# There WILL be death panels.



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/16565

_*The new Medicare incentive from the Obama administration: Cut Costs!

The New York Times tries to cover up the core truth about the New Medicare program that is arising from Obamacare. But there is only so much disinformation you can lay on the hard fact that Medicare providers will MAKE MORE MONEY if they restrict services and costs. Much more than if they expend money attempting to address complex and costly health issues:

For the first time in its history, Medicare will soon track spending on millions of individual beneficiaries, reward hospitals that hold down costs and penalize those whose patients prove most expensive.*_


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

one of the commentors on that piece summed it up perfectly:

_
If government is in charge of health care, this is the only possible result. No reform of any government backed system can ever avoid this result, because it is inherent in the system itself.

Reason: demand for healthcare is theoretically infinite, since no one ever thinks they are too healthy. Actual use of healthcare resources is currently limited by cost and ability to pay. (and yes, part of that ability to pay is covered by the charity of individuals and institutions)

If all costs are covered by some central paying system (ie, any mandatory government backed system) then demand will rise exponentially, as there are no longer any constraints. With no limits, demand will rise until it equals 100% of *all* available resources of the economy  it would pass that if it could, but thats the point at which all other economic activity ceases and the society in question collapses.

If you do not allow the cost mechanism to cut demand, then you *Must* put some centrally run triage mechanisms in place to cut demand by decree. You have to do that or else the system in question will collapse quickly from the overload.

People are unhappy that there is no third option, but there isnt. Something has to limit demand  either market price or the government. One is under the control of patients and their families. One is under the control of the bureaucracy.

Our Choice.
_


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Death Panels...

Isn't that what insurance companies are?

After all, they decide every day who lives and who dies by granting or denying coverage.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

dont be obtuse


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> dont be obtuse


Well, from my perspective the unmitigated disaster that is the US health system is run by the insurance companies and HMO's who have the 'right' to decide who lives and dies. 

So instead of just insulting me while not denying my statement, tell me how I'm wrong.

You can safely assume that I know as little about your health care system as you do about mine.

And if you rely on information from FoxNews, you know **** all about mine.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> dont be obtuse


I'm sorry but we are facing Death panels one way or the other. Get used to it.
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

unmitigated disaster?

 you are aware i assume that people come from the world over to get treated here? so maybe your judgement is a little.....fubar'd?


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> unmitigated disaster?
> 
> you are aware i assume that people come from the world over to get treated here? so maybe your judgement is a little.....fubar'd?


 What's the average income of these people that fly over for treatment?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

irrelevant

no wait, it is relevant

the people that can afford the best come to america for treatment.

AMERICANS never go to europe for treatment or canada, just some go to mexico cuz there are no rules down there, the so called doctors there will inject you with shark piss if you ask them too..lol

we have the best technology and the smartest doctors, arguing that is just desperate non-sense.

and BTW- i am poor and i can get treatment at any ER in the country, in fact, i cant be turned away


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 5, 2011)

Actually tonnes of Americans come up here for eye surgery, dentistry and prescriptions. The reason they dont come up for other stuff is because our doctors arent allowed to do private stuff outside of the system. It has nothing to do with quality of training. There is a private clinic in Toronto that specializes in hernias, something like 40% of the patients are non Canadian. 

Id trust Japanese, Canadian, Australian, European or American doctors and equipment equally. The medical training of all of them is recognized by each country almost instantly on completion of study.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually tonnes of Americans come up here for eye surgery, dentistry and prescriptions. The reason they dont come up for other stuff is because our doctors arent allowed to do private stuff outside of the system. It has nothing to do with quality of training. There is a private clinic in Toronto that specializes in hernias, something like 40% of the patients are non Canadian.
> 
> Id trust Japanese, Canadian, Australian, European or American doctors and equipment equally. The medical training of all of them is recognized by each country almost instantly on completion of study.


 
_" An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue_."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

Brits tend to go to America when they've heard of a treatment not available for whatever reason in Europe, this could be for many reasons, it could be experimental or it could be that it's not recognised as 'medical' ie a therapy conducted by non medically certified staff. People usually sell their houses, cars etc or fund raise for a long time to be able to afford these treatments which seem to be invariably expensive. Sometimes it's worth every penny sometimes not. 
Othe reason Brits go abroad is for cosmetic procedures they won't get on the NHS, quite rightly too, no reason we should pay for it.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually tonnes of Americans come up here for eye surgery, dentistry and prescriptions. The reason they dont come up for other stuff is because our doctors arent allowed to do private stuff outside of the system. It has nothing to do with quality of training. There is a private clinic in Toronto that specializes in hernias, something like 40% of the patients are non Canadian.
> 
> Id trust Japanese, Canadian, Australian, European or American doctors and equipment equally. The medical training of all of them is recognized by each country almost instantly on completion of study.


Well, there goes Twin Fist's nationalism-based arguement down the crapper.


----------



## Carol (Jun 5, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually tonnes of Americans come up here for eye surgery, dentistry and prescriptions. The reason they dont come up for other stuff is because our doctors arent allowed to do private stuff outside of the system. It has nothing to do with quality of training. There is a private clinic in Toronto that specializes in hernias, something like 40% of the patients are non Canadian.



Sick Kids in Toronto:




> Adults and children genetically at risk for cancer can increase their  chance of survival through a new surveillance protocol developed by  Sick Kids researchers, a Toronto study has found.
> 
> 
> The surveillance, being dubbed the  Toronto protocol, has proven so successful that hospitals around the  world are now adopting it, says Dr. David Malkin, principal investigator  of the study.






> The protocol is already being used in several centres around the world, including the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, the Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, and the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah.



http://www.healthzone.ca/health/ill...proves-survival-for-children-with-cancer-risk


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

it isnt nationalism at all young man, it is experience, we see foreigners here constantly, seeking medical attention because it is the best in the world

if that fact gets up in your chaps isnt my problem.

oh, and another thing, if you think it is such an "unmitigated disaster" you can feel free to NOT come here for treatment.

you get whjat you want, and we get one less america bashing tourist

everyone wins.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 5, 2011)

I know more people who had LASIK in Canada than I do in the US. They are also much more satisfied with the quality of work and care than the ones who went to the US doctors, who had -less- experience. I wish I'd gone to a Canadian surgeon instead of the US quack I went to.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Death Panels...
> 
> Isn't that what insurance companies are?
> 
> After all, they decide every day who lives and who dies by granting or denying coverage.


 
buy better health insurance and read what it covers and doesnt cover ahead of time.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Well, from my perspective the unmitigated disaster that is the US health system is run by the insurance companies and HMO's who have the 'right' to decide who lives and dies.
> 
> So instead of just insulting me while not denying my statement, tell me how I'm wrong.
> 
> ...


 
you are right you don't know anything. You are confusing unlimited health insurance with basic health care.
the vast majority of people have cheap policies that cover little more then basic health care.
I pay alot more then most people, we have multiple coverages. I know what my coverage includes and does not include. with a  3 and a 5 year old I can not afford not to know how my health insurance works.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> _" An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue_."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism
> 
> ...


