The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
That does not happen in our system. But if you have the means the US is an option that many choose.mcgruff10 said:
So if you make a lot you can skip wait lines (in an obvious non emergency situation) and it isn't a big deal? So let's say my eye appoint is next Tuesda,y I could possibly be bumped to the following week if someone with more money doesn't want to wait? Again, seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
FFS. No. Are you not paying attention to what I'm saying? When it actually matters, medically, NOBODY waits longer than anyone else. Skipping wait times for those who can afford it is never for care that is urgent. So yeah, people with money can pay through the nose if they are impatient, but that is not that big a deal in the scheme of things, considering what is available to EVERYONE, no matter how poor they may be. I did not claim it is a perfect system, ever. But I am saying it is a FAR better system than the USA's.mcgruff10 said:
So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.
It's also important to remember we do not have true universal health care. If you do not have benefits from work...then it's a big FU from the government...so in that sense, those with benefits and money do get better healthcare, much better...and our government has done fuck all to even the playing field...Give Peas A Chance…0 -
Meltdown99 said:
That does not happen in our system. But if you have the means the US is an option that many choose.mcgruff10 said:
So if you make a lot you can skip wait lines (in an obvious non emergency situation) and it isn't a big deal? So let's say my eye appoint is next Tuesda,y I could possibly be bumped to the following week if someone with more money doesn't want to wait? Again, seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
FFS. No. Are you not paying attention to what I'm saying? When it actually matters, medically, NOBODY waits longer than anyone else. Skipping wait times for those who can afford it is never for care that is urgent. So yeah, people with money can pay through the nose if they are impatient, but that is not that big a deal in the scheme of things, considering what is available to EVERYONE, no matter how poor they may be. I did not claim it is a perfect system, ever. But I am saying it is a FAR better system than the USA's.mcgruff10 said:
So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.
It's also important to remember we do not have true universal health care. If you do not have benefits from work...then it's a big FU from the government...so in that sense, those with benefits and money do get better healthcare, much better...and our government has done fuck all to even the playing field...
It's important to clarify what you mean by this. "Benefits from work" would typically cover part or all of things like vision care, dental care, and allied health professionals like physio, massage, etc. The actual doctor's visits, hospital stays, etc, are covered for everybody regardless of employment status. It does look like we're moving in the direction of a federal drug benefits plan, so there's that.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Is this a perk from work or do you have to pay a fee per paycheck or month?oftenreading said:Meltdown99 said:
That does not happen in our system. But if you have the means the US is an option that many choose.mcgruff10 said:
So if you make a lot you can skip wait lines (in an obvious non emergency situation) and it isn't a big deal? So let's say my eye appoint is next Tuesda,y I could possibly be bumped to the following week if someone with more money doesn't want to wait? Again, seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
FFS. No. Are you not paying attention to what I'm saying? When it actually matters, medically, NOBODY waits longer than anyone else. Skipping wait times for those who can afford it is never for care that is urgent. So yeah, people with money can pay through the nose if they are impatient, but that is not that big a deal in the scheme of things, considering what is available to EVERYONE, no matter how poor they may be. I did not claim it is a perfect system, ever. But I am saying it is a FAR better system than the USA's.mcgruff10 said:
So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.
It's also important to remember we do not have true universal health care. If you do not have benefits from work...then it's a big FU from the government...so in that sense, those with benefits and money do get better healthcare, much better...and our government has done fuck all to even the playing field...
It's important to clarify what you mean by this. "Benefits from work" would typically cover part or all of things like vision care, dental care, and allied health professionals like physio, massage, etc. The actual doctor's visits, hospital stays, etc, are covered for everybody regardless of employment status. It does look like we're moving in the direction of a federal drug benefits plan, so there's that.0 -
Pay a fee per paycheck, a co-op plan. Some employers can pay a percentage of it, all of it, or none of it.mrussel1 said:
Is this a perk from work or do you have to pay a fee per paycheck or month?oftenreading said:Meltdown99 said:
That does not happen in our system. But if you have the means the US is an option that many choose.mcgruff10 said:
So if you make a lot you can skip wait lines (in an obvious non emergency situation) and it isn't a big deal? So let's say my eye appoint is next Tuesda,y I could possibly be bumped to the following week if someone with more money doesn't want to wait? Again, seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
FFS. No. Are you not paying attention to what I'm saying? When it actually matters, medically, NOBODY waits longer than anyone else. Skipping wait times for those who can afford it is never for care that is urgent. So yeah, people with money can pay through the nose if they are impatient, but that is not that big a deal in the scheme of things, considering what is available to EVERYONE, no matter how poor they may be. I did not claim it is a perfect system, ever. But I am saying it is a FAR better system than the USA's.mcgruff10 said:
So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.
