The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said: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.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.
0 -
What happens if you receive emergency care and you don't have insurance?mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said: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.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.0 -
Are you sure the "private" one treats everyone, regardless, in an emergency?mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said: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.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/17/ambulance-diversion-deadly-consequences/2601373002/
Not the hospital you reference but an example of the widespread issue of private versus public and access to care. even in emergency situations.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;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
As I've pointed out, our health issue is related to the people above the Medicaid line, and the associated cost of of treatment for those people. They have access to health through Obamacare or private, but it's the cost that needs to be fixed. It's too large of a percentage of disposable income for too many middle class.0
-
It's fucking ridiculous. Unreal amount of work and out of pocket cost it takes to access healthcare. The patient needs to research up front what their out-of-pocket might be. They need to make sure that their doctor is in-network, the hospital performing the work is in-network, and any ancillary services provided are in-network. But even with research there are always surprises. I had my surgery with an in-network surgeon at an in-network hospital but still got a surprise bill from an out-of-network radiologist who did scans while I was there. How was I supposed to know that the in-network hospital would outsource the scans to an out-of-network radiologist? I guess I didn't ask enough specific questions. It sucks that I'm supposed to know all of the questions to ask. So separate from the big surgery bill that I was making payments on I got a different surprise bill for the radiology work. Yay.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:Interesting. I don’t blame them at all.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.
But I guess most Americans would rather be dead than potentially be labeled "socialists" for wanting a more universal solution to healthcare. We have socialized education, emergency services, infrastructure, etc... provided in this country but gods forbid we take a basic human service more necessary and fundamental than education and talk about making it accessible for everyone."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
They have been continioned to do so. And have never thought about it growing up with all the ”USA USA USA” from all directions - so the shell around them has grown too thick now to break free from and look back clearly.PJ_Soul said:
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.
Case in point - even the ”objective” news hosts go all all in on ”the greatest country in the world” myth. Its soviet union but the idol to worship is ”capitalism” and ”patrotism”.
Going from ”WE ARE SPECIAL!” to ”man, What a cruel lie all of this was” isnt an easy thing in a cult.
Not everyone has the power to break free like ”most charming news person of 2019” Chris Matthews.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said: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.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.Haha, are there actually hospitals that are publicly trades?!?! I don't think so, but since you thought of that, it makes me wonder!Yes, I already acknowledged that ERs don't just let people die on their floor without saving them. That is why I brought up what happens after that.Of course the is a two-tiered system for quality of care - quality of care included access. Obviously if poor people can't access care, then the quality of their healthcare ain't so great.
And again, what about all the people who just don't see a doctor, period, because they can't afford to?? Seriously, why are you trying to defend the system? Don't you want a better system?? 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 -
According to the article, the diversion is because of overcrowding, understaffing, resources. I didn't see anything about uninsured when skimming the article.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you sure the "private" one treats everyone, regardless, in an emergency?mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said: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.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/17/ambulance-diversion-deadly-consequences/2601373002/
Not the hospital you reference but an example of the widespread issue of private versus public and access to care. even in emergency situations.0 -
That's a band-aid fix. Just as Obamacare was.mrussel1 said:As I've pointed out, our health issue is related to the people above the Medicaid line, and the associated cost of of treatment for those people. They have access to health through Obamacare or private, but it's the cost that needs to be fixed. It's too large of a percentage of disposable income for too many middle class.0 -
Poor people have healthcare. That's what Medicare is. But fine, if you are saying no care means two tier. I interpreted that as "inferior hospitals" for poor people.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said: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.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.Haha, are there actually hospitals that are publicly trades?!?! I don't think so, but since you thought of that, it makes me wonder!Yes, I already acknowledged that ERs don't just let people die on their floor without saving them. That is why I brought up what happens after that.Of course the is a two-tiered system for quality of care - quality of care included access. Obviously if poor people can't access care, then the quality of their healthcare ain't so great.0 -
Yup.jeffbr said:
Bankruptcy.dignin said:What happens if you receive emergency care and you don't have insurance?
That doesn't happen here.