 
I was going to say I have heard of americans going elsewhere for treatment and I can not remember hearing of any of those times that was not based on a treatment that was not approved here in America, I would imagine that treatments not approved in certain countries is the largest reason people travel for treatment, with the next biggest reason being cost, and the third biggest reason being quality.... but that is just a wild guess on my part


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 5, 2011)

More nonsense stated without research.  America's health care system is not the best in the world by a long shot.  In fact Canada and Great Britain's health care systems are rated better.  The best rated in the world?  Hey that would be France's...I know, that is almost sacreligious considering they have a socialist system.  At least do a little research from sources that aren't quite so biased as Fox and Brietbart's site.  We spend 17% of our gross national product on healthcare which is 6% more than anyone else in the world. and we are like 19th in positive patient outcomes.  More bancrupcies are caused by medical bills than any other reason.  Hospitals can and do defer life saving treatment according to a patiences ability to pay.  Do not confuse this with emergency room service.  We are the ONLY industrialized nation not to have some form of national health care for all of its' citizens...I guess the rest of the world must be commie leftist, who don't know the capitalist value of human life.  America already has a socialist form of health care insurance...it is called Medicare...oh and the VA.  Though I will admitt te VA has not been an example of shining success.  It is good enough for our eterans though.  Insurance companies constantly raise rates to unreasonable heights or drop customers  when they become ill...which is kind of the point of getting insurance in the first place.  I got no problem with thinking there are issues with the current reform.  However, death panels isn't one of them.  Selling out to the insurance companies to keep te status quo is a problem.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I know more people who had LASIK in Canada than I do in the US. They are also much more satisfied with the quality of work and care than the ones who went to the US doctors, who had -less- experience. I wish I'd gone to a Canadian surgeon instead of the US quack I went to.


 i often wonder about this.. my wife worked in a laser eye surgery center long ago adn I got my eyes done for free.. best decision I ever made in my life, now almost 12 years later I could not be happier with the decision, but I remember thinking at the time how simple the procedure was, assistants did all the work except for the cutting and it only took about a few days to train the assistants how to use the machines that did vision checks, mapping, and prep, then the doctor came in and did the actual laser work. I do not know how tricky that laser work actually is.. i never bothered asking if the machine went of the mappign to automatically do the laser work of if the doctor actually had his own hands and abilities to do it more then anything else..


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> buy better health insurance and read what it covers and doesnt cover ahead of time.


Scott is Canadian. They don't have competing insurance companies that bribe government officials and screw poor people like we do. They just have the one that works.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> i often wonder about this.. my wife worked in a laser eye surgery center long ago adn I got my eyes done for free.. best decision I ever made in my life, now almost 12 years later I could not be happier with the decision, but I remember thinking at the time how simple the procedure was, assistants did all the work except for the cutting and it only took about a few days to train the assistants how to use the machines that did vision checks, mapping, and prep, then the doctor came in and did the actual laser work. I do not know how tricky that laser work actually is.. i never bothered asking if the machine went of the mappign to automatically do the laser work of if the doctor actually had his own hands and abilities to do it more then anything else..


Mine was botched. Horror stories floating around here somewhere.  I made the mistake of picking an assembly line quack.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> More nonsense stated without research. America's health care system is not the best in the world by a long shot. In fact Canada and Great Britain's health care systems are rated better. The best rated in the world? Hey that would be France's...I know, that is almost sacreligious considering they have a socialist system. At least do a little research from sources that aren't quite so biased as Fox and Brietbart's site. We spend 17% of our gross national product on healthcare which is 6% more than anyone else in the world. and we are like 19th in positive patient outcomes. More bancrupcies are caused by medical bills than any other reason. Hospitals can and do defer life saving treatment according to a patiences ability to pay. Do not confuse this with emergency room service. We are the ONLY industrialized nation not to have some form of national health care for all of its' citizens...I guess the rest of the world must be commie leftist, who don't know the capitalist value of human life. America already has a socialist form of health care insurance...it is called Medicare...oh and the VA. Though I will admitt te VA has not been an example of shining success. It is good enough for our eterans though. Insurance companies constantly raise rates to unreasonable heights or drop customers when they become ill...which is kind of the point of getting insurance in the first place. I got no problem with thinking there are issues with the current reform. However, death panels isn't one of them. Selling out to the insurance companies to keep te status quo is a problem.


 
nothing you said is an example of us having the best or the worst or anything in health care. do some of you people even understand how to interpret information?
Cost is not an indicator of the quality of health care.
positive patient outcomes is also not an indicator...
compare apples to apples and orange to oranges and then we can talk..
I think in America we have the most unhealthy eating habits by far in the world...just a guess... we have the highest obesity rates I seem to remember hearing... all kids of issues..I would have to see some pretty specific information as far as what is treated, and how, and the success rates to say you are right or wrong.
my hunch is America has some of the best quality of health care available if you have the money to pay for it, or the insurance to cover it, with the notable exceptions being few but mostly in aspects that are banned for various reasons in the united states. No proof other then a hunch, but I have never seen anything that refutes that hunch.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Scott is Canadian. They don't have competing insurance companies that bribe government officials and screw poor people like we do. They just have the one that works.


 
look regardless of how corrupt or incorrupt an insurance company or all are, the fact is they still have coverage in writing. I would be the vast majority of people on this board could not tell you what their coverage includes.

I have to ask if Canadian insurance covers unlimited costs for individuals for cancer, or any other high cost treatments? I bet it doesn't.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Scott is Canadian. They don't have competing insurance companies that bribe government officials and screw poor people like we do. They just have the one that works.



actually BOB< it doesnt work and it is going bankrupt


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Scott is Canadian. They don't have competing insurance companies that bribe government officials and screw poor people like we do. They just have the one that works.


 
LOL!

Not saying ours doesn't have a myriad of problems, but at least everybody gets care and no one has to go bankrupt to get it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/leboeuf-schouten1.html

There is a chronic shortage of doctors in Canada because price controls on doctors salaries have resulted in a "brain drain" where the best and brightest practice medicine in the U.S. and elsewhere, after being educated in Canada. In addition, the Canadian government cut medical school enrollment in half in the 1990s as a "cost-cutting measure," making the problem of doctor shortages much worse.


http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/20/canadian-health-care-another-horror-story/

  Mr. Bureau and his mother go to the Wakefield hospital. A doctor determines that there is a problem with Mr. Bureaus appendix. Calls are made to hospitals in Hull, Gatineau, Maniwaki, Buckingham and Ottawa to find a surgeon. A surgeon cannot be found

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-06/...health-care-system-mayo-clinic?_s=PM:POLITICS

Holmes is Canadian, but the "they" she refers to are doctors at the Mayo Clinic in the United States, where she turned after specialists in her own government-run health care system would not see her fast enough.

"My family doctor at that time tried to get me in to see an endocrinologist and a neurologist," Holmes recalled. "It was going to be four months for one specialist and six months for the other."

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/a-health-care-horror-story-from-canada/

It does not seem to have occurred to defenders of socialized medicine that the system itself is causing the doctor shortage. Cuts in medical fees, overcrowding of facilities, shortages of equipment and space, and bureaucratic oversight have all combined to drive men and women out of family medical practice. Now, with a critical shortage looming, those who can afford to pay for adequate care are opting out of the public system and, literally, taking their lives into their own hands.

canadians can have canada's health care system

i dont want it, what i have is better


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> look regardless of how corrupt or incorrupt an insurance company or all are, the fact is they still have coverage in writing. I would be the vast majority of people on this board could not tell you what their coverage includes.
> 
> *I have to ask if Canadian insurance covers unlimited costs for individuals for cancer, or any other high cost treatments? I bet it doesn't*.


 
It does. My sister, who died of complications from kidney disease in March, had a transplant 5 years ago and that (a rare form that caused her body to kill the organ, as well as the replacement), as well as any treatment she had afterwords due to the second organ's failure, was covered by the 'socialist' healthcare plan people like you like to rail against. 

