

    So here is one of those 1 in 330 million stories that’s made recent headlines.

    What’s your take?

    In Canada it would be done, though obviously having to wait for a suitable donor. (I’m not trying to say our system is better than yours, but people often raise one-off cases in order to show how people in Canada can’t get treatment, well here’s a one-off case form the USA.)

    Baby Dougherty.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/national_world&id=6678311#bodyText

    I just hope the state see this through and that the parents don’t have to suffer the loss of this infant. I know they have received a pile of private and corporate donations towards the surgery, but that is really just excusing a screwed up hospital/insurance system for their negligence. It doesn’t make the situation any better or solve the problem.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2763266

      Do we want the same people

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to The medical balancing act

      who think paying $400 for a hammer is OK deciding the value of a medical treatment?

      🙂

      • #2763258

        I used to play that game with them

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Do we want the same people

        I worked for a company that got all te hgovernment contracts in our industry. We would just make up numbers when asked for pricing, then send in the work orders.

        Recently the BC government has been really pi$$ing off local companies though. A few years back they gave up a contract for ferries to a German company that outbid our own (our own companies were also unwilling to retrofit plants to suit larger vessels though).

        The downtown Vancouver core is havign a major overhaul right now, they were looking for black stone inlays to go between granite sidewalk plates being used on a sidewalk.

        A local company had bid but they were outbid by a German company and lost that contract. Their complaint was that as the city is in economic struggle right now, why not use a different stone at an even lower cost from a local company, but it was a no go; they had already bid and lost it.

        So I think the government has been picking up their socks and local companies that are used to milking the government are finding that they lose bids now. I am all for suporting local business, but I am also all for our government seeking more cost effective measures. In the case of the new sidewalk, I do think they should have considered a local stone quarry and just gone with a more cost effective stone than this rare black stone they have to buy from Germany though.

        It’s always 6 of one and a half dozen of another, but there are two sides to all stories I find.

        • #2779859

          Differences in materials

          by geek3001 ·

          In reply to I used to play that game with them

          Could it be that the black stone from Germany has a different makeup than the local product? There could be a chance that there is a hardness, durability, or strength of materials issue. If the German product is more expensive front end, but lasts longer, the overall costs may be lower.

        • #2778968

          True and a fair point

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Differences in materials

          But in this case both quarries were importign the same stone, there were only a few in the world that could obtain it.

          A key consideration though is that there IS a more durabel stone, available at a much lower cost from the local quarry. But th ecity wanted some rare, expensive stone. These are also not full paving stones but ones to be laid on edge (3″ wide strips perhaps) BETWEEN paving stones to create a ‘sexy’ effect/contrast.

          How about just using ordinary cement and then lowering the ferry fares to the Island instead or the cost of hydro power, which keeps escalating as we sell it to California.
          We have mroe water in BC than pretty much anywhere, however we pay more than American to use our own hydro electric power which we sell to the US.

          With the economic crunch on right now, the city should be more considerate of tax payers costs and keeping that money local and supporting local businesses, its not like a private builder making a courtyard that has to look just so. This is a main, pulbic sidewalk, where they have decided to use expensive materials at the tax payers expense and farm the work out to a European quarry.

          But that’s Vancouver, the most beautiful place on Earth but the politicians are still no better than any others.

      • #2763244

        But thats not what happens

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to Do we want the same people

        Doctors decide what treatments are required for patients in Canada, not civil servents or insurance people. And if you don’t agree with your doctor’s assessment, you can get a second opinion.

        The government does have a list of what procedures. But it isn’t a controversial they consider medically necessary list. For example cosmetic surgery is on the NO list, unless its reconstructive. Circumcision is also on the NO list. There is not a list of preferred alternatives in a given situation. The doctor makes the call as to appropriate levels of treatment.

        James

        • #2762861

          I’ll have to find it again,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to But thats not what happens

          but I distinctly remember a doctor-recommended hip procedure being refused (Not refused to pay for it… refused to allow it to be done!) because the government thought the patient was too old to benefit from it.

        • #2762857

          Please do

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I’ll have to find it again,

          Cause the way I’ve seen the medical system close up, and with a wife with lots of medical issues, I’ve lots of experience, is that the doctor does the procedure, and then bills the government – no pre approval. As long as the item is on the list of medical procedures, its approved.

          Now a hospital may have a scheduling procedure where they determine the priority and who get ahead in line, but the hospitals are private institutions, who get government funds to operate, not government organizations.

          James

        • #2762761

          Ah,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Please do

          [i]As long as the item is on the list of medical procedures, its approved. [/i]

          That might be it, as I recall, it was a non-standard treatment… a hip resurfacing as opposed to a replacement. I’ll find it.

        • #2762672

          There are times

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Ah,

          When an experimental procedure is a decision made on a case by case basis.

          Drugs undergoing medical trials, new procedures etc. have to be approved before they are funded. But isn’t that the same as an HMO?

          This isn’t to say that no experimental drugs or procedures are ever covered.

          James

        • #2762666

          HMO’s.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to There are times

          Too many health care procedural decisions made by insurance company bean counters, not doctors.

          Our HMO was changed recently, thankfully. The previous one had a rule about emergency rooms that was pretty ridiculous, meant to ensure the HMO didn’t have to pick up the tab. We had to have our doctor’s permission to seek out emergency room help if we wanted the HMO to cover it. WTF? It’s a freaking emergency?

        • #2762667

          Here you go James

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Please do

        • #2762628

          Here is more information

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Here you go James

          http://www.albertaventure.com/?p=1956

          The surgeon (at a private for profit clinic) told him he was a candidate, while the provincial authority doesn’t fund that procedure based on the fact that after a certain point the bone density is not strong enough. The Alberta cut off is 55. There were other procedures they would have fundeded. He chose to go private.

          So that wasn’t based on age, but rightly or wrongly based on medical condiions.

          Again – would HMOs not have similar rules?

          James

    • #2763237

      Oz, Canada health care would pay for

      by dadspad ·

      In reply to The medical balancing act

      a heart transplant? That is good service.

      Here in the US, HMO’s were allowed to keep the health insurance from having hugh deductibles people could not afford. Now, HMO’s are charging too much and companies are returning to high deductibles again. The deductibles are ok if you are young an healthy, but a sudden heath emergency will put you up the creek without a paddle.

      Healthcare is a BIG concern in the US, just seems war is given money over people. Something is wrong with that.

      • #2763225

        If the doctor agrees it is necessary

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to Oz, Canada health care would pay for

        In fact if the procedure meant flying her to another province, they have done that. In some cases they have sent people to the US and paid for it. I seem to recall that Ontario sent lots of drug addicts south because we didn’t have enough beds for addiction treatment, as one example.

        If the doctor is stepping over the bounds of care, ordering unnecessary surgeries wwhatever, thats a matter for the College of Physicians to deal with. They are the professional standards board and they can yank the doctors license to practise.

        James

      • #2762866

        Shhhh

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Oz, Canada health care would pay for

        That’s been my approash for a long time now; ‘war or health where do you want your money spent?’ It seems, from replies on TR, that most people prefer their tax money is spent on war and people are responsible fo rtheir own health care. “Why should I pay for someone else?” Yeah I know its absurd really and i just can’ tget my head around such a shallow mentality but it seems to be quite common there, different lives lead to different views I suppose.

        Having always had medical coeverage, it has never been a concern to me as ot wher I get treated, how I get treated, insurance etc. If I’m sick or hurt, I go to the hospital or doctor, covered, done, thank you very much.

        I suppose the same goes foor Americans though, you are used to paying insurance for yuo and your family, nobody else.

        I forget what movie that was in “God bless America, and nobody else.” LOL 😀

        • #2762860

          The vast majority of all medical problems are minor

          by dadspad ·

          In reply to Shhhh

          and only require a visit to a GP doctor. The exceptions, I believe are more rare. Of course, as we grow older, we are more likely to have more health problems. Our bones are more fragile and sometimes we forget and do something we did when much younger. Then pay for it physically. 😀

          Yet, when any proposal for healthcare is made in Congress it is extremely expensive.

        • #2762818

          I’m wondering

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The vast majority of all medical problems are minor

          If healthcare proposals in congress are always too expensive, what costs are they based on? The individual private prectice costs that doctors charge through insurance?

          You see, our doctors are well paid but they are not ‘rock star rich’ like US doctors seem to be.

          Private practices in Vancouver are like that though, you’d swear you walked into a boutique. But you are paying for the nice pictures on the wall, the pretty nurse, the fancy front desk, the free Latte’s etc.

          A good doctor should be paid well based on his good service in the medical community, not his marketing and sales skills.

          So, not knowing how these costs are caluculated myself, do you have any idea?

          In Canada it is a set cost for each procedure the doctor performs, it makes experience and constant retraining valuable to both them and the patient.

        • #2762634

          Not only that,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The vast majority of all medical problems are minor

          [i]The vast majority of all medical problems are minor[/i]

          The vast majority are due to conditions or injuries which are:

          A. the consequences of voluntary activities or lifestyle choices.

          B. the consequences of negligence (by you or someone else).

          If you choose to go skiing, and you break your leg, it’s not right that the taxpayers pay for fixing it.

          Likewise if someone causes an auto accident that causes you injury. THEY should be responsible, not the taxpayer.

          It is wrong to hold someone responsible for something they had no control over!

    • #2762814

      this one?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to The medical balancing act

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123413701032661445.html

      [i]Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a “Birmingham” hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was “too old” to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He’s heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.”[/i]

      After reading it I question the validity of the article and the motives of the writer. I have ben for numerous MRI’s, more than 6 anyway, and all have been pretty much right away, sometimes a couple of days wait but a couple right then and there too. None of this 6 months/year crap. In fact as the author has only quoted the words ‘TOO OLD’ and added “to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no to.”

      I seriously doubt the validity of such a claim.

      Perhaps he was TOO OLD to undergo such surgery safely?
      Perhaps he was deemed TOO OLD for the anesthetic, or recovery, or it was degenerative and only a temoprary fix, there are a million VALID reasons for such a denial.

      Just because he went elsewhere, there no follow up?
      How is he today?
      Still suffering from a degenerative disease?

      As for “government beaurocrats…” I think it was more likely administrative staff of doctors who deemed the operation unwarranted or that it would not resolve the problem. He claims it was due ot his age not allowing him proper quality of life, but I am confident there was a lot more to it. Canadian studies on hip replacement surgery prove that there is an increased quality of life in more than 88% of tested patients between 45 and 64.

      There ALWAYS more to these stories than is reported by a po’d patient to the eager journalist. Face it people that are sick or in pain are the grunpiest, even normally happy people are like that, its miserabel being hurt and nobody enjoys being told it won’t help.