It's also important to remember we do not have true universal health care. If you do not have benefits from work...then it's a big FU from the government...so in that sense, those with benefits and money do get better healthcare, much better...and our government has done fuck all to even the playing field...
It's important to clarify what you mean by this. "Benefits from work" would typically cover part or all of things like vision care, dental care, and allied health professionals like physio, massage, etc. The actual doctor's visits, hospital stays, etc, are covered for everybody regardless of employment status. It does look like we're moving in the direction of a federal drug benefits plan, so there's that.
It's private insurance.Post edited by dignin on0 -
0
-
Mine is a work benefit, 80% employer paid (comes to about $11/month for me).mrussel1 said:
Is this a perk from work or do you have to pay a fee per paycheck or month?oftenreading said:Meltdown99 said:
That does not happen in our system. But if you have the means the US is an option that many choose.mcgruff10 said:
So if you make a lot you can skip wait lines (in an obvious non emergency situation) and it isn't a big deal? So let's say my eye appoint is next Tuesda,y I could possibly be bumped to the following week if someone with more money doesn't want to wait? Again, seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
FFS. No. Are you not paying attention to what I'm saying? When it actually matters, medically, NOBODY waits longer than anyone else. Skipping wait times for those who can afford it is never for care that is urgent. So yeah, people with money can pay through the nose if they are impatient, but that is not that big a deal in the scheme of things, considering what is available to EVERYONE, no matter how poor they may be. I did not claim it is a perfect system, ever. But I am saying it is a FAR better system than the USA's.mcgruff10 said:
So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.
It's also important to remember we do not have true universal health care. If you do not have benefits from work...then it's a big FU from the government...so in that sense, those with benefits and money do get better healthcare, much better...and our government has done fuck all to even the playing field...
It's important to clarify what you mean by this. "Benefits from work" would typically cover part or all of things like vision care, dental care, and allied health professionals like physio, massage, etc. The actual doctor's visits, hospital stays, etc, are covered for everybody regardless of employment status. It does look like we're moving in the direction of a federal drug benefits plan, so there's that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Are there hospitals like that in the United States?PJ_Soul said:
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
There are hospitals in the United States that won't perform treatments for people without insurance or money, yes. Are you saying that isn't true?mcgruff10 said:
Are there hospitals like that in the United States?PJ_Soul said:
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Great post. I wont even go to the doctor unless it’s life or death because of this, I have employee coverage and I basically have it just in case something major happens, but I’d still be screwed financially if something major happens. I have a pretty high tolerance for pain, thank goodness. I suffered a bad ankle injury about 6 yrs. ago, I’m pretty sure it required some sort of surgery, but nope, I just limped around for 4 yrs and it finally started feeling better and now it just sort of hurts.
The poor absolutely benefited from Obamacare. I knew people who finally were able to get coverage once Obamacare was enacted. So it definitely worked for them But the bolded part of your post is where I think critical mass needs to be for candidates talking to constituents. I know that Mace has talked about his coverage in the Healthcare thread and I have talked at length about it as well in that thread. Regular people like me may have coverage, but all disposable income goes toward covering the premiums. That leaves nothing for co-pays and deductibles. So the standard first step before deciding to seek medical treatment is to check the current balance on the bank account. That's the first step when deciding what course of treatment to take as well. Can I survive this without having to go see a doctor? Can Ibuprofen at least mask the symptoms and make things bearable until next payday? I had a procedure last year at an in-network hospital. I of course still had a hefty portion of the bill to pay due to co-pay. Luckily they let me make payments over the course of the year. But I goddamned knew that I wasn't going to go to the doctor for the next year until the previous procedure was paid off. It also costs me a $60 office visit co-pay just to walk in the door. So I recently had an issue, paid my $60, spent a couple of minutes with the doctor and got a referral to a specialist. Went to the specialist and paid my $60 office visit co-pay. Then got to pay my co-pay for x-rays, lab tests, meds, etc... Then back the next week for a follow-up and another $60. And again two weeks after that. So my little issue cost me $240 just in office visit co-pays. $240 just to see the doctor for one issue. Now I decide whether to spend the $60 to say hi to my Dr. or perhaps use that money for some Costco sized bottles of Ibuprofen and call it good. So far the latter is working out for me this year. Since I'd prefer not to bankrupt my family, I will likely ignore any issues that have the potential to get into 5 or 6 figure medical bills. US healthcare is bullshit. We spend twice per capita of any other western industrialized nation, we have some of the lowest mortality rates and outcomes of those same nations. To say universal healthcare wouldn't work here is to say we are too dumb to understand what the rest of the modern industrialized western democracies understand. If we took premiums that we pay, that employers pay, and that the government is currently paying and apply that to universal healthcare in the form of taxes, we'd probably be ahead. And we'd have no more co-pays or financial decisions to make about whether to seek treatment. But fuck it. The middle class can fend for themselves rather than risk "socialism".Post edited by Hi! onDetroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