The only expenses incured by the family were travel (300 miles three times a week) for dialysis, The home dialysis machine rental, and lodging for her mother near the hospital at the end. The final three were covered by the Kinsmen Telemiracle Foundation.

How much would that have cost an American over 5 years +, hmmm?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Scott T said:


> It does. My sister, who died of complications from kidney disease in March, had a transplant 5 years ago and that (a rare form that caused her body to kill the organ, as well as the replacement), as well as any treatment she had afterwords due to the second organ's failure, was covered by the 'socialist' healthcare plan people like you like to rail against.
> 
> The only expenses incured by the family were travel (300 miles three times a week) for dialysis, The home dialysis machine rental, and lodging for her mother near the hospital at the end. The final three were covered by the Kinsmen Telemiracle Foundation.
> 
> How much would that have cost an American over 5 years +, hmmm?


 
now my next question, do they provide all the treatments that are provided in the US, or do they have a limit on the types of treatments they provide...

before you answer I have done some research on it... so I will rail on it, so whats the answer there?

depends on how good the persons insurance is for how much it costs, besides the joy of not living in Canada is worth tens of thousands to me, so once again all i can say is it all depends.


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

Why international comparisons between healthcare systems may not be an accurate portrayal of reality, from the lady herself, Ann Coulter...

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x16996...ortality-talk-another-liberal-health-care-lie

from her column on Infant mortality rates:

But the international comparisons in &#8220;infant mortality&#8221; rates aren&#8217;t comparing the same thing, anyway. We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.
By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks&#8217; gestation are not considered &#8220;live births.&#8221; Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.
And of course, in Milan it&#8217;s not considered living if the baby isn&#8217;t born within driving distance of the Côte d&#8217;Azur.
By excluding the little guys, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call &#8220;infant deaths&#8221; in America as &#8220;miscarriages.&#8221;
Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan &#8212; the infant mortality champion &#8212; don&#8217;t count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day.

Apart from the fact that we count &#8212; and try to save &#8212; _all_ our babies, infant mortality is among the worst measures of a nation&#8217;s medical care because so much of it is tied to lifestyle choices, such as the choice to have children out of wedlock, as teenagers or while addicted to crack.
The main causes of infant mortality &#8212; aside from major birth defects &#8212; are prematurity and low birth-weight. And the main causes of low birth-weight are: smoking, illegitimacy and teenage births. Americans lead most of the developed world in all three categories. Oh, and thank you for that, Britney Spears.
Although we have a lot more low birth-weight and premature babies for both demographic and lifestyle reasons, at-risk newborns are more likely to survive in America than anywhere else in the world. Japan, Norway and the other countries with better infant mortality rates would see them go through the roof if they had to deal with the same pregnancies that American doctors do.


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

Was your sister over 50 years old, that is around the time that the socialized systems start giving up on helping people.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

The only thing they ruled out -- that I know of -- was another transplant, because her body would have killed that too in time, and they wanted to save them for people who would live.

Pragmatism sucks, but there it is.


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

And here is a non-Ann coulter source for looking at the American healthcare system vs. our international friends...There is really a biased way of measuring the differences in medical systems and it is slanted toward the socialist models...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

from the article:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Life expectancy and infant mortality are two measures that are widely cited, yet seldom questioned. This is unfortunate, because life expectancy and infant mortality tell us little about the efficacy of a health care system.[/SIZE][/FONT]​ 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Life expectancy and infant mortality are powerful tools for those who support some form of socialized medicine. On those measures the United States fares worse than all other industrialized nations. Most other industrialized nations have some form of government-run, universal health insurance. Thus, the reasoning goes, America's inferior performance on life expectancy and infant [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]mortality is due to its heavy reliance on a system of private sector care.[/FONT][/SIZE]​ 
for example:​ 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Some statistics may assume interaction with the health care system, but the phenomena they measure are not ones on which the health care system can have any meaningful impact. Take, for example, the rate of cancer incidence. While this statistic assumes interaction with the health care system (an incidence of cancer cannot be known without the diagnosis of a health care professional), there is little a health care system can do about the rate of cancer. Rather, cancer incidence is affected by factors such as genetics, diet, lifestyle, etc., over which the health care system has no control. Thus, to be an adequate measure of the effectiveness of a health care system, a statistic must measure a phenomenon that health care professionals can actually affected.[/SIZE][/FONT]​ 
and:​ 
More robust statistical analysis confirms that health care spending is not related to life expectancy. Studies of multiple countries using regression analysis found no significant relationship between life expectancy and the number of physicians and hospital beds per 100,000 population or health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Rather, life expectancy was associated with factors such as sanitation, clean water, income, and literacy rate._8_ 

on infant mortality rates:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think. The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations. The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age."_16_ While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not. Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."_17_ This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure.[/SIZE][/FONT]​


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Was your sister over 50 years old, that is around the time that the socialized systems start giving up on helping people.


Once again you're displaying your ignorance. They don't give up on people at 50. Don't know where you get your information, but it is ****ed up.

She was 34.


----------



## Carol (Jun 5, 2011)

I'm so sorry to hear that  :asian:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 5, 2011)

Sigh..

Actually its the Provinces that control Health Care, including education and training of doctors in Canada.

Our system is not perfect, no one here ever claimed that it was. Ten provinces, three territories, 34 million people and $200 billion spent, of course there are going to be problems. You can cherry pick all day of examples of problems in every system in the world. So what?

My parents went through cancer and heart issues a few years ago, they never waited for or paid for a doctor, surgery, drugs, home care, anything. 

My sister was visiting family in Scotland a couple of years ago, my nephew had some issues, popped over to the local hospital, got treated, got drugs and sent on their way. No money spent. No problem.

The health care system Obama is selling you guys is a piece of crap, it is nothing even close to what we have. 

Keep your American health system, its all yours, enjoy. There are reason no one emulates it.

Bill, instead of quoting Ann, how about you talk to some Canadian Conservatives instead? Oh yeah thats right, I am one! Going to the Conservative Convention in Ottawa this weekend too. Trust me, our Conservative government will never get rid of our health care system, find ways to improve it? Yeah. Get rid of it? Never.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Was your sister over 50 years old, that is around the time that the socialized systems start giving up on helping people.


 
Are you ****ing serious??
WTF is wrong with you????


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Carol said:


> I'm so sorry to hear that  :asian:


 Thanks. Her passing was expected around Christmas. While it didn't prevent me from feeling gut-punched when it happened, it helped me get over it a little quicker.


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

The extremely young and the extremely old suffer the most under socialized healthcare systems.  We have the presidents own healthcare expert talking about how to ration treatment to only the most productive citizens.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The extremely young and the extremely old suffer the most under socialized healthcare systems. We have the presidents own healthcare expert talking about how to ration treatment to only the most productive citizens.


God damn! You actually believe that, don't you???

You better lay off the FoxNews, Bub. It's rotting your brain!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 5, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Thanks. Her passing was expected around Christmas. While it didn't prevent me from feeling gut-punched when it happened, it helped me get over it a little quicker.


 :asian:
my sympathies too.