      I call bull$hit on this one anyway. My dad had hip replacement surgery, within a few weeks of it being suggested by his specialist, no problems or second guessing by ‘government beaurocrats’ there. His quality of life was not really improved as he was unable to return to his line of work, suffering from severe spinal and hip injuries. Having not seen nor heard from him in decades, I could not tell you what long term effects/benefits there were though.

      The article I linked to above is EXACTLY why I posted this thread.

      People like Tony will constantly bring up these individual cases aired to the US media as horror stories which are flooded through the US media to keep the people from demanding more form their government. [i]( I mean no offense towards yourself Tony) [/i]

      “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” VERY clever indeed.

      Get kids in school parroting that all day and they will soon conform and pay for everything the government should be paying for out of tax dollars. In fact they will grow to object to the thought of their money being spent to help them, as they will fear it helps others too, can’t have THAT NOW.

      So isn’t it about time Americans sat down and asked the country, “So, what the f**k are you going to do for ME for a change?”

      They take your money and spend it as THEY please. They waste trillions of your tax dollars and yet you are suposed to believe and have faith in “What MORE can I do for YOU, oh great country!”

      Yeah, I would have been a great American. LOL 😀

      I can just see me standing at the White House gates as the president speaks, a loud voice from the crowd yells, “hey, ya pr1ck, what’s in it for US? How about US for once you cheap arsed baystards?” ]:)

      I think my constitutional right to free speech would be lost in a heartbeat.:D

      • #2769281

        Well

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to this one?

        [i]I seriously doubt the validity of such a claim. [/i]

        The link I posted was from one of your (country’s) own medical associations, and it has been through your courts.

        [i]Perhaps he was TOO OLD to undergo such surgery safely? [/i]

        His DOCTOR didn’t think so (nor do I think 57 is “old”). The procedure was LESS invasive than standard hip replacement surgery.

        [i]People like Tony will constantly bring up these individual cases aired to the US media as horror stories which are flooded through the US media to keep the people from demanding more form their government. ( I mean no offense towards yourself Tony) [/i]

        None taken. Of course I’m going to use examples of what can happen. What HAS happened… in order to steer my fellow citizens in the right direction. I would hope EVERYONE would do the same… and yes, I don’t want people demanding individual benefits from the government. That’s not its job.

        • #2769252

          As I mention in the other post, it was a matter of bone density

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Well

          So yes, the government picked an arbitrary number for an age at which the bone denisty of the average person makes the surgery non-viable. Is it the right age – don’t know.

          His doctor also runs a for profit surgery and had an interest in doing the surgery for him out of his own pocket.

          James

        • #2769226

          and if someone is

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to As I mention in the other post, it was a matter of bone density

          [i]So yes, the government picked an arbitrary number for an age at which the bone denisty of the average person makes the surgery non-viable. Is it the right age – don’t know.[/i]

          “not average”, who is best equipped to make that determination?

          [i]His doctor also runs a for profit surgery and had an interest in doing the surgery for him out of his own pocket.
          [/i]

          Then why did he initially recommend to the government that THEY should cover it?

          Personally I’d rather have a doctor motivated by profit than one motivated to do just enough to meet government requirements. Lest I have my nose burnt off in a fire and some bureaucrat tell him “Just as long as he has two holes in his face, and doesn’t drown in the shower…”

        • #2769222

          Damn!

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to and if someone is

          That was good.

        • #2769160

          No it wasn’t

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Damn!

          It was complete horsesh1te. Nothing like that has, could, would or will happen in Canada, they don’t hold a farking vote when you go to the hospital and see how much the government pays for.
          You lose a nose, you get a prosthetic one, just like any US doctor would give you for a lot more money.

          His example was utter crap, not worthy of a good garbage can.

          This is a one-off case where elective surgery was recommended by a doctor who also had private practice. By getting the government to cover THAT elective surgery, he can get a contract to do such elective surgery all the time. Doctors seek unique surgeries ot boost patients and income. If only one doctor can perform a procedure he becomes weathly fast and work is lined up for agres. So he has a ‘questionable’ solution that perhaps a few doctors try, others just stick with standard procedures.

          He then gets somebody to believe in it and cry bloody murder when the government won’t cover it. It hits the news all over and the doctor wins either way, he either makes a mint on private surgeries that government won’t prrovide as they are not proven, or he gets the government to foot the bill and line up paients for him.

          That way he doesn’t have to recover unpaid bills, and face the added costs of debt recovery. That would increase his costs which are passed on to the insurance agent or patient directly.

          Never believe this crap, it is propaganda to boost personal medcial interests, you get these old guys complaining to Canadian news outlets all the time.

          The news here just gobbles it up as they all just report touchy feely stories that yank at Canadian heartstrings in order to bring about more government babysitting.

          Mrs. Hapshaw’s cat being overweight and needing special cat surgery makes the front page of our provincial newpapers for Christ’s sake!

          That’s big news here, war is a sidebar in the middle somewhere (as nobody is interested) and the sports section is the rest.

          What’s funny, and quite hypocritical of Tony though, is that form one side of his face he says it is unfair for other people to pay for someone else mistakes. On the other side of his face he tries to make a point that Canadian elective surgery is not covering enough?

          Yeah, make up your mind.

        • #2769076

          Elective?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          [i]This is a one-off case where elective surgery was recommended by a doctor who also had private practice.[/i]

          I guess… if you don’t mind severe hip pain!

          Who decided it was “elective”? Not the doctor… He thought the planing procedure was a better solution for that patient. So who decided that that patient didn’t deserve the “better solution”?

          [i]By getting the government to cover THAT elective surgery, he can get a contract to do such elective surgery all the time. Doctors seek unique surgeries ot boost patients and income.[/i]

          If they could prove that, they wouldn’t have eventually approved the procedure.

          [i]So he has a ‘questionable’ solution that perhaps a few doctors try, others just stick with standard procedures. [/i]

          So some patients aren’t tested for or even told of a procedure that might produce a better result for them??? “Just adequate” is “good enough” for them?

          [i]What’s funny, and quite hypocritical of Tony though, is that form one side of his face he says it is unfair for other people to pay for someone else mistakes. On the other side of his face he tries to make a point that Canadian elective surgery is not covering enough?[/i]

          The point I’m trying to make is that it is not the Shangri-La its proponents claim it is, and the cost is likely much, much higher than you think it is.

        • #2769063

          I never said Shangrila….

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          My point about the surgeon is that he owns a private surgery clinic which is a new thing – some of his procedures are covered, some aren’t. He has a vested interest in helping publicize this to bring money to his clinic, so he may have more than one motive.

          I’ve never said we had a perfect system, there are still issues, but it isn’t always about throwing more money at it either.

          As for costs look at this quote from the links I posted for Max:
          Myth #4: Government-run health care programs are bureaucratic and inefficient. Introducing private health insurance and competition would make the system more efficient.

          Reality: The evidence from all OECD countries shows that the private sector is far more bureaucratic and much less efficient than the public sector when it comes to providing health care.

          The United States, which has the most privatized health care system of any OECD country, spends 14% of its GNP on health care, compared to 9% for Canada.

          The U.S. pays $911 per person per year in administrative costs. Canada by contrast pays $270 per person.

          The disproportion in insurance overhead costs is even more marked: insurance overhead per capita comes to $212 in the U.S., $34 in Canada. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, a typical major insurer, employs 6680 people to administer insurance for 2 1/2 million customers, more than are employed to administer public health insurance for all 28 million Canadians.

          When Germany recently shifted dental services from the public system to private insurance, administrative costs tripled from 5% to 15%.

          Health care is more expensive in the US than Canada, and the insurance overhead is a big reason why. Seems many insurance companies is not as cheap as one payer.

          James

        • #2769053

          Why do I bother?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          Why do I bother? When you come up with comments that have nothing to do with what I’ve said, as some form of stupid rebuttal?

          As for elective surgery and who decides, DOCTORS do. Doctors form the body that regulates medcial procedures province by province. They research and recommend procedures to the government. The government dictates nothing to the doctors.

          Doctors in BC do not work FOR the government they all run independent practices and simply bill the government for procedures the offer.

          Elective surgery is surgery that THE DOCTORS have deemed either cosmetic, non life threatening, not a prcatical solution for the problem, or they feel other solutions may be better.

          As for finding out about surgery, unlike the USA, a Canadian patient can see ANY doctor or specialist they want to. If he wants to seek out 20 specialists opinions he can and it is covered by the medical system, again unlike the US system you can actually see who you want and go see someone else for the same problem, then someone else until you are satisfied with the results.

          In the single case you cited, ONE doctor is recommending a procedure that most do not. In the USA, you’d get that first opinion and probably wouldn’t hear about any issues other doctors may say could result from it.

          So if ONE doctor feels it is a worthy procedure and a group of doctors say it is not a viable solution and is usually deemed elective (questionable) surgery, you can STILL get the surgery done in short time by seeing a doctor who bills privately, it’s just that the government hasn’t deemed it necessary based on their regulating body of doctors. There are also private insurers for those who want such extended medical coverage.

          Once again, Doctors in Canada do not work for the government, they are all independent, private practitioners who simply bill the government for their services.

          As James said, “we don’t have the perfect system”, nobody does, but you have to wonder when your country is the only industrialized nation without a government supported system and coincidentally has the highest government costs (especially considering it is all private practices billing insurer’s and patients independently)and doesn’t have a better mortality rate as a result.
          Americans have a shorter life expectancy than Canadians too, is that because we get second class care?

          The US has the only privatized system, a system that has the greatest government burden of all industrialized nations, the system where millions of people cannot afford insurance, and you feel it is supposed to be a paradigm of medical aid? get real, now THAT’s blind arrogance.

          ‘We are better because…..well, we are just better because that’s what WE have!’

        • #2769044

          Apparently, James

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          [i]some of his procedures are covered, some aren’t.[/i]

          This particular procedure had been approved and used dozens of times by many surgeons on younger patients… You know, the ones who the government decided weren’t “too old to benefit…”

        • #2780116

          That doesn’t mean

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          [i]The U.S. pays $911 per person per year in administrative costs. Canada by contrast pays $270 per person. [/i]

          that EITHER is acceptable.

        • #2779950

          The whole world knows you don’t feel you should pay ANY taxes

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          Okay Tony, its clear. You feel that you shouldn’t have ot pay taxes to the government for ANYTHING, any government that collects taxes is simply stealing from you.

          Any of the services that you deem worthy or not should all be provided for free or they should consult you to see what you are willing to pay for as an individual, not as a state or national vote. Democracy is a flawed solution in your eyes, it should be completely up to you as to where your money is spent.

          That aside, and yes I know what YOUR point is, you seem to be missing that right now they are spending $911.00 per person to pay for medical deficits in ADDITION to your paying your own private insurance, in addition to the fact that the $911.00 does not even offer you medical coverage.

          Your money is stolen from you by the government, then you happily and willingly pay more to a private company that charges you for everyone else’s defaults too an dscrutinizes each and every visit to a hospital or doctor to see if they will cover you or not.