My family has had a particularly bad string of luck when it comes to our health these past three years. My oldest son diagnosed as deaf from a very rare hard to diagnose condition, youngest son with a rare condition that in worst case scenario would require a liver transplant (thankfully he seems fine) but is at high risk, my father had a brain aneurysm, I broke me heel (never broke a bone in my life but in tip top shape now) and a few unexpected trips to the ER because kids gonna be kids.
Never once did I have to worry about how this was going to hurt me financially or if my kids could even get insurance when they were older because of "pre-existing conditions". Everything else has been stressful enough as it is, I couldn't imagine having to worry about bankrupting my family too.
For profit healthcare is complete dogshit. And I'm sorry but if anyone says "hey, it works well enough for me so I'm not too worried about anyone else" they sound like a shortsighted selfish prick.
0 -
I just don’t get this argument, poor people in fact have Medicare. if a hospital or doctor doesn’t take your insurance you just don’t go there. If a hospital doesn’t take people because they don’t have insurance then go somewhere else.mrussel1 said:
Poor people have healthcare. That's what Medicare is. But fine, if you are saying no care means two tier. I interpreted that as "inferior hospitals" for poor people.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said: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.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.Haha, are there actually hospitals that are publicly trades?!?! I don't think so, but since you thought of that, it makes me wonder!Yes, I already acknowledged that ERs don't just let people die on their floor without saving them. That is why I brought up what happens after that.Of course the is a two-tiered system for quality of care - quality of care included access. Obviously if poor people can't access care, then the quality of their healthcare ain't so great.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
One hundred percent.dignin said:
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I meant to say Medicaid, not Medicare.mcgruff10 saidI just don’t get this argument, poor people in fact have Medicare. if a hospital or doctor doesn’t take your insurance you just don’t go there. If a hospital doesn’t take people because they don’t have insurance then go somewhere else.
I wouldn't say hospital shopping is practical though. Although im not sure how prevalent it is that hospitals don't take federal insurance. I haven't personally heard this was a problem here.0 -
I don't get it. You keep acting like you think everyone gets the healthcare they need in the US. Why??mcgruff10 said:
I just don’t get this argument, poor people in fact have Medicare. if a hospital or doctor doesn’t take your insurance you just don’t go there. If a hospital doesn’t take people because they don’t have insurance then go somewhere else.mrussel1 said:
Poor people have healthcare. That's what Medicare is. But fine, if you are saying no care means two tier. I interpreted that as "inferior hospitals" for poor people.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:There are over 1000 private hospitals in America, so I'm not going to list them.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.Haha, are there actually hospitals that are publicly trades?!?! I don't think so, but since you thought of that, it makes me wonder!Yes, I already acknowledged that ERs don't just let people die on their floor without saving them. That is why I brought up what happens after that.Of course the is a two-tiered system for quality of care - quality of care included access. Obviously if poor people can't access care, then the quality of their healthcare ain't so great.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Me either. I also always get the two confused. I ve never heard of a hospital denying people because they don’t have insurance but like I said, I am not too versed in this topic.mrussel1 said:
I meant to say Medicaid, not Medicare.mcgruff10 saidI just don’t get this argument, poor people in fact have Medicare. if a hospital or doctor doesn’t take your insurance you just don’t go there. If a hospital doesn’t take people because they don’t have insurance then go somewhere else.