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

On Zeke Emmanuel, former advisor to Obama on healthcare issues:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/hello_obamacare_goodbye_grandm_1.html

[FONT=times new roman,times]Zeke created the "[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]complete lives[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]" approach to health care. A complete life is one that contributes in thought and action to the "instrumental value principles" of the greater community. Complete lives "prioritizes younger people" and lifestyles that are likely to contribute to the "common good." Hello, instrumental values. Hello, government.[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Zeke thinks health care should contribute to the common good. The community, led by the government, determines the common good. Zeke thinks about community. Zeke is an active "[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]communitarian[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]." Communitarianism is a [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cross[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] between communism, socialism, atheism and new age. Hello, communitarianism. Hello, Marx, both [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Groucho[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] and [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Karl[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Zeke the communitarian [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]believes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] that health care should promote the public good, and develop "reasoning skills" that contribute to a "just society." In "[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]A Communitarian Health-Care Package[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]," Zeke asserts that "community-minded" leadership must make medical decisions for "more passive individuals." Communities should have the "power of exclusion" from health services over those who do not share their view of the common good. Think, Zeke, think.[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]See Zeke think. Community good must influence medical treatment. Some groups "whose notions of the good are rooted in the denigration of others" should be excluded from some medical resources. Government may deny medical services to an individual who is a "hostile adversary" of community good and groups that are "noxious weeds which gain their strength" by vehemently opposing community goals. Hello, government priorities.[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Think, Zeke, think. Medical care is a means to [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]encourage[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] "healthy participation." Healthy participation means acceptance of community goals, structure, and policies. Hello, acceptance. Hello, healthy participation.[/FONT]

from zekes complete lives theory:

Importantly, the prioritisation of
adolescents and young adults considers the social and
personal investment that people are morally entitled to
have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the
results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor
adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones,
even though they may have received less investment owing
to social injustice.
The complete lives system also considers prognosis,
since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person
with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the
potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis
forestalls the concern that disproportionately large
amounts of resources will be directed to young people with​poor prognoses.42


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> On Zeke Emmanuel, former advisor to Obama on healthcare issues:
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/hello_obamacare_goodbye_grandm_1.html


 
Useless link. The author is apparently 10 years old.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The extremely young and the extremely old suffer the most under socialized healthcare systems. We have the presidents own healthcare expert talking about how to ration treatment to only the most productive citizens.


 
No class what so ever.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> No class what so ever.


Don't know about your part of the country, Ken, but in mine it's kids that get the priority care!


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

Older people and the NHS in Britain...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/feb/15/poor-treatment-older-people-nhs


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

this is a link to Zeke Emmanuels paper that discusses his research into healthcare and addresses his "complete lives" theory...

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

I don't think the American thinker magazine is looked down on by most people.

From the article:

why the extremely young should fear Zeke:


Consideration of the importance of complete lives also
supports modifying the youngest-fi rst principle by
prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants
(fi gure). Adolescents have received substantial education
and parental care, investments that will be wasted without
a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received
these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a
developed personality capable of forming and valuing
long-term plans whose fulfi lment requires a complete​

life.
77 As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, It
is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people
think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when
an adolescent does;​​
78 this argument is supported by
empirical surveys.41,7


Why the old should fear Zeke:

When implemented, the complete lives system produces
a priority curve on which individuals aged between
roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance,
whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that​are attenuated (fi gure).78
​


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> this is a link to Zeke Emmanuels paper that discusses his research into healthcare and addresses his "complete lives" theory...


 
I thought your rant was against _established_ 'socialist' healthcare systems, not some fantasy version thought up by a retard?
​


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 5, 2011)

Here's the thing with the whole "death panels" bit.

It's already here.  If you have insurance AND you want the insurance to pay for treatment, you must submit it to the company which then decides if they will cover it or not. There are tests that can not be run until you exhibit certain symptoms, and other non-conclusive tests are first run.  Part of why a lot of folks don't catch their cancers until they hit the untreatable stage. Early detection isn't covered.

Now, if you feel like paying out of pocket, you can have the best care possible, get all the tests you want done. You just have to pay for it.

Wait....it costs a **** load don't it?

Maybe that's because the current system includes bloat, graft, corruption and outright gouging in it?

Explain why a doctor visit costs $30 with insurance, $60 without, but is billed to the ins. company at $200?

The US system is broken, the recent changes break it more, and the only people hurting are the poor.

Medicare/cade can set up mandatory death squads at 60. Won't effect me, I don't use it. Won't effect Bill Gates either. I'm sure he has much better care than what the US Government will parcel out.


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

Do you know who Zeke Emmanuel is?


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

Obama's medicare Czar:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opini...-medicare-czar-faces-life-and-death-decisions

from the article:

Two organizations not known as members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are worried that President Obama's recess-appointed Medicare czar won't allow the government health care program to cover two FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs with proven records of extending patients' lives.
The FDA approved Provenge, which is used to fight prostate cancer, and Avastin, which is used to delay the spread of breast cancer after it appears elsewhere in the body. The problem is that Dr. Donald Berwick, the man Obama recess-appointed as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, appears to be considering denying Medicare reimbursement for patients using Provenge and Avastin.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opini...-faces-life-and-death-decisions#ixzz1OSzmmyPl

Meet Donald Berwick, medicare Czar:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/17/meet_the_new_donald_berwick_107985.html

Berwick is in a position to fulfill his agenda, of transforming our healthcare system into one that resembles the British system, with its rationed care and inferior outcomes, unchecked and accountable to no one. This is a system to which he has professed his love and admiration. He has a dislike of our system of healthcare and disapproves of it. Here are some other "pearls" that have come directly from Dr. Berwick. "I cannot believe that the individual healthcare consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as healthcare. That is for leaders to do." "Please don't put your faith in market forces. It's a popular idea: that Adam Smith's invisible hand would


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 5, 2011)

Given the 40 or so years of information on the benefits of pot for medical use that the government is ignoring simply because the tobacco lobby is threatened, I really don't trust the government in medial matters.  Maybe one of Obama's "Czars" can explain to me where the USC allows them to even exist? Naw.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Do you know who Zeke Emmanuel is?


If you're talking to me: don't know who he is, don't care.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 6, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Older people and the NHS in Britain...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/feb/15/poor-treatment-older-people-nhs


 

Twist it how you like but that's not about 'death panels', it's about the poor treatment of elderly people. The discussion here has been about poor training, the recruitment of nursing staff and what hospitals have to do with to remedy the situation. One of the causes people have for complaint is that nurses are no longer carers. Several years ago we stopped nurse training being on the job, people used to become nurses because they wanted to help and tend people, you needed good intelligence but not necesarily academic qualifications. It was changed from being a hands on training to a university training, you have to have academic qualifications to enter nurse training now. Most of the training is done in the class room and many now feel we have nurses who literally don't know how to nurse and that we are attracting the wrong sort of person for the job which is resulting in the lack of basic nursing care for the elderly in particular who can be very hard to look after.

This isn't a panel of people deciding to kill off older people, this is neglect by nurses who should have been taught better. They may well shine in the classroom but that's not what nursing is about.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Scott is Canadian. They don't have competing insurance companies that bribe government officials and screw poor people like we do. They just have the one that works.


 

When it comes to medical care, I don't belive anyone should be turned away when they are sick or hurt.

But it is true, the ER in the States MUST treat you, and "Stablize" you, but after they are done with that, most times, minor treatment.  They send you on your way, with a bill that puts you into economic slavery.

If I got cancer right now, even though I have a job with insurence, I would most likely have to declare bankrupsy(sp?)...I am 24 years old, that just isn't right.

I don't agree with everything that he does, but I really enjoyed Michael Moore's movie "Sicko"..if you have the oppertunity I insist that you see it...really well put together Documentary film.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Useless link. The author is apparently 10 years old.



see, NOW you are being a jerk, and not helping your case.

dont attack the source, attack the message, IF YOU CAN

IF YOU CANT, then just be quiet.

if you like it, FINE you stay there and take your going bankrupt crapola healthcare

I and the rest of america will continue to stay here and get the best in the world.