          THAT’S INSANE and completely illogical.

          This is a system that you PREFER to the alternative of having the government spend less money from your taxes, you NOT having to pay rising costs to a private insurer AND having all of your medical costs covered without question.

          I know, I know, the record is still brokem YOU don’t think that the government should take ANYTHING form you; isn’t that nice but unrealistic and completely impractical.

          So you HAVE to pay taxes, you MUST, fact of life and not a topic of discussion here.

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          What would you rather do?

          Pay more taxes and get nothing, or pay less taxes and be covered? (thank about it long and hard, you may just catch on to what others have been saying all along)

          Pay more to gain nothing or pay less than you currently do and gain a benefit? hmmmmmm. real poser there.

          Simple question, black or white.

          Are you capable of answering it though?

        • #2779897

          What is the value to you…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          [i]know, I know, the record is still brokem YOU don’t think that the government should take ANYTHING form you; isn’t that nice but unrealistic and completely impractical.[/i]

          … of attributing to me that which I have never said?

          I am perfectly willing to pay my share of the cost for the government to do what it should be doing. What I am NOT willing to pay for is the things the government should NOT be doing, such as charity work. Yes, I know they take it from me anyway, and yes, I know that there is little I can do at this time except protest.

          We’re supposed to have equal rights… we’re supposed to have a government that treats each of us the same, not one that enriches one at the expense of another. Like you said…

          [i]Law is juts a way of determining fault. Its not human, it is not considerate, it is not caring.[/i]

          “Fault” implies some action or negligence that causes something, thereby making me responsible. Show me how it is my “fault” that someone else has a medical need. Show me how it is my “fault” that someone had 8 kids they can’t support. Show me how it’s my “fault” that an earthquake destroyed homes on the other side of the country. What legal theory are you operating under that makes any of that my “fault”, in order to force me to “care”? (oops, the law isn’t supposed to do that, according to you)

        • #2779893

          OMG Tony

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          I’ve trie dbut you just keep going in circles, not worth my attention anymore.

          face it, there’s f**k all you can do about it. You don’t get to decide what your money is spent on and what it is not, beyond simply voting for and electing a government that says it will spend your tax dollars how you wish.
          If that doesn’t happen to your favour, you are ripped off, if it does happen, the other half of America is ripped off.

          Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way and that’s a key reason why Americans are so divided, nobody cares about anyone but themselves, especially when it comes to their money.

        • #2779878

          So answer the question.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          Why do you say I said something I never said?

        • #2779867

          I care about lots of people.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          [i]Americans are so divided, nobody cares about anyone but themselves, especially when it comes to their money.[/i]

          They just have to mean something to me…

          Yes, Americans ARE divided… between those who thinks their mere existence entitles them to leech off other people, and those who thing people are responsible for themselves.

          And yes, it is my money… I earned it, and I should have every right to determine where it goes. I had the foresight to sock away one third of my earnings for my family’s future. It is grossly unfair to expect me to use those monies (that I was already taxed on once!) to support anyone except who I CHOOSE to support. Anybody trying to take that away from me unjustly is going to have to kill me first, I guaran-fuggin-tee it!

        • #2779862

          Now you are just being paranoid

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          Now your fear is that they will take your savings away and spend it on someone else?

          You paid tax on it, and gained interest on it, well done. In Canada that is called banking and saving (something I need to get much better at myself).

          The government doesn’t take my savings away and give them to others though, if I were you I’d run for the border, talk about getting screwed over.

          But what about all yoru tax money you’ve paid fo r30 years? When do you get anythign otu of that? 64 you get social security, OAP? So what, that’s not a return, especially when yuo could have added medical coverage ot that OAP too and still paid the same amount of taxes.

          What you seem to be missing is that wihle you protest “socialized’ medicicine, other people are already benefitting from your taxes, just not yourself, you are ripping youself off to support such a system.

        • #2779845

          You tax issue

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          Why do I say things you haven’t said?

          “I have no problem with expenditures that benefit EVERYONE EQUALLY. I have a problem with expenditures FOR AN INDIVIDUAL at the forced expense of everyone.”

          “The government should not take from ALL for the benefit of an individual, ANY individual, for ANY reason.”

          “I do not oppose taxation for infrastructure (including fire and police protection) and defense. ”

          What expenditures actually benefit everyone equally?

          Military? they are saving Iraqi’s from a horrible dictator (or so you are supposed to belive), they are saving SOME Americans from a possible attack but what if that attack never comes or never effects you but only harms peop ecollecting welfare? Then even the military support is unjustified.

          You support the fire department, even though there is a SLIM possibilty you will need their services but they are out helping other americans, may of whom are irresponsible and burn down houses at YOUR expense.

          Yo suport police, again as above, you may never need police support but you pay it for other Americans JUST IN CASE you need them yourself.

          How is that different in any way shape or form to supporting a medical system?

          What taxes benefit EVERYONE equally? Air tax? Even that isn’t fair becuase SOME Americans get cleaner air than others.

          If in order to appease you, all your tax money must be spent on the collective of America, you simply don’t want to pay taxes as nothing will ever benefit every American, including the military. What about all of those people who oppose your military actions do they not get the same say as you do when their tax dollars are spent? This is where i get the impression you don’t wan to pay any taxes at all, the only taxes yuo want to pay are those that YOU deem worthy and they simply don’t exist.

          Hoping for a cash back settlement one day that ALL Americans will get too?

          No taxes benefit everyone, its just a matter of paying into services in case you happen to need them one day, just like military, fire and police services. You have been very lucky to have no medical issues for teh last 30 years and I don’t wish any harm to you either but what happens if heaven forbid, you are all of a sudden diagnosed with diabetes? (thank Canada for inventing insuilin)
          What if you are suddenly diagnosed with Colon Cancer, or heart disease or a brain tumor, will you start paying for medical insurance then?
          Or will you be left wondering why you didn’t support a system that could have kept you alive?

          It’s utter nonsense, Tony.

          You want what’s best for you today, screw the rest, and when you need something it better be there for you and someone else can pay for it even though you didn’t support it for the last 30 years.

          That 30 years of saving to help your family is vey nobel and I applaud you, seriously, I wish I could sock away money too.

          But what about if Tony get sick in his senior years, before OAp kicks in? What if you are 58 and diagnised with heart disease and need 1 million real quick?

          You probably have set yourself up enough that you will have the assets and equity to pull it off, which again I applaud in these most trying times. But then what happens to all your savings you have put away for others?

          At no additional cost to you, you could have been covered in such a situation.

          It reminds me of the old telecom deregulation objection.

          “Sire, you are a Canadian that is paying an Americna monopoly the highest price possible for your long distance and local line services. the government has mandated that Canadian carriers must offer you a better price and in order to ensure that, Stentor has been blocked form price reduction, they cannot threaten lack of service if yuo choose another provider, they cannoto POSSIBLY charge you less than the same service, with the same lines being carried by a Canadian company.”

          ‘Well I think I’ll stay with the American owned monopoly and pay more by choice. I prefer to have m money go to another country to support their infrastructure instead of my own’

          You are making a concious choice to not benefit from your tax dollars yourself, meanwhile everyone you oppose getting your tax dollars already gets them.

        • #2779781

          Of course I benefit.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          [i]You are making a concious choice to not benefit from your tax dollars yourself[/i]

          Having emergency services on standby IS a benefit to me. So are having highways available. They’re available to everyone, so I have no problem paying for them.

          [i]meanwhile everyone you oppose getting your tax dollars already gets them.[/i]

          And I will continue to speak out against those I think should not be the government’s job to provide. If enough others join me, we can effect change. Then you can bitch about how cold a nation we’ve become, but your voice will fade away into obscurity, because we’ll be able to help our neighbors help themselves far more effectively than a government ever could.

          Socialist methods are old-school dinosaurs. They don’t work. They create dependency and disenfranchisement where a hand up was all that was needed. They cannot work except by dragging some down to lift others up. They use up the capital they started with until they completely break the will of the citizens to create more. Then people will be equal alright… equally miserable!

          Democracy is little better. People learn pretty quickly that they can vote themselves things at the expense of others, and some learn to use this to pit one group against another. Pretty soon, everyone is the victim of someone else’s selfish vote, and they vote in a way that restricts “the ones who did it to them”.Eventually the nation will deteriorate, once again, into equal misery.

          We need something better… Something that does not violate a person’s individual liberties unjustly. Something that promotes pulling people up without dragging others down. Something that dissolves boundaries (political) that inhibit personal growth and achievement and denies them liberty and opportunity(why, because of their mother’s physical location at the time of their birth?). I don’t know exactly what it is yet, but it ain’t on planet Earth right now, so all I can do is play the cards I’ve been dealt… discarding the bad cards whenever I can and hope the new ones are better. Some day I, or someone else, will get the right hand, show it to their friends and neighbors, and we’ll soon be on our way.

        • #2779629

          Okay you run with that then

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          I always thought it was an issue with the dust that keeps being brought in by spaceships from planet Zolkate. Once the great ruler of Namboza gets his act together and sends one of his four armed warriors out to defend Earth from Zolkate’s rebels, we may just have a chance at relaunching the HL3400 to block their approach from the Begadon sector.

          Then again, we can focus on reality and now instead. Don’t bother Tony, I’m done with your insane, symantec argument.

        • #2779621

          Paranoid?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          Once they’ve taxed the creation of wealth to the point where less and less of it is being created, they’re going to start on existing wealth. It’s already starting… even though home values have plummeted, property taxes continue to increase.

          The basic difference between us: You think you have the right to something you didn’t earn!

          Well pal, even your first breath required you to expend energy!

        • #2779558

          I don’t NEED to earn it, I PAY for it

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t

          Taxes, I PAY for what I get, you just seem to pay and get nothing for it.

          Do you send JCPenny a check each month for nothing too?

        • #2769217

          Why did the surgeon recommend to the government

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to and if someone is

          Because he is the president of a group opposed to public funding.

          Did you read the post I referenced?

          By the way, have you seen “Sicko” where the gentleman in the US had to chose which fingers would be reattached because the for profit HMO wouldn’t pay for all of them?

          James

        • #2769203

          Yes,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Why did the surgeon recommend to the government

          [i]Because he is the president of a group opposed to public funding. [/i]

          Can you prove that that is “why”, and not that he thought it was the most appropriate medical treatment as was stated?

          [i]By the way, have you seen “Sicko” where the gentleman in the US had to chose which fingers would be reattached because the for profit HMO wouldn’t pay for all of them?[/i]

          Yes, that was bad… HMOs are no better than socialized medicine… except that you aren’t FORCED to pay into one, and they can’t DENY you from getting out-of-pocket treatment.

          It’s as it should be… If you are going to impose upon others for your needs, you must be prepared to accept the conditions of the providers.