0 -
Which hospitals? I m guessing non emergency situations.PJ_Soul said:
There are hospitals in the United States that won't perform treatments for people without insurance or money, yes. Are you saying that isn't true?mcgruff10 said:
Are there hospitals like that in the United States?PJ_Soul said:
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
mcgruff10 said:
Which hospitals? I m guessing non emergency situations.PJ_Soul said:
There are hospitals in the United States that won't perform treatments for people without insurance or money, yes. Are you saying that isn't true?mcgruff10 said:
Are there hospitals like that in the United States?PJ_Soul said:
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.There are over 1000 private hospitals in America, so I'm not going to list them.Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Interesting. I don’t blame them at all.PJ_Soul said:
There are over 1000 private hospitals in America, so I'm not going to list them.mcgruff10 said:
Which hospitals? I m guessing non emergency situations.PJ_Soul said:
There are hospitals in the United States that won't perform treatments for people without insurance or money, yes. Are you saying that isn't true?mcgruff10 said:
Are there hospitals like that in the United States?PJ_Soul said:
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
mcgruff10 said:
Interesting. I don’t blame them at all.PJ_Soul said:
There are over 1000 private hospitals in America, so I'm not going to list them.mcgruff10 said:
Which hospitals? I m guessing non emergency situations.PJ_Soul said:
There are hospitals in the United States that won't perform treatments for people without insurance or money, yes. Are you saying that isn't true?mcgruff10 said:
Are there hospitals like that in the United States?PJ_Soul said:
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.You seem not to give any kind of shit about how much people are suffering and having their lives ruined because of the US healthcare system. It's bizarre.Also, I think you were thinking about basic emergency care situations when you asked that question, so people, whoever they are, don't die on the ER floor? Sure, they get help then and there. Do you not wonder what happens after that, when they are sent the bill, or when they are told they need extensive treatment, and need to stay in the hospital for months or something, or when they need to buy $100,000 worth of drugs to stay alive long term? Are you aware of how terrible that situation becomes for people without good insurance or money, or of how many people die because they can't afford treatment?
And there is the other part of it - the unreal amount of WORK it takes for people to access healthcare, even with insurance. It's worse than doing your taxes FFS. It is insane. I can't believe you all put up with that shit.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Yeah. Lets keep arguing for a healthcare system where the main focus is $$$ and which (more) succesful democracies wouldnt go near with a ten feet pole.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
No shit. I don't fucking get it. I truly do not understand how anyone with conscience can possibly defend such a system. One where PROFIT is the main goal. It is just insane. That is why I resort to assuming it must be some form of brainwashing. Nothing else makes sense to me. I know Americans don't think they are brainwashed - nobody thinks they're brainwashed when they are, obviously. If they knew it, they wouldn't be brainwashed, lol.Spiritual_Chaos said:Yeah. Lets keep arguing for a healthcare system where the main focus is $$$ and which (more) succesful democracies wouldnt go near with a ten feet pole.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Its not like ambulances have never been re-routed to the "Sisters of Mercy" hospital that primarily serves the poor and indigent because the paitent didn't have health insurance and was turned away from the closer "high end" hospital and died or had their health adversely affected. That's never happened in the greatest country in the world.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
That's one hell of a conclusion based on what I said. Why should a private hospital have to accept everyone when there are plenty of public hospitals?PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
Interesting. I don’t blame them at all.PJ_Soul said:
There are over 1000 private hospitals in America, so I'm not going to list them.mcgruff10 said:
Which hospitals? I m guessing non emergency situations.PJ_Soul said:
There are hospitals in the United States that won't perform treatments for people without insurance or money, yes. Are you saying that isn't true?mcgruff10 said:
Are there hospitals like that in the United States?PJ_Soul said:
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.You seem not to give any kind of shit about how much people are suffering and having their lives ruined because of the US healthcare system. It's bizarre.Also, I think you were thinking about basic emergency care situations when you asked that question, so people, whoever they are, don't die on the ER floor? Sure, they get help then and there. Do you not wonder what happens after that, when they are sent the bill, or when they are told they need extensive treatment, and need to stay in the hospital for months or something, or when they need to buy $100,000 worth of drugs to stay alive long term? Are you aware of how terrible that situation becomes for people without good insurance or money, or of how many people die because they can't afford treatment?