There is a reason we dont care what other countries do.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> When it comes to medical care, I don't belive anyone should be turned away when they are sick or hurt.
> 
> But it is true, the ER in the States MUST treat you, and "Stablize" you, but after they are done with that, most times, minor treatment.  They send you on your way, with a bill that puts you into economic slavery.



bull *****

that is simply an uninformed and flat out incorrect statement.

if you cant pay the bill, the hospital will not come and take your **** till it is paid off. Credit agencies in the states dont even let medical bills effect your credit rating.

you pay them off as you can, and they never hound you for it.

and why SHOULDNT you have to pay for it?

NOTHING IS FREE

if you get something that costs nothing, that is usually what it is worth, NOTHING


and BTW: Commenting on how cool you thnk Micheal Moore is? that NEVER helps you get taken seriously


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> see, NOW you are being a jerk, and not helping your case.
> 
> dont attack the source, attack the message, IF YOU CAN
> 
> ...


 
Did you even read it? Apparently the person who wrote it is at 'Dick and Jane' level of education.

As for Canada's 'bankrupt' system: You can either show verifiable proof (which you won't be able to find, and I offer as proof a string of Federal balanced budgets (of which healthcare is included in) up until Harper's stimulus deficit in 2009, or you can shut the **** up about something you know nothing about.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> bull *****
> 
> that is simply an uninformed and flat out incorrect statement.
> 
> ...


 

yes they do hound you for it..my brother had a hernia surgery 9 months ago, and they call him everyday, since he can't make the payments.

and I am not saying it should all be free at all, it should be done by percentage, especially a life saving procedure.  Should Lasik be free, no..should lipo be free, no...but should removing a tumor from someone be free..maybe not completely...but they shouldn't be charged into economic slavery because they got sick.

btw I simply said Micheal Moore stated a few good stats in Sicko...I'm not a big Fan of ALL of his work. So please don't take it out of context...his stuff is generally available to everyone, hence the reference.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

you are out of your depth Scott.

http://www.thecomingdepression.net/...ealthcare-bankrupt-warning-to-usas-obamacare/

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all medically necessary hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.


40 %


http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/vwapj/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf/$FILE/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf

an increasing number of canadian banrupcies are due to medical costs incured when treatments NOT ALLOWED under your crapola healthcare system are used.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth

Dranove and Millenson critically analyzed the data from the 2005 edition of the medical bankruptcy study. They found that medical spending was a contributing factor in only 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies.

lets see: Canada 15% America 17% hmmm...it doesnt seem to help much in avoiding bankrupcies does it........



lookie here.

My second post explained why your system will fail. The demand is limitless. No one ever thinks they are "too healthy" so if there is no monetary reason not to go to the doctor, then people will go everytime they get a funny feeling in thier toe....

eventually , that WILL overwhelm the system

some areas are already spending 40% of thier budgets on medical care.

thats only going to increase.

NOTHING IS FREE


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> yes they do hound you for it..my brother had a hernia surgery 9 months ago, and they call him everyday, since he can't make the payments.




Horse *****

I went to the ER a few years back while i was unemployed. Nothing major, but the bill was several thousand dollars.

never got a single call. Not even any nastygrams.

my mother has been in ICU multiple times, and she is never turned away, and our phone never rings.....


and i dont know, maybe for a friggin OPERATION HE SHOULD FRIGGIN PAY FOR IT


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you are out of your depth Scott.
> 
> http://www.thecomingdepression.net/...ealthcare-bankrupt-warning-to-usas-obamacare/


 
I've read this. It's an editorial, High on opinion but low on proof.

And where I disagree with the author the most is his saying healthcare isn't a right. It is a right, not a privledge.

Will healthcare be a problem? With an aging population and a growing native population, the answer is a definite yes.

But it's nowhere near bankrupt now, as you are claiming.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

i disagree that healthcare is a right

that smacks of lazy entitlement to my mind.

and it isnt feasable, the demand is infinite, but the supply isnt, and when doctors make as much as janitors, you get doctors that are as smart as janitors......the best and brightest go where there is the most reward


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> *i disagree that healthcare is a right*
> 
> *that smacks of lazy entitlement to my mind.*
> 
> and it isnt feasable, the demand is infinite, but the supply isnt, and when doctors make as much as janitors, you get doctors that are as smart as janitors......the best and brightest go where there is the most reward


 
The sign of a truly compassionate society. Survival of the fittest etc etc.
 Sad really, the 'me me society, I'm alright Jack, sod you', that really is a jack way to live.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i disagree that healthcare is a right


 
That's where we will eternally disagree



> that smacks of lazy entitlement to my mind.


We still pay the taxes that support it, so the entitlement arguement is moot



> and it isnt feasable, the demand is infinite, but the supply isnt, and when doctors make as much as janitors, you get doctors that are as smart as janitors......


 Show me a janitor who makes 200k a year after taxes (and that's the rural doctors) 



> the best and brightest go where there is the most reward


 As do those who are more concerned with their bank accounts than actual patient care


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

*Folks, knock off the personal shots. This is your ONLY warning.*


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The sign of a truly compassionate society. Survival of the fittest etc etc.
> Sad really, the 'me me society, I'm alright Jack, sod you', that really is a jack way to live.



you dont have to like it

and you dont have to live here.

please tell us how great the system is in england, i have already heard the horror stories from your neck of the woods...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

Total Health care is not a right. It's a luxury.
Even if it is a right, there are limits.

In the US, you have a right to free speech. Yet, you still can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
You have a right to own a gun, yet said gun isn't free and you still have other restrictions.
Etc.
You have a right to food. But not a right to filet minon.
You have a right to clean water. But not a right to drink Pepsi.
You have a right to wear clothing, but not $1,000 Brooks Bro. suits.
In the same way, you have a right to medical care. If your life is at risk, you are to be treated at any ER, regardless of income. You will receive the care. That is the law. But no one says they have to give it away for free.

Hospital visit charges include over 40% in bloat, waste, inefficiency and fraud.
They get away with it because insurance companies pay for them to use 1 tissue out of a box of 200 and charge $10 for the box, or $5 for an aspirin that costs 5c.

Insurance companies also set how much they pay doctors. The pile on the paperwork and make the doctors wait 3-6 months for payment.  This is why more and more doctors are opting out of the Medicare/cade programs. Too much BS, too much hassle, and too much capping of their incomes.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

hmmm

looking back, i dont see anything i posted that could look like a personal attack, BUT, if anyone took anything that way, i apologize now.

wasnt trying to insult any ONE, just expressing opinions


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

Bob,
I have seen it said that health insurance is the cause of most of the high cost of healthcare.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You have a right to clean water. But not a right to drink Pepsi.


 
Not to be picky, but you actually do have a right to drink Pepsi.  You just don't have the right to drink Pepsi free of charge.  I believe the latter is what you're pointing out.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Not to be picky, but you actually do have a right to drink Pepsi.  You just don't have the right to drink Pepsi free of charge.  I believe the latter is what you're pointing out.


Right.  I also am opposed to tax subsidies for Pepsi.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Bob,
> I have seen it said that health insurance is the cause of most of the high cost of healthcare.