          If, on the other hand, you wish to be independent, you have the responsibility to take care of yourself.

          I strive toward the latter.

        • #2769154

          Think about it Tony

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yes,

          If he is a private doctor he ha sa lo to gain either way. He either proves that elective surgery should be covered, makes the papers across teh country and boosts his own private medical practice…or…He proves that it is a viable surgery and should be compulsary for the government ot pay for, again boosting his own practive, having the government line up patients for him and pay their bills so HE doesn’t have to incur the expense of collecting, and raising his rates accordingly.

          I have had questionable back surgery, questionable kneck surgery, and many other’elective surgeries perfoemed on me withotu hesitation or delay by the government, without ANY concern of cost or who was paying for it, what was covered etc. They just say ‘you should try this, it will probably help’, you say ‘Okay’ and it is booked and you are done, covered no bills to pay.”

          You’d be surprised at how similar our medical is to your own, except you can go to any hospital, anytime here and don’t have to pay for private insurance or go where you can afford it or are covered, you just go for help when you’re hurt and go home when you are done being fixed up. I’ve never had an issue like these sensational stories that hit the news.

          If ONE such story hits a year, with 30 million Canadians ALL covered the exact same way, why isn’t it a daily issue that millions face?

          Just complete BS, lies and crap someone made up to make teh news.

        • #2769168

          Don’t be ridiculous

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to and if someone is

          Your concept of the medical system here is warped, based on false ideas and theories and just does not reflect on reality at all.

          Why would a doctor recommend eth government pay for a procedure instead of doing it out of his own pocket?

          Do you really need to ask that question?

          Why would YOU ask for the government to pay for your police department instead of you paying for it out of your own pocket?

          The treatments is teh same, private or subsidised, its only a matter of who pays for it. In the case of government supported treatment, they have requirements to meet before qualifyign for such surgery, if it is something that is deemed imprative or something that will knowingly increase his quality of life with no risks invilved, they will pay for it.

          The thiong that gets me is that I have been in hospital many times through my life, I have spinal issues and have had my share of accidents where I needed attention. Not ONCE in my entire life, have i been denied any kind of treatment, had to wait for MRI or other wotk to be done, had to think for even a split second who is paying for it and if it is covered, these just are not issues most Canadians need to consider, only teh odd case.

          In contrast I think that is teh FIRST an dmost important decision Americans have ot make when needing help. ‘Am I covered?’ ‘who is paying for it?’ ‘will I get good treatment?’ ‘do I have ENOUGH coverage’ etc.

          These are all questions that Canadians do not ask or even take into consideration before getting help.

          Nose with two hole in his face, nothing even remotely close to what happens, not even a touch on reality or a slight twist on reality, its abosolutely absurd.

          You make it seem like there is a decision making process and wait time involved, there isn’t.

          This guy with et hhip surgery is looking for elective surgery that ONE doctor feels he can do with his provate practice. Now lets look at the advantages to THAT private doctor.

          If he is performing a surgery not yet considered covered by Canadian medical, he has a lot to gain by proving its success. He could be performing them all day and havign the government pay for them (at a lower cost) instead of provate citizens who may or may not pay their bills on time, thus costing him money and making him charge more for the surgery (just like US doctors have to).

        • #2769124

          Oh, I don’t know…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Don’t be ridiculous

          [i]Why would a doctor recommend eth government pay for a procedure instead of doing it out of his own pocket?[/i]

          … maybe because the requirements of keeping one’s license to practice medicine demand it.

          [i]The treatments is teh same, private or subsidised[/i]

          Actually if you read the case, it wasn’t.

          [i]In the case of government supported treatment, they have requirements to meet before qualifyign for such surgery, [/i]

          Yes… a bureaucrat has to decide… no different than the board of an insurance company or HMO…

          [i]if it is something that is deemed imprative or something that will knowingly increase his quality of life with no risks invilved, they will pay for it.[/i]

          According to the doctor, the proposed procedure was LESS risky.

          [i]Not ONCE in my entire life, have i been denied any kind of treatment, had to wait for MRI or other wotk to be done, [b]had to think for even a split second who is paying for it[/b] and if it is covered, these just are not issues most Canadians need to consider, only teh odd case.[/i]

          [reply to the bolded] the problem is that you don’t see that as a problem.

          [i]In contrast I think that is teh FIRST an dmost important decision Americans have ot make when needing help. ‘Am I covered?’ ‘who is paying for it?’ ‘will I get good treatment?’ ‘do I have ENOUGH coverage’ etc.
          [/i]

          Some Americans do… others think about the potential consequences before taking part in a risky activity or lifestyle choice that may necessitate such help and even then wouldn’t DREAM of demanding that someone else pay for it! It’s called being responsible! Too many people don’t know what that means…

          There will come a time when there are too many leeches hanging off of you for you to function…. then what are you going to do?

          [i]Nose with two hole in his face, nothing even remotely close to what happens, not even a touch on reality or a slight twist on reality, its abosolutely absurd.[/i]

          You see, all the government knows how to do is spread the misery around a little.
          It’s only a matter of time…. as more people are riding the wagon and fewer are pulling it… that socialized “anything” will eventually collapse. First the cost (fees, taxes) will increase… then when the population has about as much of that as they can tolerate, services will be cut. Then what? England’s is nearing total collapse. Canada’s will last a bit longer, because it’s smaller, but it’ll happen. In the US, Obama wants to postpone government payments to providers for medicaid services. So how are hospitals supposed to pay their staff? They can lower wages, but eventually that’ll just drive the good ones out, leaving those who only work there because they can’t find anything better. Is that the kind of people we want taking care of us when we’re sick?

        • #2769011

          Nope, myths

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          Firstly, sorry for length but I did try to address all of your questions and concerns here.

          [i]”… maybe because the requirements of keeping one’s license to practice medicine demand it.” [/i]

          Nope all our doctors operate their own practices, they can opt out of the system and bill independently or are included in the current system where they perform their own work and simply send the bill to the government instead of arguing with insurers. As one doctor noted (from James’ links)Most US doctors have less time to focus on patient care as they are spending countless hours of personal time and office time taking calls from insurer’s and calling around/battling insurers for coverage, this does not happen here. It is noted that our doctors were more pleasant, satisfied with careers, able to provide better care and keep up to date on new training/retraining and still be home to lead a normal, fulfilling family life in the evenings.

          [i]my comment: “The treatments is teh same, private or subsidised

          Your reply: Actually if you read the case, it wasn’t.”[/i]

          No, it actually WAS. One doctor deeming treatment necessary does not make it so whether you live in the USA or not. One common issue people have against the private US system is it can lead to unimperative surgery, unimperative medication, and rash diagnosis for th sake of generating a bill.
          I am sure that it doesn’t apply to all or even most doctors in the USA, but given such an opportunity many will will take it.

          [i]”Yes… a bureaucrat has to decide… no different than the board of an insurance company or HMO… “[/i]

          No not at all, in fact it is VERY different than a private insurer or HMO.

          A private insurer will spend all day on the phone trying NOT to pay to, as that is the common goal of ANY insurer in any industry.
          In Canada, a provincial board of directors, made up of seasoned doctors makes decisions and passes them to government. Why would you prefer an unqualified, pencil pusher and bean counter to evaluate what should or shouldn’ be covered? They are not doctors they are there to retain company money, not help you find the right treatment.

          James would know the details I am sure. We don’t evaluate each patient on a per case basis and doctors do not spend time arguing with insurer’s over what they can bill for and what they can’t. I have never been denied treatment or told it was not needed, nor has anyone else I’ve ever known.

          “According to the doctor, the proposed procedure was LESS risky.”

          ONE doctor, ONE, UNO! and he specializes in such treatment as a private practice.

          These “standard acceptable procedures” are determined by a group of seasoned doctors and surgeons with a great deal of combined experience. I’d go with that concensus long before I went with a lone opnion or the opinion of a few with a motive of personal gain.

          [i]”the problem is that you don’t see that as a problem.”[/i]
          No, the problem is that you don’t realize that you pay for that AND MORE already.

          It’s the same “problem” that everyone else in an industrialized nation ignores, except SOME Americans such as yourself who think they will pay mrepo taxes if they have to subsidize others. Face it, your monthly premiums subsidize others already AND you already pay taxes.

          That same tax money could go to providing health care supplemetal and eliminate your private insurance costs, sure you’ll still have to pay a monthly medical premium (just as we do) but it will be far less than you already pay today.

          Why do you care abotu tax money helping others but you do not care that you pay an insurance company increasingly expensive premiums that are based on you paying for everyone else too?

          Our coverage costs per person less than yours. We pay monthly premiums for medical, they are not elective like insurance.
          But our fees are far less than yours, a small percentage of tax money is used to balance costs and upgrade hospitals etc.

          You seem to see paying twice as much out of your own pocket as being better than that money taken out of the tax money you already pay anyway?

          You know that whether you have or don’t have a subsidized system that your tax money is still taken and spent on other things, whether you like it or not?

          So let’s put it into perspective, lets say you payed $18,000.00 in taxes each year.

          You can either have a system where you pay $18,000/yr in taxes PLUS, $120.00/mo (just a random number) in health care insurance OR you can pay $18,000.00/yr in taxes and only $50.00 a month in health care.

          Same taxes, lower monthly coverage costs.

          YOU prefer the first choice and you prefer it so much so that you will adamantly argue that spending more money for something is better than not spending as much for it. That makes sense?!

          Your constant referal that people visiting the hospital or doctor is due to their own doing and you shouldn’t have to pay for it is old, inaccurate and poorly accounted for.

          RIGHT NOW, you DO pay for those people to be taken care of.
          However you see your system as fine.
          YOU pay for their hapless idiotic mistakes.
          As for people with disease, people who were run over by drunk drivers and such, that’s different of course and quite rare apparently.

          [i]”…even then wouldn’t DREAM of demanding that someone else pay for it! It’s called being responsible!”[/i]
          You don’t have to dream, it is reflected in your monthly premiums which are based on the total cost of health care for the insurer, even for those who are ‘irresponsible’ that you shouldn’t dream of paying for, but must anyway in order to get your own health coverage.

          Do you not think YOUR premiums are directly related to other people’s costs too? Of course they are!

          On top of all that you STILL pay taxes too!

          Taxes which WOULD be allocated to medical instead, lowering your monthly premium cost and affording everyone equal treatment?

          Again, our system costs us less than your system, how is spending more better? Simply put, it isn’t.

          Bottom line, my health care costs less to me, than your does to you.

          End of story, you pay more for less.

          NOTE: In BOTH systems you have to pay for someone who is irresponsible and gets hurt, that you cannot avoid. You just don’t THINK you are paying for it already in the USA, though you do each and every month. the mroe peopl ethat are irresponsible, the more money responsible people pay for rpemiums.