I wouldn't say hospital shopping is practical though. Although im not sure how prevalent it is that hospitals don't take federal insurance. I haven't personally heard this was a problem here.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Let's not throw stones in glass houses:PJ_Soul said:
I don't get it. You keep acting like you think everyone gets the healthcare they need in the US. Why??mcgruff10 said:
I just don’t get this argument, poor people in fact have Medicare. if a hospital or doctor doesn’t take your insurance you just don’t go there. If a hospital doesn’t take people because they don’t have insurance then go somewhere else.mrussel1 said:
Poor people have healthcare. That's what Medicare is. But fine, if you are saying no care means two tier. I interpreted that as "inferior hospitals" for poor people.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:There are over 1000 private hospitals in America, so I'm not going to list them.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.Haha, are there actually hospitals that are publicly trades?!?! I don't think so, but since you thought of that, it makes me wonder!Yes, I already acknowledged that ERs don't just let people die on their floor without saving them. That is why I brought up what happens after that.Of course the is a two-tiered system for quality of care - quality of care included access. Obviously if poor people can't access care, then the quality of their healthcare ain't so great.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/23/canadas-health-care-system-is-a-point-of-national-pride-but-a-study-shows-it-might-be-stalled/?utm_term=.07ee5efc6615
But its authors note that these glowing statistics conceal abysmal health outcomes for Canada’s 1.7 million indigenous people, who face disproportionately higher rates of suicide, infant mortality and chronic disease. Canada’s Inuit people have a life expectancy that is as much as 15 years shorter than non-indigenous Canadians, and tuberculosis rates that are 270 times higher than those of the Canadian-born, non-indigenous population.In an introductory commentary, editors of the Lancet write that these health inequities “suggest a developing world within Canada’s borders.”
The study is also critical of Canada’s long wait times for nonemergency, specialty procedures like knee and hip replacements and non-urgent advanced imaging — higher than those in America — describing them as a “lightning rod issue” that could undermine support for Medicare among Canadians.
Canada’s status as the only country in the developed world with universal health-care that does not cover prescription drugs is panned, too. In almost one-quarter of Canadian households, someone is not taking medications because of an inability to pay, according to the Angus Reid Institute, a polling organization.
“When we compare ourselves to the United States, we feel really great,” Martin said. “But when it comes to prescription drugs, we are in the exact same situation as our American colleagues, when we write out prescriptions and our patients don’t know how they are going to pay for them.”
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Maybe thats hard to do when you're suffering a stroke or a heart attack or been in a nasty car accident?mcgruff10 said:
I just don’t get this argument, poor people in fact have Medicare. if a hospital or doctor doesn’t take your insurance you just don’t go there. If a hospital doesn’t take people because they don’t have insurance then go somewhere else.mrussel1 said:
Poor people have healthcare. That's what Medicare is. But fine, if you are saying no care means two tier. I interpreted that as "inferior hospitals" for poor people.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said: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.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.Haha, are there actually hospitals that are publicly trades?!?! I don't think so, but since you thought of that, it makes me wonder!Yes, I already acknowledged that ERs don't just let people die on their floor without saving them. That is why I brought up what happens after that.Of course the is a two-tiered system for quality of care - quality of care included access. Obviously if poor people can't access care, then the quality of their healthcare ain't so great.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;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Pretty sure they wouldn't deny you in an emergency situation unless you have evidence that proves otherwise.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maybe thats hard to do when you're suffering a stroke or a heart attack or been in a nasty car accident?mcgruff10 said:
I just don’t get this argument, poor people in fact have Medicare. if a hospital or doctor doesn’t take your insurance you just don’t go there. If a hospital doesn’t take people because they don’t have insurance then go somewhere else.mrussel1 said:
Poor people have healthcare. That's what Medicare is. But fine, if you are saying no care means two tier. I interpreted that as "inferior hospitals" for poor people.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
What do you mean by private? Does that mean not publicly traded or do you mean not owned by the state? If the latter, what we're talking about is typically university hospitals. For example for me, the largest is MCV, Medical College of Virginia which is attached to Virginia Commonwealth University. Our major 'private' is Bon Secours which is a Catholic hospital chain. Both are excellent. Both treat emergency in all situations. And both take Medicaid which is the federal program for low income Americans, covering 74 million people.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said: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. AllMeltdown99 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.
And there is no two tier system for quality of care. Hospitals love to take Medicare and Medicaid because it's guaranteed payment.Haha, are there actually hospitals that are publicly trades?!?! I don't think so, but since you thought of that, it makes me wonder!Yes, I already acknowledged that ERs don't just let people die on their floor without saving them. That is why I brought up what happens after that.Of course the is a two-tiered system for quality of care - quality of care included access. Obviously if poor people can't access care, then the quality of their healthcare ain't so great.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K 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