Don't worry. The Obama administration is on it. Costs will drop as soon as everyone is required to buy some, even though no cap was set and rates are skyrocketing now. But the requirement is optional of course.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

it's pepsi


bleh


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you dont have to like it
> 
> and you dont have to live here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

and we have the best of both worlds

people get emergency care when they need it and the best money can buy if they can afford it

i am happy


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Scott T said:


> I've read this. It's an editorial, High on opinion but low on proof.
> 
> And where I disagree with the author the most is his saying healthcare isn't a right. It is a right, not a privledge.
> 
> ...


 
basic healthcare I would have no problem making a right, but advanced treatments, replacements, etc are not a right but a luxury. 
over the counter health care, and things like antibiotics, etc is basic health care in my opinion... cancer treatment, organ replacement, and other forms of advanced medical care is a luxury.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> basic healthcare I would have no problem making a right, but advanced treatments, replacements, etc are not a right but a luxury.
> over the counter health care, and things like antibiotics, etc is basic health care in my opinion... cancer treatment, organ replacement, and other forms of advanced medical care is a luxury.


 Under those criteria, you may as well say living is a luxury. That's what rubs me the wrong way, taking away the right to life.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and we have the best of both worlds
> 
> people get emergency care when they need it and the best money can buy if they can afford it
> 
> i am happy


 

Did you not see what the Doctors in Tez3's post did...they sent her to America, because in America they will operate even if they think it will leave you paralyzed



> That the doctors won't do anything for her mother who has terminal brain cancer, she wants the tumour removed at all costs to her mother, the doctors say they can't remove it without great pain and leaving her mother paralysed and she will die at the much the same time anyway. The doctors want her to have as much quality of life as she can during her remaining time. Her daughter is blaming the NHS for it's lack of action and says she should take her to America where she thinks they will operate. thee's one of your 'horror' stories, doctors caring holistically for their patient and wanting the best for her. It isn't the money btw, my instructor's elderly mother has just been operated on for bowel cancer because the doctors believe it's in her best interest. That was last week, she collapsed at the weekend and was operated on immediately.


 

To me, the NHS has it right..and they were gonna do it for free, if they actually thought it would do anything, and it wasn't just one Doctor, it was several.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

what is so hard about "take care of yourself and quit relying on the government"


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> basic healthcare I would have no problem making a right, but advanced treatments, replacements, etc are not a right but a luxury.
> over the counter health care, and things like antibiotics, etc is basic health care in my opinion... cancer treatment, organ replacement, and other forms of advanced medical care is a luxury.


 
So wait a sec.....OTC meds like tylenol are a basic right, but cancer treatment is something that should be available only to those who can afford it?  In my mind, the former is a luxury, the latter is a life-or-death necessity.  So let the poor die of cancer, but we all deserve pain relief?  

I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, but that prioritization comes across that way.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Under those criteria, you may as well say living is a luxury. That's what rubs me the wrong way, taking away the right to life.


 
nobody is taking away the right to life.
but what is the limit to keeping someone alive?
you can spend tens of millions ir not hundreds of millions of dollars keeping an old person alive, exhausting all measures, and leaving no stones unturned. So where do you call it a stop, where do you draw the line?
lets say that every Canadian over 70 years old decides they want to become as healthy as possible and go in and demand MRIs and Catscans and full blood workups, and find problems and start requiring that those problems be fixed... including many old livers, and kidneys etc to be replaced... and when they start having issues keeping up with healing want all measures taken to keep them alive... the best drugs used.. how long do you think the system would last?
so where do you draw the line?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> So wait a sec.....OTC meds like tylenol are a basic right, but cancer treatment is something that should be available only to those who can afford it? In my mind, the former is a luxury, the latter is a life-or-death necessity. So let the poor die of cancer, but we all deserve pain relief?
> 
> I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, but that prioritization comes across that way.


 
no cancer is something you buy health insurance for, something you do not expect to happen but if it does you want health insurance to cover.
problem is most people look at the cost of coverage and not what is covered.. so instead of paying 700 dollars a month for top insurance to cover these issues they opt for the 89 dollar plan, then get pissed when its not covered and expect to be treated with the top medicines, in the top hospitals, by the top doctors same as the person who opted for the 700 dollar insurance plan.

everyone deserves to live, but who said we have the right to live forever? for a hundred years? for 50 years? for 1 year? where is there a implied right to the most technologically advanced medicine and treatments available for free?
in the bible?
in the constitution?
in your employee handbook?
in your insurance policy?
where?


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> what is so hard about "take care of yourself and quit relying on the government"


 That would be great! If... you cut out the insurance companies who hyper-inflate and overcharge and deal with the doctors directly.

I'd have no problem with it if you were guaranteed value for money under your system. You're not. The highest priority at this time is profit.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> what is so hard about "take care of yourself and quit relying on the government"


 

So your saying that someone who has worked everyday of there adult life. Paying into the system with each and every paycheck they make for over 50 years...

They then get cancer and can't afford treatment.

Do they just not get treated and die?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> no cancer is something you buy health insurance for, something you do not expect to happen but if it does you want health insurance to cover.
> problem is most people look at the cost of coverage and not what is covered.. so instead of paying 700 dollars a month for top insurance to cover these issues they opt for the 89 dollar plan, then get pissed when its not covered and expect to be treated with the top medicines, in the top hospitals, by the top doctors same as the person who opted for the 700 dollar insurance plan.


 
I agree with you insofar as we're talking about a privatized healthcare system, you get what you pay for.  



> everyone deserves to live, but who said we have the right to live forever? for a hundred years? for 50 years? for 1 year? where is there a implied right to the most technologically advanced medicine and treatments available for free?
> in the bible?
> in the constitution?
> in your employee handbook?
> ...


 
Nobody did, but I dont think even the most liberal poster in the thread is saying that all citizens should get access to all healthcare _for free.  _Even in the single-payer systems, taxpayers are still providing for the healthcare insurance through their tax money rather than paying directly to a private insurance company.  So whether it's intended to be one or not, this whole "free ride" argument is really a distractor.  

In most if not all advanced nations, healthcare is dealt with in some form or another.  Privatized or nationalized, by insurance company or government, it's still dealt with.  The key question, I think, is whether there's any reason for the U.S. to maintain its current privatized system instead of incorporating or adopting a public healthcare system.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

they should have gotten insurance


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> they should have gotten insurance


 

What if insurence doesn't cover it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> AMERICANS never go to europe for treatment or canada, just some go to mexico cuz there are no rules down there, the so called doctors there will inject you with shark piss if you ask them too..lol



What?

We Americans go to Canada to get drugs and Lasik eye surgery.