          Are you really not sure how insurance works?

        • #2780105

          Yep

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          [i]NOTE: In BOTH systems you have to pay for someone who is irresponsible and gets hurt, that you cannot avoid[/i]

          That’s one thing that’s wrong with both systems… but I have the choice to not participate in my employer’s health insurance. I pay out-of-pocket for doctor visits and have spent maybe $1300 in the last 30 years. I pay $10 every 90 days for a long term generic prescription I have been taking for the past two years. Major medical will be available for no cost upon my retirement ($3,000 deductible) so I’ll sign up at that time.

        • #2779946

          So your aim is to screw others instead?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          Your objective is to die if you get seriously injured and if you should make it to retirement age, you will THEN jump in on teh system and make others pay for your costs. How American of you! How upstanding and patriotic! You despise a system that steals from citizens but are willing to use it to your advantage at your fellowman’s expense.

          The ONLY issue I have with Canada’s system is moot really; you can’t opt out of it, used to be able to but not any more. It is also an issue of liability and responsibility though, if I am seriously injured by someone I shouldn’t have to undergo two years of court to place blame in a civil suit. With everyone being insured there is no need for medical expense recovery or blame.

          It’s similar to Auto Insurance, in that you HAVE to have insurance in order to drive your car, it is not an opt in system. That way another driver can always be held responsible for any injuries to you. You can’t get blood out of a stone.

        • #2779875

          I’m not screwing anyone.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          I’ve paid into the system to the tune of almost half a million dollars over the last 30 years… Even with the economic downturn, it’s still over double that in value and still increasing. It’s MY money that’s going to be paying MY costs, not anybody else’s.

        • #2779870

          What?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          Now you are equating paying your taxes to saving up for OAP social scurity?

          Don’t you pay social security off of each paycheck already?

          Are you expecting a big payout when you’re 64, like an RRSP cash in?

          That money is spent, gone done no longer exists, what did you get back out of it? nothing.

        • #2779865

          No,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          I do not currently pay into social security. I pay into Ohio’s public employee’s retirement system, and my wife and I pay 1/3 of our net earnings into a private account. We DID pay in, and my wife still does, but since Social Security is means tested, we’ll never see a dime from it.

        • #2779860

          You just make it worse and worse!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          You pay taxes but get no retirement benefits from them.

          You pay taxes but get no medical coverage from them.

          You pay taxes but get no police protection form them.

          You pay taxes but get no fire protection from them.

          Tell me Tony, do you get ANY benefits from paying taxes at all?

          If not, why wouldn’t you want to?

          As for helping those who don’t pay taxes, they GET benefits from your taxes already, but you don’t.

        • #2779525

          As I’ve said elsewhere

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          [i]Tell me Tony, do you get ANY benefits from paying taxes at all?[/i]

          I have streets to drive on, emergency services available, clean water, and someone to pick up my garbage just for starters.

        • #2779520

          And that make you a proud American?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          The absolute basic neccessities than most other countries citizens have?

          I have all that and more, as my tax dollars are stretched farther and the government is held accountable for pretty much evey penny they spend; well that and we didn’t just throw 700 billion at poor lenders and trillions on a war of little relevance at all.

          You still pay more than I do and get less, so this whole paying for those who do not see to themselves BS is pure crap.

          You already pay for the leeches too, its just YOU that doesn’t see benefit beyond the most basic provisions that any nation provides from tax dollars.

          You get less than I do and pay more than I do, yet you criticize [i]our[/i] system. seems like you got your wires crossed there,

          Our system is not perfect by ANY means, I wouldn’t even begin to suggest as much, but if our system gives more back to the taxpayers, who pay less in taxes, how does your system stack up?
          It simply doesn’t.

          For you to downplay what you still believe is socialized medicine and yet accept an inferior system with no coverage at all, for more money, is just ridiculous.

          Make some sense, Tony!

          ‘No, I don’t want to have more. I am happy getting less and paying more, why can’t we pay even more and give even less back to those who paid? Now THAT would be ideal!’

        • #2778993

          I agree with you on that…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          [i]well that and we didn’t just throw 700 billion at poor lenders[/i]

          Businesses, like individuals, shouldn’t get handouts at others’ expense. If a business fails, bank or not, it should be allowed to fail.

          Oh, and it’s no longer just 700 billion… we’re up to three trillion and counting… That’s $100,000 for every man woman and child in the country.

          Yes, my government is doing terrible terrible things… So many that I don’t know where to begin… but common in all of them is a sense of entitlement, and a lack of responsibility.

          There are over 9,000 earmarks in the latest bailout bill, none of which do anything for the economy, but are special favors for one small group at the expense of everyone.

          [i]and the government is held accountable for pretty much evey penny they spend;[/i]

          I imagine it would be much easier to hold them accountable up there… It’s a much smaller group and that makes it easier to spot the bad apples. That only supports my position that less government is better.

          [i]Our system is not perfect by ANY means, I wouldn’t even begin to suggest as much, but if our system gives more back to the taxpayers, who pay less in taxes, how does your system stack up?
          It simply doesn’t. [/i]

          I agree, but still think that emulating yours is the wrong direction for ours to go.

          It is no more right to make everyone bail out an individual for their bad personal decisions than it is to make them bail out GM for their bad business decisions.

        • #2778966

          I wouldn’t expect you to emulate it either

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          However, our system was designed after the systems that have worked for almost every other industrialized nation for centuries now.

          Our system is only different that yours in that, your tax money does not benefit you, but mine benefits me.

          You could do much better than the Canadian system, which screws us daily and I don’t pretend it’s anything else but political bullspit that actually works for the people in some odd way, but you could do worse to, such as the system you currently get screwed by.

        • #2778944

          Hence

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          [i]such as the system you currently get screwed by. [/i]

          my enthusiasm (ahem) in wanting it changed…

        • #2778882

          well, bake a cake and light the candles!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oh, I don’t know…

          Tony and I found middle ground. It only took a few dozen posts this time, we’re getting better at it I think. 😀

          What’s funny is that I noticed we had similar but slightly different veiws at first, through our debate we grew father and farther apart in our beliefs. However, we then started to find some areas to agree and now have come full circle back to slight differences of opinion.

          I suppose it was really a wasted excercise, but then again, is finding an are to agree ever a waste of time?

          I think our key issue is that you believe your system is better than ours and I believe ours trumps yours. However the reality is, whether one is superior to the other is really not that important, we both agree our systems are not perfect and need much revision.

          (I still prefer paying lower taxes and gaining greater benefits though. If you’re gonna get screwed you may as well be given a smoke afterwards.)

          Thanks for playing, Tony; it was fun once again.

        • #2769173

          Irrelevance

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well

          Because something is passed through OUR medical association or the complaintant had been through OUR courts, that doesn’t offer any additional validity at all.

          Anyone can go through our courts, that’s the legal system in a free society.
          I didn’t refer to age as a factor but it is teh quality of life that is the main consideration. WILL his quality of life be significantly improved or not? They have done studies on many different types of hip syrgery, in some cases all peopl faired pretty good, other p[erations and people didn’t fair well at all in fact it reduced their quality of life. So without such details it is just guess work. My point is, we don’t have those details, just what the media wants us to know in order to support his complaint.

          So what about the little kid in Oregon that can’t get a heart transplant because his medical doesn’t cover transplants and the parents earn too much (and pay taxes on it) to qualify for assistance. A hospital in Seattle has offered to help but they need the 1.5 million up front before they can proceed, due to beaurocratic red tape of course? So will this child be left to die unless someone steps forward with the money ot pay for it? WHY should he? WHy shouldn’t a fraction of a penny be taken from each American’s taxes in order to pay for it? 330 million Americans, that’s alot of tax dollars.

          Spending trillions of tax dollars on a war that many Americans don’t support is okay, but to take tenths even hundredths of a penny from each tax payign American to save a child is unAmerican/theft in our eyes?

          Is that an example of a bad system?

          Or is it just a one off case, like this case of the man needing a hip that you refer to.

          For your government to take enough money to pay for a child’s heart, 1.5 million divided by HUNDREDS of millions of American taxpayers, is wrong?

          Fractions of a penny, Tony, you wouldn’t know it if you had it or lost it. I’m sure you’ve walked away from a penny or two at a convenience store many times, or tossed it in the little tray in case someone else needs a penny for convenience when paying for thier stuff.

          YOu are concerned abotu cost and them takign your money but teh amount is trivial, when spread across 330 million Americans. I could understand your concern, if it was across teh board, but you have no issue with the government spending countless trillions on a BS war they SAID was to help save American lives, while more and more American lives are lost for no reason every single day.

          One would think that if you didn’t care about tax dollars, which you obviously don’t if you can turn your head on that kind of wasteful spending, that you would have no issue with medical support.

        • #2769104

          In reality?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Irrelevance

          [i]So what about the little kid in Oregon that can’t get a heart transplant because his medical doesn’t cover transplants and the parents earn too much (and pay taxes on it) to qualify for assistance.[/i]

          If I wasn’t the cause of his injury or condition, I shouldn’t be responsible for paying for it. As his parents are responsible, they should decide whether to sell off assets to pay for it or pass the hat.

          [i]or tossed it in the little tray in case someone else needs a penny for convenience when paying for thier stuff.[/i]

          Yes, but it was my CHOICE to do so.

          [i]YOu are concerned abotu cost and them takign your money but teh amount is trivial, when spread across 330 million Americans. I could understand your concern, if it was across teh board, but you have no issue with the government spending countless trillions on a BS war they SAID was to help save American lives, while more and more American lives are lost for no reason every single day.

          One would think that if you didn’t care about tax dollars, which you obviously don’t if you can turn your head on that kind of wasteful spending, that you would have no issue with medical support.
          [/i]

          I have no problem with expenditures that benefit EVERYONE EQUALLY. I have a problem with expenditures FOR AN INDIVIDUAL at the forced expense of everyone.

        • #2768994

          I’ve met a lot of Americans

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to In reality?

          I have yet to meet one as selfish, self centered and simple thinkign as yourself. In the end it all boild down ot one thing, “IT’s MY MONEY AND THE REST OF YOU CAN F**K OFF!!”

          Then go find an island and support your own, sorry pathetic arse for once. Your countrie scompanies come here for resources because you have an elected goverbment that makes such deals. They provide you with preotaction on our streets, in your home, and on foreign lands.

          You have NO problem with them taking money and giving it to those who didn’t earn it, do you?

          If so you wouldn’t be for Fire departments, Ambulances or police either as YOUR tax money helps protect others who did not earn your money. And to see you so ignorantly state that if the parents can’t come up with 1.5 million then their kid deserves to die is the most unpatriotic uncaring and unbrotherly thing I have ever heard. insurgents in Iraq offer more consideration to their fellow man than you do.

          So what if these parents had a secodn son who was at war protecting YOUR health, do they still not warrant a penny of your income tax beign spent on them?