And there is the other part of it - the unreal amount of WORK it takes for people to access healthcare, even with insurance. It's worse than doing your taxes FFS. It is insane. I can't believe you all put up with that shit.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
I can't figure out what point you're trying to make. Do you have one?mcgruff10 said:
That's one hell of a conclusion based on what I said. Why should a private hospital have to accept everyone when there are plenty of public hospitals?PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
Interesting. I don’t blame them at all.PJ_Soul said:
There are over 1000 private hospitals in America, so I'm not going to list them.mcgruff10 said:
Which hospitals? I m guessing non emergency situations.PJ_Soul said:
There are hospitals in the United States that won't perform treatments for people without insurance or money, yes. Are you saying that isn't true?mcgruff10 said:
Are there hospitals like that in the United States?PJ_Soul said:
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.You seem not to give any kind of shit about how much people are suffering and having their lives ruined because of the US healthcare system. It's bizarre.Also, I think you were thinking about basic emergency care situations when you asked that question, so people, whoever they are, don't die on the ER floor? Sure, they get help then and there. Do you not wonder what happens after that, when they are sent the bill, or when they are told they need extensive treatment, and need to stay in the hospital for months or something, or when they need to buy $100,000 worth of drugs to stay alive long term? Are you aware of how terrible that situation becomes for people without good insurance or money, or of how many people die because they can't afford treatment?
And there is the other part of it - the unreal amount of WORK it takes for people to access healthcare, even with insurance. It's worse than doing your taxes FFS. It is insane. I can't believe you all put up with that shit.0 -
mcgruff10 said:
That's one hell of a conclusion based on what I said. Why should a private hospital have to accept everyone when there are plenty of public hospitals?PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
Interesting. I don’t blame them at all.PJ_Soul said:
There are over 1000 private hospitals in America, so I'm not going to list them.mcgruff10 said:
Which hospitals? I m guessing non emergency situations.PJ_Soul said:
There are hospitals in the United States that won't perform treatments for people without insurance or money, yes. Are you saying that isn't true?mcgruff10 said:
Are there hospitals like that in the United States?PJ_Soul said:
I am aware, but you are aware that that is not the context I meant that term in. As I clearly said, I was talking about a system that separates the rich from the poor in the healthcare system in a very distinct way, i.e. the poor get no, little, or poor heathcare, while the rich get all the best healthcare. That is obviously not even close to the case in Canada. All primary care is in fact 1-tier. No rich person is getting better care in hospitals, for example. All they can do is pay to get scans and certain non-urgent procedures done, like knee replacements. There aren't any private hospitals where the rich can pay to save their and their kids' lives while the poor die. I know you know that's what I meant.Meltdown99 said:
If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.PJ_Soul said:
No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.Meltdown99 said:
If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...mrussel1 said:
Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.PJ_Soul said:
Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.mrussel1 said:
I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.PJ_Soul said:
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:.It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.
And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.You seem not to give any kind of shit about how much people are suffering and having their lives ruined because of the US healthcare system. It's bizarre.Also, I think you were thinking about basic emergency care situations when you asked that question, so people, whoever they are, don't die on the ER floor? Sure, they get help then and there. Do you not wonder what happens after that, when they are sent the bill, or when they are told they need extensive treatment, and need to stay in the hospital for months or something, or when they need to buy $100,000 worth of drugs to stay alive long term? Are you aware of how terrible that situation becomes for people without good insurance or money, or of how many people die because they can't afford treatment?
And there is the other part of it - the unreal amount of WORK it takes for people to access healthcare, even with insurance. It's worse than doing your taxes FFS. It is insane. I can't believe you all put up with that shit.I wasn't talking about only public hospitals. All that happens in all hospitals. Nobody just gets free ongoing healthcare in the US. But why should over 1000 private hospitals be allowed to suck up all that money and buy all those desperately needed doctors??? The private hospital system is a massive drain on the healthcare system for the majority of Americans who can't afford them. And then of course there is the problem of people just not seeing doctors at all because they can't afford to go in in the first place, causing them not to be diagnosed until it's way too late.But seriously, why are you ignoring or avoiding the main issues with this topic? I don't understand. You seem to refuse to accept all the problems and misery that the US healthcare system presents. Is it willful ignorance?Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help