We go to India and Thailand and other countries as 'medical tourists' to get expensive medical procedures at 1/10 the cost of the same surgeries in the USA.  Sometimes US insurance companies even pay for them.  It's outsourcing medicine - they even did a 60 Minutes segment on it recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/21/60minutes/main689998.shtml


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> So your saying that someone who has worked everyday of there adult life. Paying into the system with each and every paycheck they make for over 50 years...
> 
> They then get cancer and can't afford treatment.
> 
> Do they just not get treated and die?


 
what does paying into the system mean?
if they are paying for proper health insurance to cover the medical care then they get treated.

so you are talking about a 68 year old person from your example.. 
you have to be 65 and able to recieve social security to qualify for medicare, so if the person in question worked every day for 50 years of his adult life, and does not have his own insurance, and is an American, and qualifies then yes he will have access to cancer treatment.. medicare is to complicated for me to remember everything about it offhand, so you can look up the specifics for whatever case you want online and decide how much treatment that person will get.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> they should have gotten insurance


 
Pretty sure that Sensei was talking about someone who was paying insurance via an employer.  Thus the 'portion of each paycheck' part.  I could be wrong though.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bu...hy-people-go-bankrupt?mod=bb-checking_savings

Fun article, pretaining to this issue...my favorite part was the TOP reason why people file for Bankrupsy



> *1. Medical Expenses*
> A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured.
> Rare or serious diseases or injuries can easily result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills - bills that can quickly wipe out savings and retirement accounts, college education funds and home equity. Once these have been exhausted, bankruptcy may be the only shelter left, regardless of whether the patient or his or her family was able to apply health coverage to a portion of the bill or not.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Pretty sure that Sensei was talking about someone who was paying insurance via an employer.  Thus the 'portion of each paycheck' part.  I could be wrong though.



then they would be covered


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> nobody is taking away the right to life.
> but what is the limit to keeping someone alive?
> you can spend tens of millions ir not hundreds of millions of dollars keeping an old person alive, exhausting all measures, and leaving no stones unturned. So where do you call it a stop, where do you draw the line?
> lets say that every Canadian over 70 years old decides they want to become as healthy as possible and go in and demand MRIs and Catscans and full blood workups, and find problems and start requiring that those problems be fixed... including many old livers, and kidneys etc to be replaced... and when they start having issues keeping up with healing want all measures taken to keep them alive... the best drugs used.. how long do you think the system would last?
> so where do you draw the line?


 
As it is, the highest priority goes to those the most in need (the sickest, etc.) regardless of age, as it should be. Terminal patients are given what they need up to a point, such as what happened with Shawna and no second kidney transplant. 

If it's hopeless it's not gonna happen, but the patients still get treated for symptoms to try to give them a better quality of life for the time they have left.

As for your hypothetical 70 year olds? They'll kick off before they get through the line-ups.  One problem we do have is the backlog.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I agree with you insofar as we're talking about a privatized healthcare system, you get what you pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
ok so where is the line drawn then? or is there one?
do we pull out all the stops no matter what for all people, or are there lines where we say the cost is to much?
the argument seems to always be generic... that everyone should get treatment no matter what, thats its a right to treatment, but nobody who makes that argument ever really hits on the costs of some these high end medical procedures.. so I ask those that believe its a right, is it a right that should have a limit, or an unlimited right, use every means necessary until the person is gone? and then spend every means possible to bring them back up the point of cryogenically freezing them for a possible future cure or treatment?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Scott T said:


> As it is, the highest priority goes to those the most in need (the sickest, etc.) regardless of age, as it should be. Terminal patients are given what they need up to a point, such as what happened with Shawna and no second kidney transplant.
> 
> If it's hopeless it's not gonna happen, but the patients still get treated for symptoms to try to give them a better quality of life for the time they have left.
> 
> As for your hypothetical 70 year olds? They'll kick off before they get through the line-ups. One problem we do have is the backlog.


 
ok so you are saying the limit is based on priority, so money is not a limitation just who is the closest to dying?

I refuse to use your sister as an example, its classless and will only instigate poor feelings and fighting..

but lets say a man has cancer in his liver... close to dying they give him a transplant... the cancer is found to spread to his kidney so they give him a new kidney... his other kidney get cancer, so they remove it or replace it... now it goes to his heart, so they replace that.... then it goes to eye, so they remove that... then his tongue... do you just keep working on the person and treating them no matter the cost, or at some point do you say ok we have to move on? and if you do move on what is the factor? that he was not savable, or that it costs to much money?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ok so where is the line drawn then? or is there one?
> do we pull out all the stops no matter what for all people, or are there lines where we say the cost is to much?
> the argument seems to always be generic... that everyone should get treatment no matter what, thats its a right to treatment, but nobody who makes that argument ever really hits on the costs of some these high end medical procedures.. so I ask those that believe its a right, is it a right that should have a limit, or an unlimited right, use every means necessary until the person is gone? and then spend every means possible to bring them back up the point of cryogenically freezing them for a possible future cure or treatment?


 
All perfectly valid questions to ask, and honestly, I do not know the exact answers.  I am neither a docotr nor an insurance expert or a legislator.  I know that whatever scheme is adopted will have to address these questions, so hammering it out will take serious deliberation.  We could, of course, look to how Canada or Great Brittain or other advanced Western nations deal with them, and then see if those answers would work for our own nation.  But in short, you're right, I do not know.

I would like to point out, however, that in our current privatized system, the deciding factor in all those questions is "where it's profitable for the insurance company."  Twin Fist seems perfectly fine with that being the measure.  I and many others seem to have a problem with it.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ok so you are saying the limit is based on priority, so money is not a limitation just who is the closest to dying?
> 
> I refuse to use your sister as an example, its classless and will only instigate poor feelings and fighting..
> 
> but lets say a man has cancer in his liver... close to dying they give him a transplant... the cancer is found to spread to his kidney so they give him a new kidney... his other kidney get cancer, so they remove it or replace it... now it goes to his heart, so they replace that.... then it goes to eye, so they remove that... then his tongue... do you just keep working on the person and treating them no matter the cost, or at some point do you say ok we have to move on? and if you do move on what is the factor? that he was not savable, or that it costs to much money?


Now you're dipping into the 'hopeless' area. If the cancer has spread that much, If the chemotherapy didn't stop it, he's terminal. He'll basically be advised to make peace with whatever god he believes in, because while they can stop the pain up to a point, they're not going to be able to stop him from dying.

The most he'll be able to hope for is a breakthrough or remission.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> then they would be covered


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

Just remember, in the US, a person on death row, must be given all possible aid, until the date of his execution comes up.

Also, viagra for prisoners.

What a country.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I would like to point out, however, that in our current privatized system, the deciding factor in all those questions is *"where it's profitable for the insurance company."* Twin Fist seems perfectly fine with that being the measure. I and many others seem to have a problem with it.


 
no its not. It is based on what your insurance policy states.
the key is understanding that and obtaining and keeping what you feel comfortable with


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Just remember, in the US, a person on death row, must be given all possible aid, until the date of his execution comes up.
> 
> Also, viagra for prisoners.
> 
> What a country.


 
we did away with viagra for prisoners in California... actually I think it might be one of the only good things the sperminator, ermm the governator, ermm the terminator... ah crap i mean Arnold actually did for us here.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Now you're dipping into the 'hopeless' area. If the cancer has spread that much, If the chemotherapy didn't stop it, he's terminal. He'll basically be advised to make peace with whatever god he believes in, because while they can stop the pain up to a point, they're not going to be able to stop him from dying.
> 
> The most he'll be able to hope for is a breakthrough or remission.


 
how do you know hes terminal? and can not be treated, or how do you make that assessment after the first transplant? the second? the sixth? what?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ok so you are saying the limit is based on priority, so money is not a limitation just who is the closest to dying?
> 
> I refuse to use your sister as an example, its classless and will only instigate poor feelings and fighting..
> 
> but lets say a man has cancer in his liver... close to dying they give him a transplant... the cancer is found to spread to his kidney so they give him a new kidney... his other kidney get cancer, so they remove it or replace it... now it goes to his heart, so they replace that.... then it goes to eye, so they remove that... then his tongue... do you just keep working on the person and treating them no matter the cost, or at some point do you say ok we have to move on? and if you do move on what is the factor? that he was not savable, or that it costs to much money?


 

In this case it's not about money, it's about quality of life. Many patients on chemo decide to stop treatment and die a dignified death after putting their affairs in orde ras they realise the pain and suffering they are going through for those few extra days simply isn't worth it and they would like to spend peaceful days with their loved ones before they die.