          What a ‘kin idiot! I simply cannto believe how insanely stupid yoru views are, you don’t even deserve to live in a free nation.

          What ever happened to “Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country?”

          Your country asks that you pay taxes and som eof that money will be used to implements a system to benefit the entire nation, your reply is that you shouldn’t have to help others only yourself. That your nation is stealing from you?

          So in your eyes it is “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask your country why they are stealing from you.”

          You know there are two things you can count on in life, paying taxes and death.

          You’ll never avoid the first, unless again you go find yourself a deserted island somewhere with no juridiction that changes you land taxes, so perhaps your best bet is the second, it seems you are sickened by being forced to help others. How can you POSSIBLY support the war in Iraq?

        • #2780004

          Let’s see…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I’ve met a lot of Americans

          [i]You have NO problem with them taking money and giving it to those who didn’t earn it, do you? [/i]

          (I have a problem with expenditures FOR AN INDIVIDUAL at the forced expense of everyone.)

          (I oppose taxes used to benefit an individual (whether it be a CEO, a politician, a welfare recipient, or a farmer) at the forced expense of other citizens.)

          I don’t see how I could be any clearer. The government should not take from ALL for the benefit of an individual, ANY individual, for ANY reason.

        • #2779945

          So medical protects individuals but not everyone?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Let’s see…

          A medical system see that EVERYONE is covered, not just thme and you have to pay independently.

          Just like Fire, police, ambulance etc. Individuals MAY need help, but that can be anyone, including yourself.
          Nobody is taking your money and paying for MY hospitalization but not your own too.

        • #2779912

          It is up to each individual

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Let’s see…

          to take the necessary steps to protect themselves… They can drastically cut their cost for medical services by living a healthy lifestyle, and not participating in activities where the risk of injuries is high. If they refuse to take those steps, that they are in complete control of, why should someone else pay for the consequences of their refusal?

        • #2779895

          In that same sense

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Let’s see…

          As I am looking for YOUR definitions to YOUR statements, how about supporting services you do deem important and explaining hwo they are different than those you do not support?

          You say that you believe in taxes going to help everyone, not just individuals. HOwever you support or feel that necessary services like fire and police are acceptable.

          Your issue with medical coverage is people ar enot responsible and you should not be left paying for their mistakes. Obviously we could all live in bubbles and save more money with accidents too!

          Fire department: Qn unemployed welfare mooch is cooking crack over the stove, burns the house down and your taxes pay to put it out and save them from the fire. However your issue arises when they go to hospital?

          Why do you have no concern abotu teh fire department helpign them out at your expense but medical treatment is out of order?

          Another example: A policeman stops a knife fight between two gang members. Yuo have no problem paying for the police to stop the violence and save one who may be harmed in the fight. Again though your issue is with them getting medical help.

          Your tax dollars are being used to protect an unemployed gang member, but you oppose your tax dollars being used for medical reasons.

          Do you see teh hypocrisy in what you are saying?

          People shouldn’t benefit from YOUR tax dollars, unfortunately that is teh way of industrialized nations, we pay taxes, the government that WE elect decides how ot spend teh tax money. We get a vote in that we elect the spenders.

          SOME people getting your tax dollars, when its for the services YOU want, it is okay?

          But other than your chosen aexceptions, the government has no right to take your tax dollars and spend them as they deem worthy.

          I have but one solution, find a new planet.

    • #2769242

      hm

      by jck ·

      In reply to The medical balancing act

      Ya know…

      In 1971, my parents had a son stricken with brain cancer.

      The government did nothing to help.
      My parents hit and passed the max cap on their insurance for caring for my brother.
      No hospital donated “care”.
      St. Jude’s turned down my parents because they “made too much”.

      My brother died, despite everything medicine could do at the time.

      Sorry. Just cause your kid is sick, doesn’t mean the system has to take care of them.

      My parents had to pay back $100,000s over years to pay off what insurance didn’t cover.

      Those people can do the same thing to have that done.

      Borrow the money if your child is so important.

      Sell off everything, if you have to. Your child should be more important than your car, your couch, your watch, your TV.

      I hope the baby doesn’t die, but don’t tell me it’s the government’s responsibility to pay for every child who is born with a congenital defect.

      • #2769197

        Why not?

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to hm

        If you can think of anything better to do with money, I’d be interested to know what it is. They can – and do – have my share for this and I pay willingly.

        Yes. I think that the government DOES have to take care of sick kids.

        • #2769176

          Refreshingly blunt and simple.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Why not?

          Takes the discussion quite beyond the pedestrian details thus far.

        • #2769166

          Just because you [i]think that the government DOES have to take care of

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why not?

          …..(fill in the blank), it doesn’t mean it should.

          Speaking to the USA (not the UK), it’s for this very reason we’re considered a [i]nation of laws[/i], not of men.

          We’re designed to be governed not on the whims of man (meaning both genders), but rather under the letter of the law. No person’s preference should be placed above the law.

          [i]I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.[/i]
          – James Madison

          At one time our Constitution was the underlying principle setting the law of the land. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, things got skewed way out of wack.

        • #2769159

          I said what I said

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Just because you [i]think that the government DOES have to take care of

          With not only Bastiat, but Locke, Hume, Smith, and a whole lot of others under my belt — forerunners of The Fathers. And I still said it. In fact, I had in mind at the moment that exact expression: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger…”

          Your shot falls under and beneath that of Neil’s.

        • #2769153

          And like I said. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I said what I said

          Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, things got skewed way out of wack.

        • #2769147

          Law is not human though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Just because you [i]think that the government DOES have to take care of

          Law is juts a way of determining fault. Its not human, it is not considerate, it is not caring. If you ran a personal relationship/marriage based solely on laws, it would be the worst union imaginable. understanding, heart, caring are what makes society bond, independence, capitalism and personal greed are what creates weakness through personal greed.

          Thankfully people do think it is their responsibilty and are coming up with the money needed, though not enough in a short time.

          To think that such a mentalioty is actually supported by a human being is a bit disturbing though.

          You would see a child die before you allowed the government to help it live? That’s a pretty freakish and quite scary mindset!

          This proves one thing beyond any doubt of any readers here, you deem war more important than human life.

          Fact: You support war funding and teh govrenment controlling YOUR dollars and spending them to protect those who did not earn and pay for such protection. Taking it from those who earn it to protect thos ewho did not.

          Fact: YOU feel that your money should not be used to save a child in need of a heart transplant. That child has not earned it nor is worthy of your tax dollars being spent on it. YOU don’t feel they should take money from those who earn it and use it to help those who don’t/

          Protection of those people if fine, as it protects you too. But the health and welfare of those people is not fine, as you don’t feel that you personally gain from that too.

          Wow, now THAT’s a scary brian, do you lock it up with your gun at night?

        • #2769128

          [i]Law is just a way of determining fault?[/i] Only in one respect.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Law is not human though

          In my context, law is the basis for establishing the underlying rules.

        • #2769062

          This isn’t a cub pack

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to [i]Law is just a way of determining fault?[/i] Only in one respect.

          The Cub scout “Law” isn’t the same as state and federal laws. 😀

          “The law of the land?” Nobody’s making a movie here, we are talking about actual LAW and its application.

        • #2769045

          [i]Law[/i] defined – as in [i]Rule of Law[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          Rule of Law:

          Generally, [i]Rule of Law[/i] can be understood as a legal-political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties and creating order and predictability regarding how a country functions. In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.

          You can’t define words to suit your current whim or narrow view. Do your homework, Oz, and open your mind.

          Yeah, I know. Your brother’s a lawyer and you’re a legal expert. But in this case, you’re just wrong – or narrow-minded – whichever you prefer.

        • #2769001

          Or as John Adams said

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          [i]No good government but what is republican… the very definition of a republic is ‘an empire of laws, and not of men.[/i]

          So I only paraphrase John Adams when I suggest that ours is a government of laws, and not of men.

        • #2769000

          OMG, that’s the exact same thing!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          ‘Law of the land’

          It’s a set of laws applied to instill a countries Constitutional practices.

          Or in other words, law, nothing more nothing less. To suggest it differs in reality from any other nation is pretty dumb. Only an American would be lead to think it is unique.

          The way ou hang onto this crap as if it was written in stone for the first time, by some unequalled brainiac from Europe who saw the right way to build a new nation, is simply delusional. There’s VERY little difference in the way your country’s morals/values to the people are defined and any others; you just think they are unique, independent paradigms of how the world should be.

        • #2768989

          On John Adams

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          Seeing as he was known to be a VERY warm and generous family man, what woul dhe do in such a situation?

          Would he do as Tony suggests? ‘If the parents can’t pay the the child it should die?’

          Yeah that sounds like the origins of America in the making.
          America: a generous and prosperous, leading society; a paradigm for all to follow, a banner on the horizon for those lost nations who care for one another without concern for where the money came from.

          John Adams would be so proud of you Maxwell, if you were in a stockade.

        • #2780163

          What would John Adams do?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          If I were a betting man (which I am), I would bet that John Adams would reach into his own heart and into his own pockets to help pay for that child’s care.

          I would further bet that he would not reach into someone else’s pocket to do it.

          And I would absolutely bet my entire life’s savings (what’s left of it, that is) that he would not use the power of government to reach into someone else’s pocket to do it.

          You constantly confuse personal compassion with forced compassion at the hands of government!

          I might also add, that you have absolutely no idea how compassionate I might really be. But I do it with my own time and my own money – I don’t want to use government to force my compassion on someone else! It’s a simple concept to grasp, Oz – which is why it probably eludes you.

        • #2780161

          Round-and-Round we go – these kinds of tangents are just silly.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          1. Neil said, [i]” Yes. I think that the government DOES have to take care of sick kids.”[/i]

          2. I said, [i]”Just because you think that the government DOES have to take care of (fill in the blank), it doesn’t mean it should…… (and) it’s for this very reason we’re considered a nation of laws, not of men [/i] – Meaning we’re governed (or should be) not on what an individual might think is right.

          3. If the underlying basis for the laws of our nation is OUR Constitution, then the following quote is very relevant:

          [i]I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.[/i]
          – James Madison

          James Madison, by the way, is often considered the father of our Constitution. (Yes, I know, others were also involved – including George Mason.)

          4. That’s the basis when I stated. [i]”At one time our Constitution was the underlying principle setting the law of the land. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, things got skewed way out of wack.”[/i]

          Meaning, in this context, there is no [i]lawful[/i] basis in our Constitution allowing the government to take care of sick kids – regardless of what Neil (or anyone else) might think.

          5. Oz said, [i]”Law is just a way of determining fault”[/i], which is a totally irrelevant and unrelated comment.

          Thus, round-and-round we go, and where it stops depends on who decides to no longer reply. Personally speaking, I’m jumping off this merry-go-round.

        • #2780136

          You couldn’t even do it once

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          You couldn’t even offer one post without taking a character shot at me. I said nothign of the sort, those are purely your own condescending an innacurate words.

          As for understanding the whole generosity and personal compassion thing, I do that in addition to paying taxes.
          Do you not pay taxes?

          What do you personally stand to lose through a less expensive, government supported medical system?

          Do you think you’d pay MORE taxes? Why?

          And again, you haven’t explained why you don’t complain about the other services your government steals your money to provide.

          Like I told Tony, you are forced to pay for someone who is negligent and burns their house down, firefighters are paid for by stealing money from taxpayers pockets.

          You pay for some junkie who just stole someone else’s property to be caught, locked up, tried and sentenced. They steal money out of YOUR pocket to help others.

          They take money out of your pocket to pay for a war to protect people in Iraq from a horrendous dictator, however you deem that more important than the welfare of your fellow man’s infant being paid for from that same pocket?

          I understand what you are TRYING to say quite well, you don’t have to be condescending and rude about it. It’s the backward mentality behind it that I can’t fathom.
          If you had always had medicare paid for out of your taxes this would be a non issue, just like fire safety, police protection, military efforts in other nations etc. you wouldn’t even bat an eye or notice the difference.

          As it is cool to stand against change to your inadequate system and you can refer to 200 year old statements and issues to support it, even when not in consideration of the surrent situation, you oppose that which would have NO effect on your pocketbook in any way, but would save an infants life.

          As for John Adams, if he couldn’t afford it the town would pay for it and his name would be posted in town for all to see that he was being cared for by ‘The Town’. A little US medical history search show that anyway. They didn’t need a licence to practice medicine then, there were VERY few trained dotors in North America.

          In fact, many settlers didn’t find ‘the New America brochure’ to be an accurate depiction of America at that time at all. They found great hardship and disappointment. More than 80% of the originalsettlers had died in the first two years, a lack of public health resulted in horrific living conditions for early settlers. They didn’t have organized garbage removal, sewer systems etc. and disease ran rife for many years.

          But hey, lets just think about what a man MAY have done in the same situation 200 years ago and base our future on it, he knew where you were headed, he saw today as he was a great visionary.

          As far as the baby, it apparently would have been treated and paid for by the town, if they were able to perform heart tranplants in infants 200+ years ago of course.

          Since that time, Americans decided they’d make more money as doctors if they could bill as them wanted, hospitals found out they could be as rich as Hollywood directors if they billed privately and tax payers were lead to believe that their money was more immportant if they spent more of it privately rather than having he government spend some of the existing tax dollars to fund public health instead or war.

          Don’t you see it? You already pay enough in your taxes to cover medical and have reduced premiums. Then you pay at least double what I pay for monthy premiums too.

          You are paying more for your own health care than I do to support the whole country\s helth care!

          If your money is so important, let them invest some of the existing money back into YOUR health, the same money that they steal from you anyway, and stop paying so much on top of that for personal insurance too.

          Don’t you get it, you personally get more for less?

        • #2780104

          It’s called CHARITY

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          [i]Would he do as Tony suggests? ‘If the parents can’t pay the the child it should die?'[/i]

          No, he would donate personally, and encourage friends and neighbors to do the same. I don’t think he’d forcibly take their money or property though.

          Is the concept foreign to you?

        • #2780102

          Oz

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          Let’s you and me repair to the side and review charity, dearness, love, and goodwill. Before I smack you.

          Then we’ll do lunch, and law.

        • #2779943

          Wrong, Ton

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to This isn’t a cub pack

          John Adams actually DID have the town pay for medical costs for people without the money.

          When your country was founded it was rife with sickness and disease, it wasn’t rare for an entire billage or town to be quarantined with most of them dead in short time. BUT, when people couldn’t pay for their own medical treatement “The Town” paid for it. Not by charity,m it was simply taken from the taxes/treasury of the town to pay for it.

          Your nation has since changed into one that only looks after their own and those they deem worthy of personal support.

          Being a citizen and fellowman is not enough anymore, until of course YOU need old age medical support, then you will mooch of the rest of those you refused to support for most of your life.

        • #2769055

          And yet

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Law is not human though

          [i]Law is juts a way of determining fault. Its not human, it is not considerate, it is not caring.[/i]

          you insist that it must be…

        • #2768993

          No I understand LAW

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And yet

          I don’t think I even want to go there with you though, I am sure you have some half cocked, regurgitated idea of what I’ve said or implied that has no relevance or value to what I have actually said anyway.

        • #2751763

          Transplants

          by ksoniat ·

          In reply to Law is not human though

          In 1989 I had a daughter Roxanne who at 3 months was diagnosed with Biliary Atresia (no connection from liver to gall bladder to get rid of bile). It took two weeks to diagnose and SC had no apropriate facilities at the time so we were at Emory children’s hospital in Atlanta, GA. She had a Kasai procedure which created a bypass from the liver for the waste – another 2 weeks in the hospital.

          Because the liver is regenerative it had created many bile ducts in an effort to find a “way out” making the functioning of the liver so poor she would need a tranpslant.

          My husband was in his first 30 days of a new job (no insurance) I had a 300,000 cap on my insurance. My husband was able to return to his previous employer as if he had never left and received coverage.

          In 1989 you had to have $100,000 available (insurance or cash-on-hand) to even get your name on a transplant list. Pittsburgh was the center of liver transplantation but had a long list. A doctor who had trained there was setting up shop in Philadelphia so we got on his list.

          We carried a beeper (no cell phones then) for 15 months waiting for a donor. We had monthly appointments at Emory in Atlanta. Roxanne had 15 presciptions – 2 of them for formula because she need a “predigested” formula because of lack of liver function.

          We got the call and lived in the Philadelphia hospital for a month while she received and recovered from her transplant. Two weeks after we got home she rejected the liver and died. She would have turned 20 this month.

          Back then they didn’t have partial or living donor transplants. There was a family from Mexico that had collected donations to get the funds to be put on the list.

          In 1989:
          70% of patients die waiting for a donor.
          30% of patients reject the donated organ.
          30% of patients have other complications due to circumstances around the transplant: for instance chicken pox will kill 100% of liver transplant patients. My husband actually got chick pox (for the second time) while we were waiting for the transplant. As Roxanne had been exposed she was removed from the list for a month. She did not get them, but since she was already off the list and exposed, and it was deadly later, our Pediatrician actually called another patient who had them and we reexposed her trying to give them to her. She never did get them.

          In 1989 the anti-rejection medicine was $100 per bottle – and you have to take it the rest of your life.

          The transplant itself is merely a portion of the total cost and effort involved. That’s even assuming an organ would become available and their position on the list etc.

          ….and now you know the rest of the story.

        • #2769102

          not ours

          by jck ·

          In reply to Why not?

          We don’t have social medicine. Therefore, it is not the US citizens responsibility to pay for every “life saving surgery” there is to be done.

          Otherwise, I’d like parts of my bowels removed to make me thinner and save my life. If I don’t have that surgery, I am just going to be fat and die.

          That’s immediately life threatening. Give me my free surgery.

        • #2769051

          Life

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to not ours

          is life threatening!

          and “immediate” is a matter of perspective 🙂

        • #2769056

          It’s easy to say

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Why not?

          [i]I pay willingly[/i]

          Until you tell them you’re not 🙂

      • #2769151

        Borrow the money if your child is so important.

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to hm

        IF? Why is that child not just as important to you?

        Nobody is asking teh government to pay for it. But our government uses a blanket applied insurance cost (every Canadian pays provincial medical costs) to see that ALL Canadians are taken care of, they don’ tjust pay for it.

        If Canadians didn’t want to pay that cost, tey wouldn’t, end of story. Obvisouly we have deemed it important to care for each other and grow as a nation of unified people, not just ‘survive for yourself if you can’ and step on those in the way.

        As it is, Americans have donated a great deal of the parents costs already, illustrating that such blind and narrow thinking doesn’t flow throughout all of American minds.

        • #2769103

          why

          by jck ·

          In reply to Borrow the money if your child is so important.

          [i]IF? Why is that child not just as important to you?[/i]

          Because it’s NOT MINE.

          [i]Nobody is asking teh government to pay for it. But our government uses a blanket applied insurance cost (every Canadian pays provincial medical costs) to see that ALL Canadians are taken care of, they don’ tjust pay for it.[/i]

          If we had social medicine here, sure. But, we don’t. We have privatized.

          Maybe they get help after they lose all unnecessary assets. But the fact is, it is NOT (in the United States) the responsibility for every person in this country to receive all of its medical care and treatment.

          Until we have social medicine of some kind, I say no. If the parents can’t take care of their child and can’t get someone to donate goods and services and they won’t borrow the money to pay for it…then it’s not anyone’s fault.

          Just ask Tony…the baby should die if the parents can’t raise the money…right Tony?

          [i]If Canadians didn’t want to pay that cost, tey wouldn’t, end of story. Obvisouly we have deemed it important to care for each other and grow as a nation of unified people, not just ‘survive for yourself if you can’ and step on those in the way.[/i]

          Again, you have social medicine…we don’t.

          Oregon is in the USA. That’s my point.

          [i]As it is, Americans have donated a great deal of the parents costs already, illustrating that such blind and narrow thinking doesn’t flow throughout all of American minds.[/i]

          Not mine either. But, that kid (like the kids of the octopreggomom) would be on some type of assistance as soon as someone pushes the right button.

          But like I said: let them go borrow the money…put themselves into hock for it like my parents had to for decades.

          If their child is that important to them, they will do everything they can to raise the money themselves…not depend on everyone else to get it for them or give them freebies.

        • #2769073

          Nah,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to why

          [i]Just ask Tony…the baby should die if the parents can’t raise the money…right Tony?
          [/i]

          Just send them to Canada 🙂

        • #2769057

          We might take them…

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Nah,

          As much as you harumph and feel superior, we have some great hospitals. One of them, the Hospital for Sick Kids, is truly world class and we do get cases from around the world sent to it.

          http://www.sickkids.ca/AboutSickKids/News-Room/Past-News/2009/Novalung-patient-news.html

          http://www.sickkids.ca/AboutSickKids/News-Room/Past-News/2005/Separation-surgery-underway-for-conjoined-twins-at-SickKids-2005-release.html

          Many paeds doctors in the US come to Sick Kids for training.

          James

        • #2769052

          It’s not about superiority, James

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to We might take them…

          It’s about taking away my right to determine for what or whom I will be generous.

          If some person threatened me to get me to turn over my money to them (for whatever reason), they would be arrested and thrown in jail. Why should the government be allowed to do the same thing on their behalf?

        • #2780131

          So its taxation as a whole that you oppose

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It’s not about superiority, James

          You don’t feel you should have to pay ANY taxes at all?