 I think this is less about money than people think, it's about people thinking they should live forever, its tied up with the whole loooking younger, Botox,face lift thing. We simply can't accept that it's natural to grow old and to die. I think we need to take a few steps back as a society and look at the things we value and a peaceful death shouold be one of those things as should be accepting of death when it's your time. I'm not saying we should just lay down and die but we need to accept that the medical profession however much money we have cannot keep us alive forever. Talking about death is the big taboo these days, we can discuss our sex lives in public with absolutely no qualms but talk about death and dying and you are shut up very quickly. Stop looking at the money and start realising that we will all die so how do we make the best of what time we have? We cannot stay alive at any price, the cost is actually far greater than money.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> how do you know hes terminal? and can not be treated, or how do you make that assessment after the first transplant? the second? the sixth? what?


Gotta draw a line somewhere. And before you try to claim this as a victory of some sort I've already said -- in my example -- that lines are drawn.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> In this case it's not about money, it's about quality of life. Many patients on chemo decide to stop treatment and die a dignified death after putting their affairs in orde ras they realise the pain and suffering they are going through for those few extra days simply isn't worth it and they would like to spend peaceful days with their loved ones before they die.
> 
> I think this is less about money than people think, it's about people thinking they should live forever, its tied up with the whole loooking younger, Botox,face lift thing. We simply can't accept that it's natural to grow old and to die. I think we need to take a few steps back as a society and look at the things we value and a peaceful death shouold be one of those things as should be accepting of death when it's your time. I'm not saying we should just lay down and die but we need to accept that the medical profession however much money we have cannot keep us alive forever. Talking about death is the big taboo these days, we can discuss our sex lives in public with absolutely no qualms but talk about death and dying and you are shut up very quickly. Stop looking at the money and start realising that we will all die so how do we make the best of what time we have? We cannot stay alive at any price, the cost is actually far greater than money.


 
great post Tez


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ...the sperminator...


 
I hadn't heard this one yet, thanks for it!  :rofl:


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Gotta draw a line somewhere. And before you try to claim this as a victory of some sort I've already said -- in my example -- that lines are drawn.


 
ok so you agree that unlimited health care is not a right.

so then the next question to answer is what is the limit?

is it what the doctor feels is appropriate?
is it what the patient feels is appropriate?
is it what the insurance feels is appropriate based on coverage?
is it what society feels is appropriate?
is it based on need or desire?
is it based on age?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I hadn't heard this one yet, thanks for it! :rofl:


 
its not mine, someone on the radio coined it, I damn near spit  gatorade all over my car when i heard it coming home from training one night.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ok so you agree that unlimited health care is not a right.
> 
> so then the next question to answer is what is the limit?
> 
> ...


In my_ opinion _the final arbiter should be doctor, as he/she's most versed in the practicality.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Scott T said:


> In my_ opinion _the final arbiter should be doctor, as he/she's most versed in the practicality.


 
wow thats scary 
I do not want anyone but me making decisions for me.
I want the most knowledgable person giving me advice, but I want the final say to be mine. Thats why I pay for the best insurance I can, so I can make the choice..
I am really surprised that anyone would choose anyone else but themselves to be honest.

I prefer to go to a barber and ask for a haircut I want, not what he thinks I should have
I also prefer to go to a store and buy the clothes I like, not what the clerk thinks I should have.
I can go on and on...
to hear someone say anyone but themselves just seems scary as hell to me..


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> wow thats scary
> I do not want anyone but me making decisions for me.
> I want the most knowledgable person giving me advice, but I want the final say to be mine. Thats why I pay for the best insurance I can, so I can make the choice..
> I am really surprised that anyone would choose anyone else but themselves to be honest.
> ...


I was originally going to put doctor and patient together, but the patient is fueled by one desire: to live. 

A great desire. Personally, I love that desire.

But how many patients know their internal organs a well as they know their hair.

Especially in our TV-infested world where they see a character on House with the same problem they have and demand to be treated by the same ******** Hollywood cure that is as far from reality as Hollywood can get.

A competent doctor knows a patient's body a hell of a lot better than the patient does, generally speaking, and has a better knowkedge of what'll work and what won't.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Scott T said:


> I was originally going to put doctor and patient together, but the patient is fueled by one desire: to live.
> 
> A great desire. Personally, I love that desire.
> 
> ...


 
there are always at least two choices to make, and most often there are many to choose from.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> there are always at least two choices to make, and most often there are many to choose from.


And who'd have a better idea of what the best choices would be, a doctor or a construction worker?

Besides, A doctor usually makes the final choice anyway. When they advise you of your options, they usually make their first choice sound a little bit better to the patient.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> wow thats scary
> I do not want anyone but me making decisions for me.



It's not that way already.  Do you want the newest and latest experimental treatment still in clinical trials?  That decision isn't yours.  Have you already rejected a heart and you want to try three more?  Too bad, you'll never get another heart again, unless _maybe _you are a child.  You want to try marijuana to ease your terminal pain?  Not your choice in most states either.  You don't even get to decide if you want to take an antibiotic for your infection or opioids for your pain.  You only have the right of refusal, if you want almost any medical treatment other than OTC meds, someone else will be making that decision for you.

As it is now, patients only get heroic cost intervention until their insurance or their bank account holds out.  After that, no more heroic interventions.  Ever notice the hard cost limits that most insurance policies put into place to limit this sort of thing?  Look hard, it's probably there.  One policy I had for a little while (not my choice) had a _lifetime _maximum of $500,000.  You could go through that in a few days of heroic intervention.  After that, I would be left to die.

The system already is how you don't want it to be.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> It's not that way already. Do you want the newest and latest experimental treatment still in clinical trials? That decision isn't yours. Have you already rejected a heart and you want to try three more? Too bad, you'll never get another heart again, unless _maybe _you are a child. You want to try marijuana to ease your terminal pain? Not your choice in most states either. You don't even get to decide if you want to take an antibiotic for your infection or opioids for your pain. You only have the right of refusal, if you want almost any medical treatment other than OTC meds, someone else will be making that decision for you.
> 
> As it is now, patients only get heroic cost intervention until their insurance or their bank account holds out. After that, no more heroic interventions. Ever notice the hard cost limits that most insurance policies put into place to limit this sort of thing? Look hard, it's probably there. One policy I had for a little while (not my choice) had a _lifetime _maximum of $500,000. You could go through that in a few days of heroic intervention. After that, I would be left to die.
> 
> The system already is how you don't want it to be.


 
speak for your own crappy insurance. I have excercised many options on our families health care. I was even told by my doctor that a certain "lump" on my back was not a problem, I exercised the option to cancel her suggestion and had her remove it and test it. It came up as no problem, and I did not have to pay a dime other then my normal copay. So obviously some insurances have more choices and options then you would have people believe. I guess you just have to choose to exercise them


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

Insurance plans are not created equal in the US.
Like I said, Bill Gates doesn't have to worry about what Medicaid limits.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> speak for your own crappy insurance. I have excercised many options on our families health care. I was even told by my doctor that a certain "lump" on my back was not a problem, I exercised the option to cancel her suggestion and had her remove it and test it. It came up as no problem,* and I did not have to pay a dime other then my normal copay*. So obviously some insurances have more choices and options then you would have people believe. I guess you just have to choose to exercise them


 Well, that and your insurance premiums. Can't forget about them.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Well, that and your insurance premiums. Can't forget about them.


 
thats kind of been my point all along thanks


----------