          When your country was founded, people paid taxes and the poor were treated from them, how does not paying taxes for the betterment of the entire nation fit America or any other industrialized nation’s history.

          If it is just a matter of taxes for medical support, you already pay taxes anyway, who cares if the government starts putting that same money to good use instead of more expensive toilet seats in the white house?

        • #2780119

          I can’t recall how many times I’ve said it Oz

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It’s not about superiority, James

          I do not oppose taxation for infrastructure (including fire and police protection) and defense. The things in this category that can be metered should be metered and spread among the citizens that use it (roads, for example… something using pounds per mile would be a fair metric… as more miles and more pounds wear out roads and bridges more.). Things that cannot be metered should be paid for equally by all citizens (dollar for dollar the same, not a percentage).

          I oppose taxes used to benefit an individual (whether it be a CEO, a politician, a welfare recipient, or a farmer) at the forced expense of other citizens. If some citizens CHOOSE to donate for this purpose,fine, but it should not be forced.

          We have what’s called “the equal protection clause” in the 14th amendment of our constitution. It essentially says that all citizens should be treated equally under the law. I submit that charging one citizen $300 for his share of running the government while charging another $3,000 is NOT treating them equally.

        • #2779937

          Doesn’t matter how many time you say it, its still flawed

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It’s not about superiority, James

          Tony, you oppose paying taxes for teh benefit of one.

          You don’t oppose fire, police, military, ambulance.

          You do oppose medical.

          IN what way does FIRE protection support ALL and not one, where Medical support does?

          Fire: One person is irresponsible and burns his house down. YOU pay for it, how is that to teh benefit of all? Because it is available to all?

          Medical: One person is burned when he hurns his house down. You have no problem paying to put the fire out but treating the person is an issue? Why?
          Both are for the benefit of one person other than yourself.
          You may never use the fire department or hospital, but you don’t have issue with the fire department, just the hospital?

          You don’t mind paying for police protection.
          YOu may never need police protection, but some crackhead that steals from someone and you have no issue paying to have him caught. However, if anyone is hurt in that incident, including eh police officer chasing him, you shouldn’t have to pay the medical costs.

          Your logic is seriously flawed, Tony. What you say you morally oppose paying for, you also say specifically you have no problem paying for.

          You do’t want ot pay for others, unwillingly anyway. But the services you DO support are seeing YOU pay for others and you may never need those services yourself, you may never see any personal benefit.

          But a reduction in your medical costs that you DO alredy pay is unfathomable?

        • #2779906

          My taxes pay for my portion…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It’s not about superiority, James

          [i]You don’t oppose fire, police, military, ambulance.[/i]

          … of their standby cost in case I need them.

          [i]Fire: One person is irresponsible and burns his house down. YOU pay for it, how is that to teh benefit of all? Because it is available to all?[/i]

          I don’t know about there, but here, police, fire, and EMS DO bill you for your individual costs! If your house catches fire and you are injured, you will get a bill from the fire department and from the ambulance. If the police respond to a traffic accident, the person at fault gets a bill from the police department for fuel used, flares, ect., and more if they have to appear in court later. If they arrest someone for DWI, he gets another fuel charge, maybe a hospital charge for the blood test (if he refuses the breathalyzer), a jail processing fee, and if he stays over a day, a charge for bedding and meals. I don’t pay that.

          [i]But a reduction in your medical costs that you DO alredy pay is unfathomable?[/i]

          I don’t know how much lower they can get… The only time in my life I’ve ever been hospitalized was 36 years ago when I was 15 and had to have my appendix removed. Since then, I’ve had checkups once in awhile, some therapy for depression when my first wife walked out, and a little medicine. The grand total of which is less than what a typical person would pay for insurance for a single year!

        • #2779881

          So its Russian roulette?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It’s not about superiority, James

          First of all, I assumed that your taxes would at least cover necessary services. If they don’t, and you pay more tax than I do, what benefits DO yo get as an American tax payer?

          They tax you AND bill you? And yet you feel that is better than having your tax money support you too, even though it already supports those who don’t even pay taxes?

          You don’t like your tax money going to help others (sorry, still can’t accept that one myself) but apparently your tax money does NOT help others as they are billed for services individually on a case by case basis? Teh onlu people gaining benefit from YOUR taxes are the people not paying taxes. Why wouldn’t you want in on that action as a tax payer too?

          Your defense of this most inadequate system is getting harder to accept.

          You pay more income taxes than I do and you get NOTHING in return, other than the ability to go to war in foreign lands, well we do that too, just not as spontaneously.

          I pay less taxes than you do and yet those taxes offer me medical subsidy, fire protection, police protection etc. (Our ambulance service is privately operated now so we do get billed $80 for ambulance fees as needed).

          You prefer paying more and getting nothing, but that’s okay because at least nobody else gets it either, except welfare recipients and low income earners, the disabled etc.

          You have no control over paying taxes, we all do it like it or not, I’m not saying I like paying taxes either. But at least by Canada offering me fire, police and medical services, I get SOMETHING back out of it, and don’t just let them piss it away on those who don’t work.

          But you would prefer to just stay with it as is and get nothing in return?

          Why would you want your tax money, which you already pay and get nothing back from, to at least cover your police, fire an medical protection?

          The unemployed get this support from your tax dollars no matter what you support, your just cutting off your nose to spite your face to remove youself from wanting at least the same benefits that the unemployed get.

          No logic to be found there at all.

          So Tony, here’s a fair question.

          You have to pay taxes and don’t mind paying taxes, that’s fine.

          What would YOU want to see from your tax dollars?

        • #2780133

          Same with Vancouver Children’s Hospital

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to We might take them…

          They treat kids from all over the world, including America. When I was a kid, my spinal specialist had a whole group dof US iterns with him on his rounds as they were here for training.

          “ated with the University of British Columbia (UBC) and other post-secondary partners across the province, Sunny Hill is one of a few sites in Canada providing education and experience for physicians specializing in developmental pediatrics. Each year, more than 150 health professionals in training gain experience at Sunny Hill. Sunny Hill’s physicians and health professionals are also highly involved with research in partnership with UBC and the Child and Family Research Institute. ”

          Damn cheapo Canadian hospitals! Socialized medicine! Oh no we’re all going to die unless we pay more for it!

          It’s not that different than people who think they have to take their new car to the dealership to get an oil change. Fear of not mortgaging the house to pay for it, it must be no good.

        • #2780117

          I never said or implied

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Same with Vancouver Children’s Hospital

          [i]Damn cheapo Canadian hospitals![/i]

          that the quality of care is any worse in Canada than it is in the United States. The problem isn’t in the actual medical part of it. It’s in the bureaucracy part of it, and both countries have flaws (albeit different ones).

        • #2779936

          That’s why I didn’t quote you as saying it

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Same with Vancouver Children’s Hospital

          I didn’t say that it was your opinion (however it is a very common one), otherwise I would have quoted you on it.

        • #2768980

          Because it’s NOT MINE.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to why

          so, if someone watched theives break into your car and then laughed as they stole your stereo but when asked who it was they said ” I don’t know, I don’t care, its not mine” that would be cool then?
          Or would you think he was an uncaring and sh1tty American citizen?

          “Its not mine”
          So, why do you support the military, fire department, police department, ambulance services, etc?
          Your money is haphazardly wasted to help other people, not just you. Many of those people may be smokers while you are not, they are irresponsible and burn their house down.
          YOUR tax money pays to save them, and yet that is not your complaint?
          Why not just get billed when your house is on fire? You can’t afford it? Too bad, it burns down then.

          We don’t have “social medicine” in Canada, our doctors run private practices. They have their own offices, their own employees, their own hours etc. They don’t work for the government, they are independent and private practitioners. They simply bill ONE insurer instead of 100’s and only have one to deal with and collect payment from, instead of hundreds.

          If they don’t WANT to bill the government, they can opt out and bill you privately, in which case you can also buy private, extended medical coverage to top up your basic monthly premiums.

          “Just ask Tony…the baby should die if the parents can’t raise the money…right Tony?”

          As a parent, I don’t know how you can even type the words.
          How heartless and self centered, your nation would be a third world country if it was actually built with such a backward mentality.

          I think the whole focus behind indepenedence is that people WOULD automatically see to such needs for others as well as themselves without government intervention, however modern day America seems to think that it is a ME and ONLY ME, world, doctors overcharge and over treat patients for personal gain.

          Do you really think America’s founders, John Adams for example, would see letting children die due to lack of coverage as being acceptable? I sure as hell don’t, he was a father.

          Fair enough, now lets say this happens to you.
          They are both working and paying for premiums, they both earn too much to qualify for subsidies, so they are in a position just as you and I are….well you more accurately than myself as I am in Canada and don’t have such concerns.

          Would YOU be able to borrow 1.5 million dollars for a heart transplant in today’s ecomoni ccrisis? Do you have that equity? Could you go and hawk some old jewelry or gold teeth to pay for it?

          Now lets look at the reality, Canada does not have a socialized medical system, as I explained above.

          I pay less income tax than you do.
          I pay less in medical premiums than you do.
          Our national medical costs to the government are lower than yours are.

          So you obviously prefer paying higher taxes and having that money spent absent mindedly on…whatever, as long as you don’t think someone else gets it.

          You prefer paying higher monthly medical premiums, due to the costs of oyur medical services being higher than ours and your medical premiums counter the costs of all other Americans too, which is better than you only paying once for everyone, instead of twice.

          Your government spend more on medical services and you STILL have a weaker child mortality rate, more mothers die during child birth and you have a shorter life expectancy than Canadians?

          What part of paying more for less actually excites you?

          Is it just some twisted moral agenda that you all cling onto as if it is relevant because you really don’t understand the alternatives?

          You actually think that YOUR insurance
          premiums are not already paying for someone elses health?

          My insurance premiums are lower and they cover everyone’s health.

          My taxes are lower than yours and they cover everyone’s health too?

          Our health costs per person are lower as a nation and they cover everyone’s health too.

          You people really need to step outside of the government myths and propaganda and start asking for answers, you are getting ripped off left right and center and STILL being denied health care but you are lead to believe its the better solution.

          “ask not what your country can do for you…”
          How convenient, how are you supposed to ask what they are spending your tax money on and why? “Instead, ask what you can do for your country.”

          Okay, but if everyone is looking out solely for themself and doesn’t want the government touching THEIR money, isn’t that unAmerican?

    • #2769157

      I’d like to find a document titled. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to The medical balancing act

      [i]The Real Truth About Medical Care in Canada (or the UK), and the Myths that Surround it.[/i]

      If you’d like to submit such a document for consideration, feel free. I’d love to see it.

      He says, she says, you say, they say. Who knows the real truth? Everything is either anecdotal or skewed in favor of a desired policy position.

      Besides, in the United States, it should really be a moot point.

      http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=302996&messageID=3026536

Viewing 4 reply threads